BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'

Subject: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 01:15 PM

Until a few years ago, I indentified myself as an evangelical Christian. At this point I tend to refer to myself as a Christian by very liberal definition; just a person who tries to follow the example and values of Jesus of Nazareth. Little Hawk just this morning described (in the "Is the Rapture Underway?" thread) one Christian minister with whom I find myself in complete accord.   At a level deeper, I'm actually not entirely comfortable with the word Christian, as it's derivation implies belief that Jesus was a prophesied messiah.
The logic of most of the historic creedal doctrines of Christianity has fallen apart by degrees in my own thinking. This will be a reflection of one example of how that has happened for me.
In all my experince, if you ask any fundamentalist minister, "What is the punishment for sin?", he will answer that that punishment is eternity in Hell. If you ask the next fundamentalist to explain the meaning of the crucifixion, he will say that Jesus took the punishment that we all deserve for our sins. (The traditional wording for that is Substitutionary Atonement).
But, taking the Biblical narrative at face value, Jesus simply experienced physical death, albeit a very brutal and painful death. At least one of the later creeds includes the assertion that he "descended into Hell", but there is no Biblical basis for that. And there is no question whatever in Christian doctrine of Jesus spending eternity in Hell as a punishment for our sins.
To approach the doctrine from one other direction: because Jesus was treated as if he were guilty of our sins, those who accept his "atonement" are now innocent in the eyes of God. I can't imagine anyone saying, in the context of human crime and punishment, that the execution of an innocent party would mean that justice has been fulfilled so that the actual perpretator of the crime should be considered blameless.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 02:35 PM

I was raised with a lot of fundy relatives. I avoided family reunions because it seemed like being in church for even more hours. I have a lot of respect for my relatives that put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. But it does not answer my questions. That's why I'm more in touch with Unitarian/universalism. I know people can pick bones with any spiritual thought, but it works for me. I think that's why I gravitated to some of the 60's protest songs that expressed doubts about the Christian view of the world. I always liked Dylan's line, "If God's on our side/He'll stop the next war."

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 03:13 PM

frogprince, I've always had problems with this concept. That a man (and all parties agree that Jesus was a human being as well as God's Son) who lived an exemplary life should be tortured in such a barbaric way 'for us' has never been possible for me to take in. It isn't just the Fundamentalists who subscribe to this , it's any Christian group, and certainly, the Church of England. To me it stems from the old Jewish idea of making sacrifices (eg slaughtering sheep and burning cattle as offerings in the Temple etc, not to mention Isaac, another ghastly event of a chap prepared to put his son to death to please God) Even very primitive religions had a sacrificial basis for showing their God/s they were prepared to give anything. I wonder why this 'loving' God couldn't have thought of another way to 'save' us. And why then? Presumably people had been waiting around in Hell for millennia. Logically, Atonement should come from the sinner him/herself. eg 'I'm sorry I did wrong and I'd like to put things right'. So the concept is, before Jesus died, no matter how sorry you were, God chucked you into Hell nonetheless? Bizarre and incomprehensible to me. But then. I'm not too bright on Religion and have many many doubts!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 04:07 PM

In Jesus' time crucifixion was frequently used, and for a variety of crimes, i.e. the Bible says that one of the three who were crucified was a common thief.

So the 'atonement' cannot be said to be unprecedented or even particularly extreme.

On the other hand, given the narrative, if God had to 'withdraw' himself from Jesus so that Jesus could die, that would be an extreme punishment, and perhaps unexpectedly so. It is reported that he said: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The withdrawal by God could be considered 'hell'.

I cannot be considered a believer, because I have a great many doubts that don't fit in that category, but as a story it is quite moving.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 04:15 PM

I'm always puzzled by where Jesus 'went' between dying on the cross and being found missing (so to speak) on Easter morning. When exactly did he rise from the dead? When the pall bearers left the cave, or several hours later? And where was his spirit meanwhile? And if he left his graveclothes lying folded on the floor, what was he wearing when he appeared to his followers? Where did he get the clothes from? And why did he 'ascend into heaven?' Up there is just space. Did he float around in space or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 05:31 PM

According to Josephus, the Romans crucified anybody they caught trying to escape from Jerusalem in the siege of 70AD. Some thousands were dispatched this way, so much that they ran out of wood. And a hundred years before the believed time of Jesus, six thousand of Spartacus' followers were crucified when the revolt was suppressed (see Life of Brian). So it was nothing unusual at the time, though the vast majority of the victims didn't have the advantage of being God on Earth, and consequently didn't know it was just a minor temporary discomfort, like having a baby before the days of gas and air.

Can gods be uncomfortable? I know they can be angry (1), pleased (2), and ignorant(3) - the Bible says so.

(1) Lots of this. Noah, Sod 'em and Glockamorra etc.
(2) "This is my beloved Son..."; and Genesis.
(3) Genesis again. What if Adam did eat of the Tree of Life? God only knows, except according to the Bible he didn't; and he didn't seem to know he was going to eat the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Fokogae, better known as Apple).

Ebbie: that doesn't work either. Jesus WAS the One God, and being omniscient can't have surprises: being omnipotent, he can stop being God, OK- but how does he start again (He's stopped being God, and there was only ONE God, so he's just a man)- see the tale of Alastair and the giant, where he flattered the giant into shrinking to an insect then stamped on him. Poor Jesus, he must really regret letting the Greeks get hold of him; he could have been like Buddha, remembered for his message, there's not much to beat the Sermon on the Mount, rather than some "conjuring trick with bones".

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 05:59 PM

i,m probably the only fundamentalist christian on these threads .
but what a lot of questions.i will have a crack at some of them.
descended in hell?
hell sometimes means - the grave,but texts which appear to teach Jesus descending to hell are ephesians 4 v 8,9 ,1 peter 3 v 18-20.
my understanding is that this hell is hades,the abode of the dead rather than gehenna hellfire.
Christ would not spend eternity in any type of hell since his sinless life did not qualify him for that,having accomplished salvation for repentant believers he was raised by the Father.
ascended into heaven? the biblical concept of the word heaven has a 3fold meaning.paul spoke of being"caught up to the third heaven"
the deciples watched Jesus ascend into heaven,ie into the sky ,and he went on to the heaven where the Father is.
i will try and tackle more later if anyone really does want to know [what i consider to be] the biblical teaching.    pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 06:07 PM

Ephesians 4:
B Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—
20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water

Oy, what a message of hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 07:59 PM

When Dylan sang "if God's on our side he'll stop the next war" he wasn't so much expressing scepticism about God as about the American assumption that America is God's own country, and that in all the wars listed in the it did actually have God on its side.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 08:29 PM

I am confused - I recognize that Bob Dylan is folk song messiah to some. But, what is the relationship between Bob Dylan and God (and Dylan's writings) - in the Christian sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 08:42 PM

One of my contentions is that the "Holy Trinity" is, and must be, false. First of all it wasn't even labeled as such in the Bible, it came along much later; it was basically a ruling.

