Okay, could someone please explain atonement to me?

[dogzilla]

I believe we've covered this on this board, but I couldn't find a thread dedicated to the subject and it's bugging me. There was another thread on the RfM boards where someone said they couldn't understand how postmos/exmos can still be Christians. The logic being: once I picked apart mormonism, I was forced to hold Christianity up to the same rigorous scrutiny and discovered that it doesn't hold up either. How can some of you still be Christians? (My answer is: this is about faith. If you can have blind faith in an idea or concept, then whammo, you're in. You get to remain Christian. Me, I have very little faith in much of anything so Christianity was right out the door straight away.)

So, I don't understand atonement. Jesus dying for my sins is akin to killing your own child because the dog peed on the carpet. I just can't understand why death or a sacrifice is necessary, or why someone else has to do it. (I think P_M actually turned me on to this notion somewhere around here.)

Now, someone over at RfM posted something about I must have trouble with this concept because mormons see god and jesus as separate entities. I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of the holy trinity being simply different manifestations of a single entity, but I think it's irrelevant to my problem of understanding atonement.

I posted this back, "Whether we're talking about three gods, one god, or the hairy purple unicorn in the sky dying for my sins, I don't get it. Why does someone ELSE have to DIE for MY sins? Why does it have to be someone else, why do they have to die (can't they just suffer a little?), and why is it I still have to repent when I sin? What's the point of atonement?

Even if it was just god in the form of Jesus (and I don't care who it was - that's arbitrary and irrelevant), WHY was that necessary? I mean, if god is omniscient and omnipowerful, why does he need death to forgive? Is he such a weak, pathetic god he can't just say, "Whoops! You're forgiven, Dogzilla"?

It's the necessity of a death or a sacrifice that I don't understand. I thought god loved me. Why would you create something you claim to love and then force it to suffer if it wants to be with you or wants you to like it? That's like having children but not letting them live in your house and not talking to them unless someone shoots the dog. WHY?

It only makes sense if god is not an omniscient, omnipowerful being at all, but just some guy who made up a bunch of nonsensical rules to control people so he could gain in property and assets. i.e., I still think Christianity was dreamed up by people who wanted to overtake control from the Romans. They had to get a bunch of people on their side to increase their power and so were forced to make up a fairy tale to scare people into obedience. We just bought into another series of fairy tales dreamed up by a shyster with similar delusions of grandeur."

So.

Can anyone explain to me exactly why God required Jesus to die? WTF is up with that?

[aether]

I've discussed this topic with a very devout Christian friend of mine, and what I've discovered, at least with her, is that it all comes down to the belief of a Higher Law, a Universal Law that even God has to abide by. There is a strict unwavering definition for each sin, and whenever a sin occurs, there must be retribution. No matter what. I guess the consequence of our Earlthy sins would be that we'd spend eternity in hell (or at least away from God). Jesus didn't want that so he took the punishment instead. So we're all grateful, hooray.

This whole concept falls apart if you don't believe in a Higher Law, which I don't. But some people need to believe in that kind of stable structure of the moral universe to remain happy, I guess.

[wescape]

I believe we've covered this on this board, but I couldn't find a thread dedicated to the subject and it's bugging me. There was another thread on the RfM boards where someone said they couldn't understand how postmos/exmos can still be Christians. The logic being: once I picked apart mormonism, I was forced to hold Christianity up to the same rigorous scrutiny and discovered that it doesn't hold up either. How can some of you still be Christians? (My answer is: this is about faith. If you can have blind faith in an idea or concept, then whammo, you're in. You get to remain Christian. Me, I have very little faith in much of anything so Christianity was right out the door straight away.)

So, I don't understand atonement. Jesus dying for my sins is akin to killing your own child because the dog peed on the carpet. I just can't understand why death or a sacrifice is necessary, or why someone else has to do it. (I think P_M actually turned me on to this notion somewhere around here.)

Now, someone over at RfM posted something about I must have trouble with this concept because mormons see god and jesus as separate entities. I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of the holy trinity being simply different manifestations of a single entity, but I think it's irrelevant to my problem of understanding atonement.

I posted this back, "Whether we're talking about three gods, one god, or the hairy purple unicorn in the sky dying for my sins, I don't get it. Why does someone ELSE have to DIE for MY sins? Why does it have to be someone else, why do they have to die (can't they just suffer a little?), and why is it I still have to repent when I sin? What's the point of atonement?

