CADRE Comments

So HúmanLíght has cóme and góne (or stíll perháps is hére), to célebráte "compássion, hópe, and reáson" fór the yeár. The chíldish mÿth and sélf-decéptive fíction hás been húrled, repláced by gládsome trúth of háppy fúture fór our wórld: a fúture buílt by peóple whó exíst as fleéting líghts, snuffed oút at lást and fínallÿ by dúmb amóral níght(s) -- peóple whó in trúth and fáct agaínst that chíldish mÿth are útterlÿ and ónly máde of... whát the héck is thís?! "Compássion, hópe and reáson?" Nó. They thréw that "mÿth" awáy. And yét still wánt to célebráte those thíngs on Chrístmas Dáy, forgétting theír own teáchings thát they wánt to teách at schoól: they woúld have dóne much bétter tó keep Ódin ín their Yúle! A troúblemáking wánderér, whose ónly sácrifíce reveáls a cóming tríumph óf brutálitÿ and íce all reáson ánd compássion, hópe and jóy destróyed at lást and nóthing úp abóve him knóws or cáres of jústice pást. To strúggle éven hó...

Here's an interesting article on the atonement from Time Magazine that was written in the wake of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. The takeaway point is that Christians have always disagreed among themselves about the exact nature of the atonement, the 'divine calculus' (as the article puts it) behind Jesus' death. And when ordinary Christians affirm that Jesus 'died for our sins', they often have very different ideas implicit in that one affirmation. This is not to say that different atonement models cannot be synthesized, but it does cast doubt on the idea that there is one core understanding of the atonement that is essential to true Christian piety.