My reasoning about the three being one god: Jesus said, in response to a question, that only the Father knows the answer. If Jesus were co-anything, he would never have said such a thing.

I can't imagine, when they came up with the the proclamation of the triad, why they didn't expunge Jesus' remark. It doesn't jibe with the teaching, surely.

"When Dylan sang "if God's on our side he'll stop the next war" he wasn't so much expressing scepticism about God as about the American assumption that America is God's own country, and that in all the wars listed in the it did actually have God on its side."

That is not how I take it, Kevin. Thinking that it has to do with the much maligned American views is a bit of a stretch. To me, Dylan is being satirical: if God is so good, he won't allow wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 08:43 PM

Me??? I am a follower of Christ... That works without all the dogma... On a good day I believe that Jesus was the son of God... On other days, He was just a real right-on dude... No matter which day it is... What is reported in the New Testament are some righteous lessons for all of us to live by...

There is enough evidence that the stories were from this man... Whoever He was, He was a special man who was pretty well connected spiritually...

Doubt is part of being a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim... Goes with the territory...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Janie
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:09 PM

I'm unfamiliar with the term "substitutionary atonement" and so did a little research. Based on my very little bit of research, the Wikipedia article seems to cover the different concepts represented by the term reasonably well for those of us seeking a cursory understanding of what may be meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement .

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 09:49 PM

Yeah fp the definition of "Christian" is a hard one to pin down.

My religion book in High school basically said it was all the denominations that follow Christ that aren't "cults" like 7th Day Adventists and Mormons.

A person who used to post on this form once said that the 2004 election would be decided by "Christians" voting for one side and African Americans voting for the other. I have six Southern Baptist African American majority churches withing a 3 mile radius as I write this. He was a bit of a fundamentalist.

I don't like either definition. I'd say a Christian is as religious person whose religion is centered around Christ. A Christian who condemns another for NOT being Christian enough, is following their idea of Christianity, but in judging others in that way perhaps is not following the example of Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:17 PM

'Substitutionary Atonement'

Neat idea. It may lead to a law that makes it possible to have people stand in for us when we face the death penalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 11:21 PM

Damnit, this would come up when my books are scattered all over the place!

The Nicean Creed was first promulgated after the Council of Nicea in 325. Read the Wikipedia article, it not only compares the original Creed to the current one in both English and Greek, it has a bit on the "Filioque" controversy as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 12:27 AM

Many bishops later (hell, everything was later in those days, they didn't even have airmail express) recanted their votes saying they had felt they'd had no choice--which they didn't if they knew what was good for 'em. Sounds lots like votes in Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 06:23 AM

"My religion book in High school basically said it was all the denominations that follow Christ that aren't "cults" like 7th Day Adventists and Mormons."
.,,.
What guidance did your book give on how to tell when a 'denomination' is a 'cult'?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 09:26 AM

Interesting. When I referred to religions as cults, I was shouted at by the same person who is calling Mormons cults.

Is the "ours is the true one" idea so hard wired that followers of one cult dismiss others? It occurs to me that the one difference between me and a pious believer is that I dismiss one more cult than they do as being irrelevant. I mean this seriously, what is the difference between Christ stories in the bible, Mohammed stories in the Q'ran and whatever it s Mormons believe? Are they all not stories written by people?

Could it not be easier for all Christians to agree a standard story? It would make life easier surely? The rest of us won't be so confused when we attend weddings, funerals etc. oh, and if the drafting committee could add a bit about women and gays being equal, it might help all round. The present versions of the bible are rather old fashioned when it comes to loving everybody equally and are perhaps due a re write. At present, compared to soap opera and iPads, religion is looking somewhat Betamax. Perhaps a makeover for the c21st?

In regard to substitutionary atonement, I am aware that a religious member of my wife's family prays for me. Sounds all rather busy and complicated. Fascinating though, to someone not a member of the club.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 09:27 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM

A christian is someone who believes a)that jesus of nazereth was christ, the prophesied redeemer and son of god the father who was the one god of the jews, and b) that you are one of the people so redeemed. It doesn't matter if you follow what was ascribed to him or not. Many people live very peaceful and loving lives that are not believers in christ, and so are not christian, and many believers in christ do not live such lives and are still christian.
Now we can restart the thread, eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 02:55 PM

using pete as your mentor, mrrz? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 04:37 PM

I don't agree with your definition of "a Christian", Mrzzy, but that's okay. ;-) Rather, I'd say it's one among many possible definitions of what "a Christian" is...and I'm familiar with it...but it's not the way I would define it.

Yes, "Many people live very peaceful and loving lives who are not believers in christ, and so are not (nominally) christian, and many believers in christ do not live such lives and are still (nominally) christian." Yessiree! That can easily be observed all around us.

People who claim to be Christian and yet think "It doesn't matter if you follow what was ascribed to Jesus" are either fools or hypocrites. The whole point of learning about spiritual ideals is to apply the spiritual teachings you aspire to, not to worship idols of various sorts...and some people just worship Jesus as they would an idol. I doubt that was what he desired or had in mind.

What we all will hopefully learn to do eventually, whatever we choose to call ourselves, is to live very peaceful and loving lives.

****

The subject of this thread is a most interesting one, and when I have more time I'll get back to it. Right now I gotta prepare for a musical evening.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 06:57 PM

I have a book called "Jesus Christs", by A.J.Langmuth (Ballentine, 1969) which is a 'novel'consisting of imaginary interludes from the life of Jesus....the opening paragraph goes like this:

"I have come to die for your sins", Jesus told a stooped figure passing him on the road.
"Then what am I to die for?", the old man asked.
Jesus took a small notebook from his pocket and copied the question. "If I may have your name and address", he said, "an answer will be sent to you".

the book is not exactly 'humor', but uses humorous elements to illustrate whatever its message is..(and that is not exactly clear)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 09:37 PM

"All men are loyal, but their objects of allegiance are at best approximate." ― John Barth, The Sot-Weed Factor

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 12:06 AM

What do we die for, Bill? Because it's the only possible way to complete this Earth-walk journey, that's what! ;-) You can't get out of this place without dying! I don't think you really want to hang around forever in an ancient body that's gotten so old and deteriorated that it's no darned good for anything anymore, do you? I know I don't.