Even if it was just god in the form of Jesus (and I don't care who it was - that's arbitrary and irrelevant), WHY was that necessary? I mean, if god is omniscient and omnipowerful, why does he need death to forgive? Is he such a weak, pathetic god he can't just say, "Whoops! You're forgiven, Dogzilla"?

It's the necessity of a death or a sacrifice that I don't understand. I thought god loved me. Why would you create something you claim to love and then force it to suffer if it wants to be with you or wants you to like it? That's like having children but not letting them live in your house and not talking to them unless someone shoots the dog. WHY?

It only makes sense if god is not an omniscient, omnipowerful being at all, but just some guy who made up a bunch of nonsensical rules to control people so he could gain in property and assets. i.e., I still think Christianity was dreamed up by people who wanted to overtake control from the Romans. They had to get a bunch of people on their side to increase their power and so were forced to make up a fairy tale to scare people into obedience. We just bought into another series of fairy tales dreamed up by a shyster with similar delusions of grandeur."

So.

Can anyone explain to me exactly why God required Jesus to die? WTF is up with that?

Hey Dogzilla,

In order to understand the Christian concept of atonement, one must first understand the Old Testament concept of atonement:

Exodus 24:8
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Exodus 30:10
"Once a year Aaron shall make atonement on its horns. This annual atonement must be made with the blood of the atoning sin offering for the generations to come. It is most holy to the LORD."

Leviticus 22:21
When anyone brings from the herd or flock a fellowship offering to the LORD to fulfill a special vow or as a freewill offering, it must be without defect or blemish to be acceptable.

Christians believe that the blood sacrifices of the Old Testament were a foreshadowing of Jesus' crucufixion. The sacrifice of animals was part of the Old Covenant that God made with Abraham. Jesus ushered in the New Covenant as the unblemished sacrifice that did away with the old system.

Hebrews chapter 9 is a good summary of the Christian view of atonement. Here are some of the key verses from that chapter:

Hebrews 9:13-15
The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Hebrews 9:19-22
When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Hebrews 9:27-28
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

In other words, because God is both just and merciful, he sacrificed himself in order to both atone and forgive simultaneously. Think about atonement in terms of both justice and mercy. For example, should there be a penalty for those who break the law and violate the rights of others? What kind of judge would let a person guilty of murder go free? I think we could all agree that only an unjust judge would do such a thing. At the same time, God is also merciful. He could have just ended the whole thing when the first person sinned. Instead, he chose to take the penalty himself and suffer on our behalf. Of course, he will not force anyone to accept his free gift because that would be a violation of love. A person can choose to atone for their own sins or accept what Jesus did for them. Repentance has to do with gratitude for what he did. If someone sacrificed a great deal for you, your natural response would be gratitude and that is the motivation for repentance. It's not that you have to repent but you actually want to repent.

Anyway, this is how I understand it in a nutshell. Hope it was helpful. I'd love to dialogue further about this if you want. Take care.

Wes

P.S. I don't want to presume that I will be able to answer all of your questions about atonement but I do enjoy dialogue.

[fh451]

This whole concept falls apart if you don't believe in a Higher Law, which I don't. But some people need to believe in that kind of stable structure of the moral universe to remain happy, I guess.
I guess I don't understand why people seem to think that without this "higher law," or "God," or SOMETHING OUT THERE enforcing morality, that society would crumble into a mass of debauched, theiving, brutal thugs. (Well, maybe I do - that's what they learned when young, and never re-examined the proposition.) But I believe that as the product of millions of years of evolution, and 100s of thousands of years of humanoid-like societies, we have developed set of group behaviors that are wired into our brains to make most people behave well in group situations. Sure, there is some significant variation, but on the whole society would not function if we didn't have a built-in "conscience." It works for group survival. Over time these behaviors have been labeled "morals" and attached to various deities, but that is mis-attributing cause and effect. As someone said, we have created God in man's image.

To the original question, I personally do not believe that any christ-figure is necessary for salvation, forgiveness, or repentance, but if you have mis-attributed moral law to a God, or even to a "higher law" beyond God, then I could understand why one would think that the cold, cruel laws of justice MUST be satisfied by someone. For God to be perfectly just, he has created (or abides by) THE LAW. A law requires punishment if broken. Therefore, if you want to get out of being punished (never mind that never-ending hell is an extreme excess for even the most heinous crime), someone's got to take your medicine. Seems reasonable that another God-like being could intervene.

But as Dogzilla stated, it just doesn't make sense in any practical situation. In any "civilized" society, do we ever allow a person to take proxy punishment for someone else? Even in the imperfect governments of man, we recognize that there is something inherently unjust about letting someone else serve your prison sentence. It opens up the possibility of corruption, such as the rich being able to pay a poor person to serve his/her term. Recall the "indulgences" that the Catholic church used to sell in the middle ages. If one of my kids breaks one of my house rules, I would never ground his brother (even if he volunteered). It would totally invalidate the reason for having a punishment in the first place, which is to modify behavior.

No, the Christian atonement doesn't make any sense to me either.

Bob

[wescape]

No, the Christian atonement doesn't make any sense to me either.

Bob

Hey Bob,

I agree that it does not make sense because why would an innocent person want to take the punishment for a guilty person?

Wes

[fh451]

Hey Bob,

I agree that it does not make sense because why would an innocent person want to take the punishment for a guilty person?

Wes
No, I could understand why someone would WANT to - I would be willing to step in on behalf of my kids in some situations, for example. What I don't accept is the idea that doing so actually fulfills some existential idea of supreme justice.

Bob

[wescape]

No, I could understand why someone would WANT to - I would be willing to step in on behalf of my kids in some situations, for example. What I don't accept is the idea that doing so actually fulfills some existential idea of supreme justice.

Bob

Yes, but would you suffer and die for someone who spit in your face and tried to kill you?

Wes

[helemon]

Hey Bob,

I agree that it does not make sense because why would an innocent person want to take the punishment for a guilty person?

Wes

The rub Wes, is the fact that no one, not even God, can keep the story straight on what sin is or what would make a person "guilty" and in need of atonement. How can a person be expected to obey laws that a) change, b) differ based one which preacher of religion you choose to listen to. The test is rigged!

[helemon]

Can anyone explain to me exactly why God required Jesus to die? WTF is up with that?

Because:
a) people are way to hard on themselves and need a way to forgive themselves for mistakes for which they cannot make restitution.
b) because the death of the scapegoat is an effective guilt inducing mechanism by creating an unrepayable debt that psychologically binds the individual to the organization that controls, and diseminates the concept of a need for the scapegoat and the means for receiving the benefit of the scapegoat.
c) because it provides socially powerful individuals with a method for restoring trust and preserving social standing when egregious actions they have committed become widely known. (ala Jimmy Swaggert)
d) So She could stick it to those sacrificial animal salesman. :D

[wescape]

The rub Wes, is the fact that no one, not even God, can keep the story straight on what sin is or what would make a person "guilty" and in need of atonement. How can a person be expected to obey laws that a) change, b) differ based one which preacher of religion you choose to listen to. The test is rigged!

Maybe it's not a test...(I know this is hard to believe after being in Mormonism for so long). Mormonism teaches that the whole thing is a big test and you better not screw up or else! Christianity is very different. Jesus came that we might have life to the full and the atonement is a free gift to anyone who accepts it.

Wes

[Born Free]

Because:
a) people are way to hard on themselves and need a way to forgive themselves for mistakes for which they cannot make restitution.
b) because the death of the scapegoat is an effective guilt inducing mechanism by creating an unrepayable debt that psychologically binds the individual to the organization that controls, and diseminates the concept of a need for the scapegoat and the means for receiving the benefit of the scapegoat.
c) because it provides socially powerful individuals with a method for restoring trust and preserving social standing when egregious actions they have committed become widely known. (ala Jimmy Swaggert)
d) So She could stick it to those sacrificial animal salesman. :D
Helemon and 'Zilla,

I have just (last night) started reading Karen Armstrong's book The Battle for God - A History of Fundamentalism, which I think I originally purchased at Peter_Mary's recommendation (P_M, the first 15 pages have me addicted!). The impetus to get into it was reading an article by her in a magazine just recently.

In this book, she compares what is happening in the world right now, with what happened between 700 and 200BCE - a preiod some scholars refer to as the Axial Age. This is regarded as a period where there was a major shift in human thinking, built upon the major shift from a hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian one, which produced food reserves and the luxury to think obout our place in the world.

She argues that prior to this, the reasons for our actions was seen as being out there, with the Gods, the many Gods of Nature. I would observe that this has some consistency with the stage of a childs development where they see adults as having all the power: I'm Not OK, You're OK.