A play dies when it ends and the curtain closes. The same with an embodied life. And that's just fine. It clears the deck so that another play can begin.

I very much doubt that anyone has ever died to wash away someone else's sins...Jesus included.

Of course, many people in history have been wrongly accused, wrongly convicted and then executed for someone else's crimes...but that's another matter entirely, and it's a result of people's mistakes or their deliberately corrupt machinations, not some kind of divine plan...IMO.

Jesus was wrongly accused, wrongly convicted, and wrongfully executed by the corrupt clergy of his time and by a compliant Roman authority who were very fearful of a possible rebellion in Judea. (a rebellion which came in a few decades' time) I have never thought it likely that the crucifixion was part of some divine plan to expiate the collective sins of humanity.

I can't say for certain about that...because I don't know for certain...but I consider it a highly unlikely possibility. His death was virtually inevitable, by the way, because he challenged the church of his time in ways that made it certain they would eventually seek his death...and I'm sure he knew that...but he wasn't afraid to die for what he thought was right. This has always been a characteristic of saints and other idealists throughout history...many of whom have gone to death for what they thought was right.

We honor them for it. We consider them heros. As we should. Among such popular heros are, for instance, Joan of Arc, Mahatma Gandhi and Patrick Henry, just to mention three widely separated examples of people who died bravely for their ideals.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 12:10 AM

frogprince, some things are a matter of tradition and not so much scripture. For example, in Ukrainian church we say "Lord have mercy" over and over and over again. Fact is, we have been doing this since the earliest days of Christianity. It's Orthodox. Oral tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 04:40 AM

Is there a "like" button I can click for what Little Hawk said at 12:06 AM? That's almost exactly what I think.

To me, 'Substitutionary Atonement' has always sounded like a mathematical equation, maybe equating life to a court of law - and I can't buy that. Life isn't law, and life isn't mathematics. I can't believe that a loving God keeps some sort of Eternal Spreadsheet, and that all the misdeeds have to be atoned for by something. I think that if we have a loving God, that God doesn't keep score. Once something wrong is done, what good does it do to exact some payment for it?

I see Jesus as God, and I see his suffering and death as the ultimate act of courage in the face of hatred - and to me, hatred is sin. But I see all who face hatred with courage, as taking part in this act of redemption from sin. Jesus, being God, sanctified this suffering and death and gave it meaning in the face of sin and hatred - and that is redemption. But all who suffer and die for justice and against hatred, take part in this act of redemption.

I don't think God punishes people for sin - sin/hatred exacts its own punishment. But God, and those in union with God, redeem us from sin/hatred by acts of courage, confronting hatred and injustice.

And for me, sin is hatefulness. Anything else, isn't sin.

And I see the death of Jesus as the ultimate confrontation between integrity and injustice - but this is a confrontation that happens over and over again.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 05:05 AM

>>"My religion book in High school basically said it was all the denominations that follow Christ that aren't "cults" like 7th Day Adventists and Mormons."
.,,.
What guidance did your book give on how to tell when a 'denomination' is a 'cult'?<<

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was making the point that they were not allowing denominations created after a certain date in time into their club. It did give a certain guidance vis a vis orthodoxy as to how to spot a cult. but as far as I could tell though at the time and i was 40 years younger than now. I you made up your own scripture you were a cult. Or if you had a new interpretation of scripture after 1850 you were a cult. But looking at what we were taught of the details of being Baptist and 7th day adventist, I could not for the life of me figure out why one was a cult and the other wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 05:11 AM

"Interesting. When I referred to religions as cults, I was shouted at by the same person who is calling Mormons cults."

I you are referring to me, I recommend that you get remedial reading instruction.

I said that My religion book said that. I did not say that I believed it.

Also keep in mind that you said that you use the name Musket so that you can take the piss. I have been to England and means I know what "taking the piss" means. Maybe you need someone to sit you sit you down and explain to you that not everyone you mock is going to be as stupid as you would hope for them to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 05:15 AM

IF you made up your own scripture

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 05:27 AM

Not sure I have mocked anything on this thread. Not sure for that matter that any mocking comes before reason. Mocking occurs when reason has popped out for a sandwich. Taking the piss as, you put it, is a safety valve to defuse argument.

If you dismiss comment on the basis of origin rather than substance, it says more about you than you think.

And you don't need to visit England to know it. I have consistently pointed it out to you whenever and wherever you reveal your stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 09:55 AM

what joe writes is very noble and i would think such reflections included in what jesus acheived in his death.in stressing that its "what it means to me" he is confessing that he is not strictly interpreting scripture.

in christian teaching "death" can have different meanings.the context is the guide.the priciple meanings are physical death and spiritual death.Jesus conquered both.
it is our sin that renders us spiritually dead.at the point of Jesus death he bore the sin of the world and was cut off for the first and only time from the Father.only a sinless saviour could atone for the sinner.
believers benefit from that substitutionary atonement spiritually by being forgiven and reconciled,and physically by their own ressurrection to eternal life in the future.
i realize that most here will not agree with this but thats how i see the bibles teaching,if thats any help to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 11:02 AM

Yes, pete, "death" can have different meanings according to the context, as you say. Physical death, moral death, spiritual death. Death in some sacred traditions is also seen as a gateway to rebirth (either in the physical sense or the spiritual sense...or both at the same time).

I understand how many Christian believers feel that they "benefit from that substitutionary atonement spiritually by being forgiven and reconciled". And I respect that. I also realize that there may be something to it. In my own case, I think that God's forgiveness and love for each one of us is always there, just like the Sun (or the Son) is always shining...even at night and even behind the clouds...but that a person can't really benefit from God's forgiveness much unless they repent of their own negative behaviour (which means they open their hearts to the truth about what they did, and with genuine repentance, and they try to change for the better). This is a process people may go through many, many times.

And people need to forgive others if they expect to receive forgiveness!

In either case, if you shut yourself inside a darkened room and simply refuse to ever open the door and go outside...you will never see the sunlight! That is the situation of someone who refuses to forgive others and refuses to repent of his/her own misdeeds. What is repentance? Simply realizing one did a wrong thing, regreting having done so, and resolving not to do it again if at all possible...plus, repairing any damage done, if at all possible. To express that repentance to God is a very powerful act, but no one will do so if they think there is no God...though they might express it to another person in the form of an apology. That too is a powerful act, and requires courage.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:24 AM

only a sinless saviour could atone for the sinner.
believers benefit from that substitutionary atonement spiritually by being forgiven and reconciled, and physically by their own resurrection to eternal life in the future.

Pete, I hear people rattle off stuff like that in classes I teach; but then I ask, what does that really mean? Can you translate all that into what you experience in real life? More than that, is this something that you believe and that really makes a difference to you, or is it something that somebody else told you? It seems to me that you're looking at redemption as a mathematical equation. I prefer taking the wisdom of the ages and applying it to real life - and real life is not an equation.

The concept of "substitutionary atonement" is an extrapolation from scripture, not the actual text. There are many different ways of understanding scripture, and it is just one of many ways of understanding the death of Jesus on the cross. I try to form my interpretation based on my own life experience. Yes, there was redemption in that death, but what does that mean in real terms?

In real life, I think it often happens that ordinary people atone for the misdeeds of others - they make peace, and they repair the wrong that has been done. Why must atonement be made by a sinless person? I think a lot of people believe that that sin creates a debt that must be repaid, that we owe God something because we have sinned, and we mere humans are incapable of doing anything able to repay that debt.

But sin is something that does actual harm, not just something that breaks a rule or creates a debt. Good people are called to right the wrongs of this world - whether they are responsible for the wrongs or not. And atonement for sin - is the righting of wrongs.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:57 AM

"Is there a "like" button I can click for what Little Hawk said at 12:06 AM? That's almost exactly what I think."
.,,.
I have no opinion as to the main gravamen of his post, Joe, as this whole conversation is on topics way out of any terms of reference that have anything whatever to say to me.

But I must point out that LH's post which you so admire was grossly inaccurate in all its examples. Not one of those he named as 'heroes' to be revered for their embracing of death actually did 'die bravely for their ideals'. P Henry might have said "Give me liberty or give me death", but nobody did 'give him death': he went on to an active political career and died of cancer in his 60s, not to be in any way martyred. Joan of Arc was quite ready to retract, but the English made it impossible for her to do so by making it clear that there would be lifelong 'solitary' if she did anyhow. Gandhi went on dressing eccentrically and preaching to the end, and was suddenly assassinated by a loony; he didn't in any way choose, 'bravely' or otherwise, when or where or how to die.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 03:08 AM

I was thinking maybe Little Hawk meant Nathan Hale, who said, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country," before he was hanged. I think that most people would say that Joan of Arc and Gandhi died because they were people who stood up for what they believed was right - even though the immediate circumstances of their deaths might be more complex.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 03:32 AM

I at least pay LH the compliment of assuming him to say what he means, Joe. Simply disagree re Arc & Gandhi.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 04:00 AM

And dying "for what one believes is right" strikes me as a bit of a slippery concept. Why should it not apply to the Rosenbergs? Irma Grese? Jim Jones? William Joyce? the Nuremberg defendants?...

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 05:23 AM

I think even the words 'the right' are open to endless debate and argument. Who decides what IS right, and, if they do, are we to accept their decision? People's actions are prompted by a myriad motivations, from contingency, need, fear, defence, and even an inborn personality disorder. Are 'wrong' deeds punishable or even need 'atonement' if the perpetrator couldn't do otherwise? And why would the cruel death of an innocent man (albeit, apparently, God Incarnate) atone for wrongdoing? It appears to be tied up with the idea of a sacrificial lamb (my husband's family still sacrifice a sheep at Tabaski) which is not a part of our culture at all. There are many situations where a Christian would condemn an act (say, killing an intruder who menaced one's children with a knife, or stealing food to save one's family from starvation, punching in great anger a chap who had been caught in bed with one's wife, and dozens more) where I personally would be applauding on the sidelines, not demanding penance and absolution. Many of the tenets of the Christian faith don't hold water for me, and I'm a practising Christian and a member of the PCC in my Parish!!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 08:53 AM

I can't help thinking that there are a lot more important questions in the world than this abstruse gobbledegook - based, as it is, on a load of pathological drivel in an old book.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 09:17 AM

Yes, MtheGM, I did mean Nathan Hale, and not Patrick Henry. My error. I don't agree in the least with you about Joan or Gandhi. Joan was extremely reluctant to recant, but she finally did under exhaustion and tremendous persuasion and after numerous mistrials where she had refused to...and almost anyone else would have eventually recanted as well under those circumstances. Gandhi died as a result of his extreme courage in confronting political powers and becoming a household name...even IF he was shot by a lunatic...because the lunatic wouldn't have noticed him, had he not lived a life of high ideals, but I think we'd be wasting our time arguing about it, and it wouldn't matter anyway. I was making a point about people who die for their ideals in a heroic fashion, not counting the number of Angels that can stand on the end of a pin. The crucial thing is the point itself, not whether you approve of the specific heroic examples I picked. If I waited until everyone approved any 3 examples I could pick...I'd wait forever! ;-D Just pick 3 examples YOU like, and apply them to the point, okay? That should solve the problem.

***

You ask "Who decides what IS right?", Eliza? Each one of us does. Or we try to. And sometimes we are dead wrong in those decisions when we make them. Many, if not most, of the people who died defending the Nazi regime in WWII, for example, were quite sure they were doing the right thing at the time, because that's how the human mind works...it usually thinks it's doing the right thing.

"Are we to accept another's decision about what is right?" No! We make our own decision about it, if we've got any sense.....but some people would rather just believe what they are told (by their government, their church, their political party, their commanding officer, their parents, their boss, etc)...and that can lead to a lot of trouble, can't it?

So think for yourself is my advice. I can't think for you, you can't think for me, we all have to do our best to think for ourselves. And there is NO guarantee that we are "right" even after that. No matter how sure we are about something we think, we might still be wrong. And I know that. But we at least do our best to figure it out. That's one of the challenges of life, and that's just fine. It enables us to learn, grow, and mature.

Yes, the idea of Jesus' death as "atonement for sins" is very much tied up with the idea of a sacrificial lamb, which was a huge archetype in the Jewish culture of that time, as well as in several other contemporary cultures of 2,000 years ago. They used to sacrifice all kinds of animals to atone for sines and to "please God" (or "the Gods"). I don't buy it either. I think it's an extremely primitive and invalid idea which has no real bearing on atoning for anything. Nor do I buy many of the other tenets of traditional Christianity....but I find much good there too.

As with a society or a nation, the same with a religion...if you look at it, you'll find both good things and bad things happening there. So...why not partake of the good things and stay clear of the bad things? (rather than simply outright rejecting the entire ball of wax because there are some bad things contained in it?)

And now....we can argue about how we decide what is "good" or "bad"....!!!!!!