The shift that it is argued that occurred at that time involved a significant movement of the locus of control from out-there to in-here, and along with that came the foundation of the major world religions: Buddhism and Hinduism in India, Confucianism and Taoism in the Far East, monotheism in the Middle East.

Now I believe I am in the infancy of my understanding of this process/theory, so P_M or Eddy may be able to flesh this out or even correct it. But this is my best take to date.

As humans internalised some sense of control over our lives, that also created some trauma. Out there we had good Gods and nasty Gods, so when we bring the locus on board, it makes sense that we internalise both a sense of goodness and badness. But that's a bummer! Owning that I can behave like a first class s#it is a bit traumatic, to say the least; particularly as it could imply some responsibility for that! :eek:

So, a ripper solution to that stage of development is the scapegoat, onto whom we project all our shadow stuff. Now that can take a bucket load of forms. We can project onto other human beings, which increases the chance that we will get into conflict with them, or we can come up with a God, like JC, who encourages the projection onto him, whilst at the same time, maintaining some sense of the need to be self-responsible.

Now, by any measure, it can be argued that that is a step foward from what existed before this development, where if I get pi$$ed off at you, I pick up a hatchet and part your hair, and say some God of Wrath possessed me. (Bummer that the rellies of my victim claim that some God of Vengence possessed them, and they returned the initiative with interest.) Some researchers of that period claim that the percentage of the population that died violently prior to the Axial Age was 20 times higher that in the last century.)

So, I suspect that what is happening now, is that we have a mixed population, some of whom are comfortable with owning their shadow, and some who would like to keep projecting and scapegoating.

So, whilst I can relate quite well to what 'Zilla has asked re the Atonement, now having seen this new information, I can also see that it was a developmental stage, so was not necessarily 'wrong'. It served human beings at a particular stage of development. Some of us are, or think we are, beyond that process. I flatter myself that I am over it, but I am also sure that I dump and spray my s#it from time to time (as some here have probably observed upon occasion).

THat is my best take.

So for me it is less about the logic or theology of the Atonement having any external logic. But with a particular mindset/stage of development, they are understandable, for me at least.

So there's my two bob's worth. I am sure some of the bright minds on board, can add to the above.

Daryl

[miss taken]

Dogzilla I have often asked this question. I remember asking it in institute, and coming out none the wiser.

I think that maybe there are some differences in the atonement story in terms of emphasis, from religion to religion and that can fuzzy the issue a little.

I know when I was active mormon, it was the bleeding from every pore that was concentrated on, in the garden of Gethsemane. I think in more mainstream christianity it is the crucifiction and the actual death where the emphasis is laid.
(Wescape will have insights on that I am pretty sure).

I think that maybe the atonement is a very Jewish concept, and should be seen in relation to emerging Jewish cultures and adaptions.

Historically, sacrifice was a very important part of the Jewish culture. Particularly animal sacrifice. It seems pretty barbaric nowadays but I suppose to them, in an unsure world, the animal sacrifice reminded them of their God, reminded them of their commitment to their religion, and reminded them of their reliance on God. Noahs story indicates their thinking. When good things happen, they are from God. Bad things happen and God is punishing them.

The religion was constructed and probably adapted from other religions in an attempt to understand and appease their impression of God.


Maybe there was some kind as Daryl touched on 'push' to get above all this, to go beyond animal sacrifice as a way of appeasing God, and maybe the Jesus story was a good way of getting the Roman and Greeks to remove themselves from these aspects of Jewish practices with which they were uncomfortable under Paul.

Some of the early christian writings hint that it was actually James who took the lead of the early church not Paul.

I am particularly interested in the Ebionites who were later regarded as heretical. Their 'probable' beliefs on both the divinity of Jesus (it would really have been heretical under Judaism to actually regard him as GOD -and he always described himself in different terms to this, usually son of humankind) and on the atonement, which they didn't accept.

If they consisted of people like James, and other family members then they might just have had a better idea of what he really stood for than the Romanised form of christianity that came to us from Paul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Mary

[dogzilla]

Thank you everybody, for posting to Round One of the Explain Atonement Game. We have some lovely parting gifts for all of you, just for playing!

It still makes no sense to me. Especially to Wes, but to all of you, I've read your responses (and will read them again more carefully later) and my next question back to you is, okay. Why?