;-D

Same deal. We each must decide for ourselves. And our word on the matter isn't the last word. It's just our opinion, period, because that's all we've got to work with, and we do our best to see clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 10:04 AM

I think most UK-ers would agree with me that we have just about heard of Patrick Henry, because of that one famous 'quotable quote' sentence in one famous speech; but he is far from a name to conjure with here, like Lincoln, say: tho he does seem to be so over your side.

As to this other guy, now, Nathan Hale:- Can't say I have ever heard of him before, however well-known his FLW may be to you guys. I suspect that 999 in 1000 Brits to whom his name was mentioned would reply blankly, "Who?"

Any on this side of The Pond disagree with that?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 10:58 AM

MtheGM, Hale was used as an example. What difference does it make that you haven't heard of him until now? Don't you have Wiki on that side of the pond?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 11:04 AM

Yes, indeed, Jack: wiki was exactly what I fell back on. But my having to do so was what robbed the post of all its intended effect -- surely you can see that? Such a post requires a mythic status in its examples, if it's to have the effect the poster wants, rather than one who has to be laboriously looked up to establish what the hell he is on about. Pity he then proceeded to cock it up by naming the wrong myth at that, eh? Plus two who don't qualify, whatever he may think. I mean, he was aiming for a nice knockdown argument with nice knockdown examples ~~ and achieved the precise opposite. Oh dear!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:07 PM

Nathan Hale is a big deal in the USA, M. Every American school child knows about him, but he's hardly heard of in Canada. I grew up in both countries (due to moves my parents made at different times), so that's why he's well known to me.

In Canada we hear a lot more about Sir Isaac Brock, who helped turn back an American invasion in 1812. Hurrah! I'm glad he was there when the need arose, and another who deserves mention right beside him is Lieutenant-Colonel MacDonnel, his second-in-command, immortalized in the great Stan Rogers song: MacDonnell on the Heights

Are Canadians proud of their country? You bet we are!

However, I don't post here to look for arguments with people, M. That's your chosen job, I think. I post here simply to explain an idea I am thinking about at the time and to express that idea.

Let me underline that by quoting this other post I just made to Don T on another thread, as follows:

What amazes me, Don T, is how hard most people look around for ways to disagree with each other, rather than looking for a means to reach an accord and a common understanding, and mutual respect.

(I'm not directing criticism at you personally in so saying, I'm just noting something that I see commonly happening, specially on the Net, which is that most people focus mainly on what they disagree about with others. They could instead focus on what they agree about, and they'd usually find that it outweighs the disagreements in a ratio of probably 100 to 1. This is also true in politics and relations between countries...the path of intelligence and wisdom lies in finding out what you have in common with other people and seeking solutions that benefit all parties rather than obsessing over the differences and fighting about them. We would be much better off seeking accord than seeking "victory", whether as nations or as individuals.)

It also gains nothing for us to pursue personal feuds, but you see them happening all the time on this forum. No one is going to "win" any of those feuds. They're not going to prove anything either. It's just a lot of huffing, puffing, and ill will that leads nowhere and accomplishes nothing except to create more ill will between people.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:20 PM

LH, I agree with much of your latest post. But unfortunately, when one 'belongs' to a Church, one is expected, it seems, to swallow whole the doctrine thereof. The trouble is I tend to question before I accept. Many perfectly sincere and trusting folk are content to believe without going into things too deeply, and I wish I were one of them. But part of my brain analyses and assesses what is presented (as in for example certain parts of the Bible and some of the tenets of the Church of England) and where logic or fairness are found wanting I can't agree wholeheartedly. I must have a very weak faith. But I suppose God made me like this. I just have to stumble on somehow and hope He understands!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 04:03 PM

"when one 'belongs' to a Church, one is expected, it seems, to swallow whole the doctrine thereof"

Not necessarily, Eliza. In some churces, yes. In others, not at all. In any church (or spiritual community) I've had the inclination to stay around much there have been a wide variety of different views and interpretations rather than any pressure to swallow a rigid doctrine and not question it...rather, questioning and analyzing doctrine is very much encouraged! I've seen many examples of this complete willingness to question all kinds of major points of traditional dogma in various religious communities I've been around, and to look at things from a common sense and experience-based point of view with full respect for modern science and rationality brought into it.

It isn't that you have a weak faith! It is that you have a strong desire to know and understand the truth rather than to be spoonfed someone else's dogma without question. I call that a strong faith in the gifts you've been given by Nature...or by God...whatever you choose to call it.

Some people are easily inclined to a simpler type of faith...and it works for them. I have no problem with that if it works for them, but my approach is much more like yours. I question everything, and I try to look deeper into it to get answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 04:42 PM

I'm surprised you have that impression of the Church of England, Eliza. Maybe that's a correct perception of some congregations and maybe even some branches of the Church of England, but "correctness of doctrine" doesn't seem so important in the US branch of the Church of England, the Episcopalians. Here, there's more emphasis on inclusiveness, on bringing together different perspectives, and celebrating diversity - being able to worship together while holding perspectives that aren't exactly the same. Most of the "mainline" churches in the US seem to be working toward that sort of unity in diversity. Even we Catholics do it to an extent. That's an ideal that can be difficult to achieve, especially in a society that puts so much emphasis on ideological correctness.

Today's reading in the Common Lectionary is the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37. Note that the Samaritan did not have the "correct" ideology, but he is the one who was held up as an example for all humankind. What he did brought healing, despite the men of proper ideology who passed the victim by. And I think that the healing actions of good people, bring atonement for the misdeeds of humankind. I think that's far more important than paying God back for misdeeds. We "atone" when we do good, whatever that good is - and that "sanctifies" this world and makes it the better place it was meant to be. If you read the four gospels and look closely at what Jesus expected from people, it wasn't correct ideology - it was compassion. I believe that compassion is the answer for what ails this world.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 04:53 PM

Right on, Joe!

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 04:57 PM

I don't actually set out to find disagreements, LH; and do take much of your point. But if this [or any other] forum is to consist purely of posts in which people simply express agreement with one another on all topics, I have a feeling that a certain interest, and a certain impetus, might be lost.

Would you not agree with that?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 05:34 PM

i too am surprized that eliza views the c of e as in any way expecting conformity of doctrine.it seems to me that much of it is falling over backwards to accomodate anything,but i may be overstating that.
i agree that you should think things through yourself.i believe there should be room in any church for that.i would suggest though that it might be helpful if you can find someone in your church,that believes the bible,to have a chat with and air your questions and doubts.

joe - just because a commonly used term is not found in the bible dont mean that the teaching is,nt.there are lots of them.it just eliminates the need to go into long explanations all the time.
think - trinity,omnipresense etc.
are you sure that those in your study group are only repeatig what they are told. i would like to think they have seen it in their own bible reading.i am surprised you dont.
what difference does it make?
well,i am sure that you know that paul usually used half his letter to a church explaining doctrine,and then began the application based on the doctrine eg rom 12 v 1 being one transition point.
the examples you give of what atonement means to you ,may be quite valid and insightful but are flowing out of the primary meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 06:08 PM

The C of E certainly seems to me less 'fundamentalist' than many branches of Christianity, but even they (or 'we' since I profess to be a member!) require belief in the Atonement for our sins of Christ the Redeemer, and surely my vicar would be a bit miffed to say the least if he knew I didn't fully buy into that doctrine. I have many other doubts and misgivings, for example the Virgin Birth, and I hope that LH and others here are right in saying that questioning and reflection on doctrine is a good thing and not a bad mark for me in God's eyes. I heartily endorse the views expressed here that compassion, kindness and gentle understanding such as Jesus showed are the most important things. (I do hope our vicar doesn't visit Mudcat and recognise who I am by my posts. If so, it's 'The Comfy Chair' for me!) (Monty Python)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 06:08 PM

Yes, I certainly do agree with that, MtheGM. There's no harm in vigorous debate, as long as it involves a genuine desire to discuss something seriously and communicate with one another in a reasonable fashion...rather than just to attack the other person (as happens on a lot of these threads).

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 06:25 PM

I know at least 3 Anglican and 2 United ministers who don't necessarily buy into those doctrines, Eliza, and I bet there are plenty more who don't as well...but I haven't discussed it with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 06:40 PM

You reassure me LH, thank you! It may be my Irish and Scottish parents and my ancestry, but I feel far closer to the natural world in a vaguely Celtic sort of way than I do to the structured and inflexible Christian Church. I have no problem with God as Creator and Guardian of the Universe, and Jesus sounds like a very nice chap. I feel a kinship with all living things (not just humans) but find these man-made doctrines a bit tricky. Dear oh dear, I must be turning into a New Age hippy or an Animist in my old age! Better go and hug a tree or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 06:45 PM

Well, the first religious line of thought that I really connected with was the traditional Native American religion which is a lot like the Celtic traditions in some ways, I think, because it's very Nature-oriented...as is Taoism, another tradition that attracted me early on. My interest in Christianity came some time later.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 11:45 PM

MtheGM, what I would find ideal in a forum discussion is less of an emphasis on disagreement, and more seeking to understand an issue from a variety of perspectives. In the first instance, we fight; in the second, we learn.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:04 AM

Pete, "Substitutionary Atonement" is a theological term, something that looks at reality from one perspective. It is a perfectly valid perspective, but it tends to have a legalistic tone to it. It's too easy to take the legal metaphor too far, and to begin to see moral action as a legal system - which it isn't. Moral conduct is above and beyond the law, as Jesus said many times.

Same with seeing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb - it's a very good metaphor that can be taken too far, and then our thinking becomes all about the metaphor and separated from the reality. Jesus was a person who embodied the divine, totally innocent and most likely totally courageous. He faced death in innocence and courage and nonviolence (thereby surpassing Joan of Arc and Nathan Hale), and conquered death through his innocence and courage and nonviolence and integrity.

Metaphors can be valuable tools, but we can get lost in them and lose sight of the reality. The reality is that this world is full of sin, and this is something we know whether or not we believe in God. But sin is real hatefulness that causes great harm, not just a violation of a code of laws that chalks up a debt on some eternal balance sheet. And we as humans, believers or not, are obliged to confront that sin with integrity and love - and so atone for sin and make this world a better place.

Whether we believe in God or not, we do face evil - and we are obliged to do something about it, or suffer the consequences. Evil has its own consequences. And hell may be another metaphor, meant to help us understand those consequences.

So, Pete, I think you've tied yourself to perfectly valid doctrines and metaphors, but your literalism has blinded you to the reality behind them. "Substitutionary Atonement" is an attempt to understand and explain a reality - it is not the reality itself.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:59 AM

"nonviolence (thereby surpassing Joan of Arc and Nathan Hale)"
.,,.

Money-changers, Joe? Driven from the Temple with a whip?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 01:03 AM

Mind you, I agree with pretty well the whole of your last post, Joe. Of course *sin* is a reality, and it as much the duty of non-believers like me as of believers like you to fight it in all possible ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 02:19 AM

Well, I'll admit Jesus got a little carried away in dealing with those temple moneychangers. The Cursing of the Fig Tree was a little puzzling and out of character, too.

Guess he just got pissed off a couple of times. There's also some indication in the second-century Infancy Gospel of Thomas that Jesus may not have had a Zen attitude as a child. More good stories here (click).

But in general, Jesus was a model of nonviolence and compassion. I try to follow that example, but I get pissed off sometimes, too. In general, though, I think we're most effective when we confront injustice with integrity and compassion and nonviolence.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:01 AM

I don't think he got the least bit carried away with the moneylenders...he showed anger and authority to frighten them out of the temple. It was not necessary for him to do physical harm to anyone, but merely to frighten them into leaving. This is a very appropriate tactic under certain circumstances.

An outward show of anger is something used by spiritual masters when necessary in order to wake up other people into attending to their moral responsibilities. Unlike just "getting angry" (losing control of oneself), this is a case of using a show of anger to accomplish a beneficial change in someone...just as a responsible parent may do when a child has gone past the line of proper behaviour. You cannot get through life without having to do this on occasion, regardless of whether or not you are someone like Jesus.

Regarding the fig tree...I think that incident was meant to symbolize the coming doom of Jerusalem...a place that should have been bearing spiritual fruit, but was barren, because the Temple and the religion had been taken over by money-hungry priests and scribes who were in it for the power, the material gains, and the glory. The withering of the fig tree presaged the coming utter destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the Jewish Rebellion that lay not too far in the future.

Regarding Joan of Arc, Joe, having read several different accounts of her life from differing perspectives, I'm not convinced she was surpassed by Jesus or anyone else in facing death with innocence, courage, and non-violence. Yes, she led the French army to war...but there simply WAS no other way possible to get the English army out of France...so that's why she did it in a military fashion. She always first attemted to negotiate peaceful withdrawals by the English....but in most cases they contemptuously refused any such offer. During her entire military career she never personally killed anyone (this was attested to in her trial, and back up by many eyewitnesses), but she led the troops by inspiration, carrying the flag, exhorting the troops, leading from the front, and certainly defending herself with the sword when necessary. She was completely innocent of the many (mostly ridiculous) charges brought against her. She showed almost unbelievable courage on any number of occasions...and this was one of the things that made the French soldiers follow her with utter confidence and loyalty. The other was her very devout nature. In effect, they were in awe of her...they could not even think of her as a normal girl or young woman, but felt they were in the presence of a saint. (The only exception to this was some of the rich bigwigs in the court who hated her...as they saw her as a dire threat to their own position and influence. It was those men, like the privileged scribes and pharisees of Jesus' time, who made sure Joan would end up dead by one means or another.)