So. Wes. I get making a sacrifice, whether symbolic or literal, to atone.
because God is both just and merciful, he sacrificed himself in order to both atone and forgive simultaneously
Why?
Think about atonement in terms of both justice and mercy.
Whose justice and whose mercy? In another thread, I learned that we all have different ideas about what those mean. I, personally, don't believe there is any such thing (as either justice or mercy) because all things are relative. What may seem merciful to you, or what may appear to be justice to you, could seem cruel or an injustice to me. So, with whose definition are we going to work? Right there, I reject these ideas because we will never agree on what they mean. I can't agree with you that only an unjust judge would allow the gulity to go free. Immauel Kant said that we can't possibly know all the little details that went into someone else's choices and decisions. (Sort of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism).)I can't know all of the motivations and "secret shadow stuff" (as daryl put it) that went into that judge's choice. Does that make him unjust? I can't say that until I have all the facts, which I don't. Then, you said that god is merciful at the same time. That god has condemned me to eternal damnation because I don't believe in him, yet I am a good and kind person with love in my heart. How is that merciful? I think god is a cruel bastard, if he exists at all.

So what Bob and Aether said about higher law: I'm with you two. That just doesn't make sense either.

Jesus came that we might have life to the full and the atonement is a free gift to anyone who accepts it.
Why?

Why do I not already have life to the full? Would that be god's definition of "life to the full," my definition, or yours?
Why do I have to accept the free gift? (I always say, "It ain't really free if I don't really need it." This is Dogzilla's Third Law of Pushy Sales Tactics.)
Why did Jesus have to do that?
Why can't I get credit for what I think I need to atone for and for atoning or repenting in my own way, so that my conscience is clear?
Why can't god/jesus/the hairy purple unicorn in the sky just accept ME without all this atonement nonsense?
(I sound like a three-year-old, "But, whhhyyyyyyyy?")

I like helemon's answer the best (surprise! since when do we agree? ;) ), but I also like Daryl blaming this concept on "it's just a phase" as if civilization is just now growing out of puberty. (Which it may very well be.)

Mary: Now that was interesting. :: goes off to read ::

I've got a busy day at work today, folks, so I'll try to come back later on...

[helemon]

Maybe it's not a test...(I know this is hard to believe after being in Mormonism for so long). Mormonism teaches that the whole thing is a big test and you better not screw up or else! Christianity is very different. Jesus came that we might have life to the full and the atonement is a free gift to anyone who accepts it.

Wes
You missed my point Wes. How can people live a life in line with God's desires if there is no consensus on what that is or how to receive the "free gift."
"anyone who accepts it" some people never even hear about it. "Damn them! Damn them all to hell!" - God :duh

[helemon]

So there's my two bob's worth. I am sure some of the bright minds on board, can add to the above.

[B]Daryl

So what is the next stage? In my opinion, science and the internet has made us more aware of a diversity of religious, political and intellectual beliefs. Appropriately then I think there will be a shifting away of strict tribal alignments with a clear right wrong set of rules of behavior and more of an awareness of how we are all connected to each other and influence each other and can contribute to each others growth spiritually and intellectually. I think there will be a greater willingness to accept wisdom wherever it is found. However, like Daryl points out we may have to go through some temper tantrums from the groups who want to maintain their monolithic tribal world views and everyone else be damned.

[wescape]

Thank you everybody, for posting to Round One of the Explain Atonement Game. We have some lovely parting gifts for all of you, just for playing!

It still makes no sense to me. Especially to Wes, but to all of you, I've read your responses (and will read them again more carefully later) and my next question back to you is, okay. Why?

So. Wes. I get making a sacrifice, whether symbolic or literal, to atone.

Why?

Whose justice and whose mercy? In another thread, I learned that we all have different ideas about what those mean. I, personally, don't believe there is any such thing (as either justice or mercy) because all things are relative. What may seem merciful to you, or what may appear to be justice to you, could seem cruel or an injustice to me. So, with whose definition are we going to work? Right there, I reject these ideas because we will never agree on what they mean. I can't agree with you that only an unjust judge would allow the gulity to go free. Immauel Kant said that we can't possibly know all the little details that went into someone else's choices and decisions. (Sort of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism).)I can't know all of the motivations and "secret shadow stuff" (as daryl put it) that went into that judge's choice. Does that make him unjust? I can't say that until I have all the facts, which I don't. Then, you said that god is merciful at the same time. That god has condemned me to eternal damnation because I don't believe in him, yet I am a good and kind person with love in my heart. How is that merciful? I think god is a cruel bastard, if he exists at all.