She's the only person I've read about, frankly, who impresses me on a level of behaviour equal to that of Jesus...though in a rather different theatre of action. I find many powerful similarities between them.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:16 AM

"It was not necessary for him to do physical harm to anyone, but merely to frighten them into leaving...."

.,,.

Questionable —

"This is the only account of Jesus using physical force in any of the Gospels. The narrative occurs near the end of the Synoptic Gospels (at Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27 and Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8) and near the start in the Gospel of John (at John 2:13–16)"

Wikipedia -- emphasis mine

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:31 AM

Michael, in what we call "nonviolent" protests against the war industry here in the US, there are often petty, symbolic acts of vandalism against government facilities. Those who oppose the protesters, often try to make a big deal about how horrible this is - but most importantly, antiwar protesters don't hurt anybody. And in overturning tables in the temple, Jesus did no physical harm - there's no evidence that he even damaged anything. He just made a mess. But it's clear he made a big impression.

In most situations, I would suspect that you would be appalled by the hypocrisy of the moneychangers. But since it doesn't suit your purposes in this situation, you take their side.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:31 AM

Physical force does not equate to physical harm, M. Have you ever physically restrained the dog from peeing on the carpet, for example? Or whacked it with a rolled up newspaper to indicate that it has broken the rules? This does not equate to viciously beating your dog with an intent to do harm.

Jesus had an objective in mind: get the moneylenders out of the Temple, and to convince them (and everyone else) that they were doing wrong to be in there. This required some strong actions. He probably shouted at them, knocked over some of the tables, and swung the whip threateningly at them. He may even have whacked someone with the whip, or just whacked it across the tables. In any event, it proved sufficient to scare them into clearing out, and that was the objective.

I call that sensible action under the circumstances, because it achieves exactly what needs to be achieved and doesn't injure anyone in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:44 AM

Special pleadings, both of you. I would repeat that I merely described your 'non-violence- assertion as "Questionable" ~~ a description that your mimsy equivocations appear to me to confirm in ♠♠

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 02:00 PM

"Mimsy equivocations" confirming in spades. Can't say I've ever heard that phrase in this forum. I think I have to grant you two points for that, Mike. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 04:38 PM

In those immortal words of Anybody's in West Side Story ~~~

"Gee, thanks, Daddy-O!"

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM

"Mimsy equivocatons"? Argh!!!! Those are strong words, M, an accusation so base and unforgivable that it can only be paid for in blood. I'm not sure we can avoid meeting on the Field of Honour now, though I shudder at the expense... ;-) Perhaps you'd be willing to fly to Canada instead if I respond by calling you an "impertinent chipmunk-abuser"?

(Yes, for you to have said "questionable" in the context of your post about Jesus' nonviolence is reasonable enough, I suppose.)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 12:00 AM

Can't make it, sorry. I'll send a friend. That will bring the thread back on track ~~ a bit of substitutionary atonement.

Haven't met any chipmunks lately. When I do meet one, I shall try to remember to call him a goggleheaded nincompoop, just to oblige.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 12:57 AM

Heh! Very good. I shall await the arrival of your Substitutionary Atoner....er...Second?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 05:31 AM

alternatively joe,your liberalism has blinded YOU to the reality behind the concepts.it is much greater than the moral aspirations you draw out of the concepts.
but in no way wishing to diminish such.as i formerly indicated ,such should flow out of the doctrine, for example ephesians 5 v 2.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 12:46 PM

Possibly.......I'm always willing to give some consideration to the alternatives, pete. We all form our own conclusions as best we can about such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 06:41 PM

I don't know if I'd call it "liberalism," Pete. It's just that my theological training has taught me to look behind the words for the reality those words represent - and to relate that to the reality that I perceive with my own experience. It's a good discipline to follow - to understand that words are meant to represent a greater reality, and that it's important not to confuse the words with the actual thing they represent. Oftentimes, a rigid perspective cannot adequately comprehend a wider reality, and a variety of perspectives are needed. Even a non-theistic perspective is important to a full understanding of the concept of atonement. And yes, your literal perspective is also part of the whole picture.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 06:51 PM

I think Paul's writings need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 06:52 PM

Good theology, like good poetry or good philosophy, can work on several different levels at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 08:22 PM

I feel the same way about Paul's writings, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 08:41 PM

i would say theology does work on more than one level.i dont think that gives us liberty though to detract from the foundational level.
but for those with a pick and choose theology ,i suppose that may not be relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 08:59 PM

Pete, you pick and choose. Everyone does. Do you eat shellfish?

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 04:02 AM

You guys may have misgivings about Paul's writings, but it's Pete I worry about.

He seems like such a nice guy, too... ;-)

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 06:08 AM

Paul's Epistles are a classic example of doctrines rooted in a particular culture, which unfortunately is quite far removed from our own. Views in the Bible (OT and NT) on, say, women and their status, gay people, slavery, beating children, divorce, disease and disability being a punishment from God and many other ideas are just not relevant or acceptable nowadays. This whole Atonement thing is, to me, like that. Sacrifice for washing away 'Sin', which apparently we automatically inherited from Adam, is not easy to accept. In fact, I just don't! Also, I find the whole concept of eating and drinking Christ's 'flesh and blood' weird and distasteful. None of it gels with the mindset of modern people.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 09:14 AM

From my experience with fundamentalism, I'm fairly sure that this is "the thing" with Pete:

Either the Bible is inerrant, or it isn't; if it can't be trusted as to history and science, we can't know that it can be trusted as to the "plan of salvation".

But the great majority of people are forced to conclude, from overwhelming evidence apparent to their "God given" brains, that a significant portion of the content of the Bible is not literally true. And as to the process of God using men to provide an infallible document, that is problematic in all kinds of ways to say the least. Did the authors hear an actual voice dictating to them? What does our experience say about the "track record" of people who believe that they have heard God's voice give them specific instructions? Was the Bible given by "mechanical dictation" ? That theory probably still exists, but I'm fairly sure that even most fundamentalists today back away from that. But,for the Bible to be created infallibly, each author would have had to be somehow rendered infallible as to what he wrote down at the time.