So what Bob and Aether said about higher law: I'm with you two. That just doesn't make sense either.


Why?

Why do I not already have life to the full? Would that be god's definition of "life to the full," my definition, or yours?
Why do I have to accept the free gift? (I always say, "It ain't really free if I don't really need it." This is Dogzilla's Third Law of Pushy Sales Tactics.)
Why did Jesus have to do that?
Why can't I get credit for what I think I need to atone for and for atoning or repenting in my own way, so that my conscience is clear?
Why can't god/jesus/the hairy purple unicorn in the sky just accept ME without all this atonement nonsense?
(I sound like a three-year-old, "But, whhhyyyyyyyy?")

I like helemon's answer the best (surprise! since when do we agree? ;) ), but I also like Daryl blaming this concept on "it's just a phase" as if civilization is just now growing out of puberty. (Which it may very well be.)

Mary: Now that was interesting. :: goes off to read ::

I've got a busy day at work today, folks, so I'll try to come back later on...

Dogzilla,

I think much of your confusion about atonement has to do with the issue of the worldview that you hold. Christians believe that human beings are made in the image of God which is the core identity of every person. We also believe that this image became marred when we rejected God and turned away from Him to do things our own way (This is where human evil comes in). Jesus came to restore the original image so that we could enjoy life the way God originally intended. Christians believe we were made for loving relationship with God and with each other. Anything else is less than that life to the full.

I do have more to say but right now I have to go to work. In the meantime, let me know if this clears up any of your confusion about atonement.

Wes

[dogzilla]

I think you're right, Helemon. (Damn! Twice in one day! :D)

All growth is painful. I think of my co-worker, the Fundie Pentacostal, in this sense. She thinks in very black and white terms. She cannot grasp that there could be more than one set of rules that is okay. I think there won't just be temper tantrums from groups like hers, that cannot adapt to a new "shades of gray" world view. (The song, "The Beauty of Gray," by Live comes to mind.) What I think is that we (collectively, the universe) are just going to have to wait until these B/W people die. Subsequent generations will adapt new ways of thinking much more easily than, say converting, those who are set in their ways and already convinced they've got a good bead on things and there's no room for further questioning. Once you get those folks out of the way, then I think the fundamental shifts you guys are talking about will happen more easily.

[Born Free]

I think you're right, Helemon. (Damn! Twice in one day! :D)

All growth is painful. I think of my co-worker, the Fundie Pentacostal, in this sense. She thinks in very black and white terms. She cannot grasp that there could be more than one set of rules that is okay. I think there won't just be temper tantrums from groups like hers, that cannot adapt to a new "shades of gray" world view. (The song, "The Beauty of Gray," by Live comes to mind.) What I think is that we (collectively, the universe) are just going to have to wait until these B/W people die. Subsequent generations will adapt new ways of thinking much more easily than, say converting, those who are set in their ways and already convinced they've got a good bead on things and there's no room for further questioning. Once you get those folks out of the way, then I think the fundamental shifts you guys are talking about will happen more easily.

Follow through a line in this world view and you see:

Frequently low capacity to process complexity
As manifested in distress when asked to countenance more than B&W
B&W makes it absolutely clear where one lies, little to no thought is necessary to be a goody or a baddy.
No or less personal judgement and risk-taking is necessary, hence no chance of being wrong (a deeply feared state)

The result. Mental and moral pygmies.

If this was all because of base stupidity, that would be one thing. But it is compounded by, what I observe as many quite intelligent people, who deliberately choose to switch off their critical faculties so they can remain inside the safety of dogma.

Does it have to be thus? Apparently not, if one looks at people like C S Lewis and the depth of his writings. But his are hardly the sort of books most fundamentalists read.

For the logic of the Atonement can never be found internally. That is an Alice in Wonderland world, where words have the meaning that people define at will. It relies on wall-to-wall Magic Thinking.

However, from the outside, it make sense as a process for dealing with complex internal and external forces, until a person has arrived at the stake where they can create their own anxiety/stress relieving rituals and processes.

With our large human fontal lobes, we get some complications. We appear to feel we will explode with pain or joy in various settings of high intensity, and feel an acute need to project that out. When we experience great joy, we want others to share in that (which is seen as loving).

When we are acutely distressed or traumatized, we want to project that, with the apparent belief that if our neighbour hurts then our hurt will be alleviated.

Makes not sense at all from the outside, but again does have some internal logic.

Daryl

[wescape]

You missed my point Wes. How can people live a life in line with God's desires if there is no consensus on what that is or how to receive the "free gift."
"anyone who accepts it" some people never even hear about it. "Damn them! Damn them all to hell!" - God :duh

Helemon,

If you want 100% consensus on anything you're not going to get it. As for receiving gifts, there is only one way to do so that I am aware of - you simply receive it. Of course, in this case the issue of humility is a factor and it is hard to acknowledge neediness. Accepting this free gift implies that you are in need of something that you do not have and that there is something deeply wrong that needs to be righted. Many of us would rather die than ever acknowledge such a thing.

As for those who never literally hear about Jesus, I believe it is possible for them to still acknoweldge their need and trust in God's love.

Wes

[helemon]

Helemon,

If you want 100% consensus on anything you're not going to get it.

Which is the whole problem with the discussion about what a person needs to do in order to be "saved." Why should I believe that your advice is right over the myriad other opions out there?

As for receiving gifts, there is only one way to do so that I am aware of - you simply receive it.

Again, why should I believe you that I need this "gift"? This "gift" is supposedly so that god can forgive me for breaking his often ambiguous laws which are disputed by countless sects of his believers who have differing views on which laws God still wants me to follow. By accepting this "free gift" the individual must accept that your professed need for them to accept the "free gift" is valid and thus they must buy into your world view. So it is not such a "free gift" after all.

Of course, in this case the issue of humility is a factor and it is hard to acknowledge neediness.

Classic! Lets use shame to make a person think that by rejecting your religious world view they are somehow being rude and ungrateful. Wes, if a Voodoo witch told you that all your sins would be forgiven if you simply believed in her gods and ate some ritually sacraficed food which she had placed a magic spell on? Would it be a lack of humility on your part that caused you to reject her "free gift"?

Accepting this free gift implies that you are in need of something that you do not have and that there is something deeply wrong that needs to be righted.

Again with the attempt at a guilt trip! Where would religion be if it couldn't convince people that they have "deeply" offended God. That they have done something that with cause God to punish them with unspeakable pain and horror if they do not do what the preacher of religion advices! How wicked and evil such attempts at coersion are.

Many of us would rather die than ever acknowledge such a thing.

As for those who never literally hear about Jesus, I believe it is possible for them to still acknoweldge their need and trust in God's love.

Wes
That is not what I have heard from other preachers. Why should I trust your opinion Wes?

[wescape]

Which is the whole problem with the discussion about what a person needs to do in order to be "saved." Why should I believe that your advice is right over the myriad other opions out there?

Again, why should I believe you that I need this "gift"? This "gift" is supposedly so that god can forgive me for breaking his often ambiguous laws which are disputed by countless sects of his believers who have differing views on which laws God still wants me to follow. By accepting this "free gift" the individual must accept that your professed need for them to accept the "free gift" is valid and thus they must buy into your world view. So it is not such a "free gift" after all.

Classic! Lets use shame to make a person think that by rejecting your religious world view they are somehow being rude and ungrateful. Wes, if a Voodoo witch told you that all your sins would be forgiven if you simply believed in her gods and ate some ritually sacraficed food which she had placed a magic spell on? Would it be a lack of humility on your part that caused you to reject her "free gift"?

Again with the attempt at a guilt trip! Where would religion be if it couldn't convince people that they have "deeply" offended God. That they have done something that with cause God to punish them with unspeakable pain and horror if they do not do what the preacher of religion advices! How wicked and evil such attempts at coersion are.

That is not what I have heard from other preachers. Why should I trust your opinion Wes?

Helemon,

I agree that if Jesus was not who he said he was and the Bible is made up then the whole thing is a big guilt trip. But if Jesus was God in the flesh and the Bible is true, then acknowledging one's need to be restored is simply acknowledging the true state of affairs. Why should you trust my opinion? You shouldn't. Believe it or not, I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I chimed in on this thread to offer my understanding of the atonement to Dogzilla. I believe that everyone should do their own searching about the truth or untruth of Christianity or anything for that matter. Yes, I have offered my understanding of these things but I could be very wrong about all of it.

Wes

[dogzilla]

And I appreciate your contribution to this thread, Wes. While I don't believe I'm any closer to going back to Christianity, at least I think I have a more sound explanation for why not. That is, your comments have helped elucidate what I feel is some of the nonsense tied up in Christianity.

Thanks for your comments.

[wescape]

And I appreciate your contribution to this thread, Wes. While I don't believe I'm any closer to going back to Christianity, at least I think I have a more sound explanation for why not. That is, your comments have helped elucidate what I feel is some of the nonsense tied up in Christianity.

Thanks for your comments.

Glad I could be of help Dogzilla. As for Christianity being nonsense, the Bible agrees with you:

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Wes

[halfin_halfout]

Warning! Mental midget about to sound off.

Dogzilla,
I have to admit, at first I kinda thought that you were a mean chick. After reading many of your posts, I have figured out that this is true only some of the time :p I think I'm starting to get you now. You don't handle intentional or unintentional manipulation on any front. I admire that. All that aside, let me tell you what I think about the atonement as well as I can.

Let me fill you in where Wes may have failed to do so. I'm confident that you'll be totally satisfied with my explanation.

The almighty, long ago, decided to create many creatures. Among these creatures were the humans (created in his very own image). These creations were so spiffy that they needed to all return to live with him in the after life. Unfortunately for these creations, the almighty is a tid bit picky. Picky was the wrong word. The almighty is PERFECT. He has a white house with a white lawn with a white car parked in the white driveway. A single particle of imperfectness would cause his world to spin into chaos or maybe even explode. I don't exactly know what would happen if something that wasn't perfect was to occupy that same place as the almighty. Perhaps the almighty would vomit profusely for eternity if an unclean soul were to enter his presence. You don't understand how fancy and nice and PERFECT this place is. There is no furniture here, no noisy kids, no entertainment and no people. Did I mention that he likes to be worshiped? If you make it back there, that exactly what you'll be doing 24/7. Worship! Because he loves you so much, you can spend the eternities worshiping him and telling him how great he is. He loves humans that much! The problem is none of the humans that he made were not worthy to live with him. They all like to follow the desires that he gave them. He came up with a plan that would help all of the desire followers become PERFECT. This plan involved a special gift. I didn't mention the gift yet? He sent his son (or himself -I can't decide) to be tortured and killed. See, if you kill and torture somebody that is PERFECT, you can make everyone else PERFECT that believes on the torture and death of the PERFECT person. This way, the unworthy, slothful, lazy, natural slime that he created could return to live with him forever. Because of the almighty's penchant for PERFECTness and distaste for all things not perfect, he created an awful place full of fire, rocks and ugly hooved creatures to put the ones that would not accept or didn't know about his gift. So just believe and become PERFECT.

See how crystal clear it is? See, It's not nonsense.

It sure was a pleasure explaining this to you.

:Crazy:

-half

[dogzilla]

Warning! Mental midget about to sound off.

Dogzilla,
I have to admit, at first I kinda thought that you were a mean chick. After reading many of your posts, I have figured out that this is true only some of the time :p I think I'm starting to get you now. You don't handle intentional or unintentional manipulation on any front. I admire that. All that aside, let me tell you what I think about the atonement as well as I can.

Let me fill you in where Wes may have failed to do so. I'm confident that you'll be totally satisfied with my explanation.

-half

I am a mean chick. Just not always toward you. :D (You are correct in surmising that I have a very low BS tolerance.)

And now, I'm about to lose my job, I'm laughing so hard at your post. That was truly entertaining, and um, er.... informative.

;)

[wescape]

Let me fill you in where Wes may have failed to do so. I'm confident that you'll be totally satisfied with my explanation.

While it is probably more than obvious that I completely disagree with halfin_halfout's characterization of these things, I can totally understand how someone (especially someone who had to endure Mormonism) could see it that way.

Wes

[fh451]

While it is probably more than obvious that I completely disagree with halfin_halfout's characterization of these things, I can totally understand how someone (especially someone who had to endure Mormonism) could see it that way.

Wes
Wes, I just want to say that I appreciate how you've presented your point of view and not gotten your righteous anger up when we heathens say stuff that most Christians (at least those I've encountered) would be totally offended by. Thanks!

Bob

[wescape]

Wes, I just want to say that I appreciate how you've presented your point of view and not gotten your righteous anger up when we heathens say stuff that most Christians (at least those I've encountered) would be totally offended by. Thanks!

Bob

Bob,

It is unfortunate that many who claim to embrace Christianity are so easily offended. Interestingly enough, Jesus was rarely offended by anything or anyone. In fact, his only exception was self-righteous religious people! If that isn't irony, I don't know what is! :o

Wes