Human beings have experienced countless moments of great wisdom and insight. But I submit that no human being, whether Pope, televangelist, author, parent, founder of a religion, or whatever, has ever experienced a single moment of infallibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 10:36 AM

Eliza - "I find the whole concept of eating and drinking Christ's 'flesh and blood' weird and distasteful"

The interesting thing is, Eliza, that that was a far more shocking idea to the people in Jesus' own time (if taken literally...or even symbolically) than it is now! There were already very strong rules against drinking blood (human or animal) in the Jewish culture...and the idea of drinking a man's blood or eating his flesh would have horrified Jews in that culture. For Jesus to even suggest such a thing to his disciples was an extraordinary and absolutely radical act, an illegal concept...and must have stunned them at the time...but they'd been through enough with him already to probably realize there was a deeper meaning behind his words and actions.

If he'd meant it literally, he'd have drawn actual blood from his own arm and offered it to them to drink...or he'd have cut flesh from his own body.

He obviously did not mean it literally, because he offered them bread and wine.

So what did he mean?

Well, it has been recorded many times in Asian cultures that when a human being experiences enlightenment (or Christ consciousness) he becomes consciously united with all of Creation. He sees himself present in everything, whether it be another person, a tree, a rock, a cloud, an animal, the food on his plate, a flower, etc. That is one aspect OF Christ consciousness. Seeing oneself in everything, one feels great love and connection with everything. This produces very loving behaviour, because there is that sense of complete connection with others.

Jesus was pointing out to his disciples that if they wished to remember him in a symbolic way after he physically departed from their lives, they could do it by eating some bread and drinking some wine, and recognizing his presence in spiritual form within those simple substances...the bread symbolizing the solid body, the wine symbolizing the liquid blood. He chose bread and wine because those were the basics of a simple meal back then.

This is the same as to say, "I am present within all things" which is exactly what some people have consciously experienced when they reached enlightenment or Christ consciousness.

*(People who completely disbelieve in the very concept of enlightenment or Christ consciousness...because they have rock-solid FAITH that that there is no such thing...are, of course, excused from giving any credence to such notions. That is their free choice.)

It's a symbolic act about spiritual presence, and it has absolutely nothing to do with cannibalism or with drinking human blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 10:46 AM

I should've probably said "he or she", by the way, regarding humans who experience enlightenment, but that should be obvious anyway.

It's a shame we don't get to hear more from the women in the early Christian church, but reading and writing was an almost exclusively male preserve in that time period.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 10:54 AM

Well put, frogprince.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 03:13 PM

"But I submit that no human being, whether Pope, televangelist, author, parent, founder of a religion, or whatever, has ever experienced a single moment of infallibility."

Infallibility: A condition from within which one decides for others what they are too lazy to decide for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 03:35 PM

Heh! ;-) Not a bad definition there.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 05:01 PM

frogprince- i suppose you may have forgotten teaching from your past faith ,but may be to remind you,though realizing you no longer accept it,i offer the bible teaching.
the prophets are said to be carried along by the Spirit.all scripture is God breathed.i take this to mean that they were not writing mechanically or by dictation but that they were writing without direct awareness of the Spirit working through them.there are however some sections where God does direct the writer as to what is written.

jack- when i say pick and choose,i am referring to the tendancy of not aacepting everything as divinely inspired [if any!],not whether laws presribed for OT isreal apply to NT christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 05:18 PM

I think all of life is God-breathed, pete. That doesn't mean that people get it right all the time. Yes, I think that all genuine prophets and spiritual teachers are guided by the spirit of God providing inspiration within them...but again, that doesn't mean they necessarily get it right all the time when they attemt to convey what they were inspired by...or that they have have the last word on the matter.

People choose to believe that the Bible is the perfect Word of God simply because other people have told them it is, generation after generation. This is also true of Muslims who believe the Q'ran is the perfect Word of God. What all these people are actually taking as authority is the word of certain other people, people whose judgement on the matter they have decided to trust.

And that's normal behaviour for human beings. People do the same thing in regards to all kinds of ordinary political and social stuff, quite apart from religion. What convinces them is generally the weight of tradition itself and the comfort of familiarity.

There are probably very similar things happening on other planets that we've never heard of and know nothing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 07:01 PM

Isn't the bible a bunch of stuff to help people get their heads round a bunch of other stuff? To treat is as any more profound is possibly to overegg the cake...

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 09:33 PM

It's several things. It's a gathering of old mythology and parables from several previous religious traditions. It's an account of the travels and political and military activities of 12 Hebrew tribes. It's books about a number of their prophets. It's a collection of further books about the life of Jesus. It's got sections which are in the form of poetry, poetry which was once sung to musical accompaniment (like the Psalms). It's a bunch of proverbs. It's got some romantic poetry in it (the Song of Solomon). It's a collection of letters written to churches in the early Christain era. And it's got some prophecies and visions in it (like Revelations).

I'd say you could look at it a whole bunch of different ways, depending on what interested you...and how profound you think it is is strictly a matter of your own personal opinion. Some people think Ayn Rand is profound...

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 05:54 AM

(Complete thread drift, apologies!) My husband's family are now in Ramadan over in Ivory Coast. It's about 40 degrees. They are forbidden to drink anything whatsoever from just before dawn to total darkness after sundown. Nothing must touch their mouths, neither food nor liquid. Many collapse, some even die. His aunt has just died, whether from dehydration or some other cause we don't know, her legs were very swollen. My husband tells me that when the call comes at last to drink, you gulp and gulp down pints and pints of water until you're nearly sick. Now this is a rule of Islam, but what does it achieve? Does God really want people to suffer terribly and risk wrecking their kidneys? An example of why one should NOT adhere blindly to a Book (Koran or Bible) without assessing it all with ones brain first. My relationship with God is so different from Sacrificial Atonement, self-neglect and self-torment in His name. He is Love, He loves us and wants us to be happy and good. Simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:11 AM

Eliza,

Whilst I'm certainly no expert on Islam, I've happened across these 'Ramadan rules and regulations' on the BBC Website:

Allah says in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara:
'But if anyone is ill, or on a journey, the prescribed period should be made up by days later. Allah intends every facility for you; He does not want to put you to difficulties.'

Surely this would allow anyone on the verge of collapse to break their fast?

The same page also says: "Who is exempt from Fasting: The insane"

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusion...

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:22 AM

Ed, you're right in a sense, because my husband's sister is heavily pregnant at the moment and isn't fasting, and the elderly or young children don't do it either. But ordinary manual workers (men and women) carrying heavy loads on their heads or toiling in the fields sweating in the tremendous heat are expected to follow the 'Careme' (fast). To say 'Allah doesn't want to put you to difficulties' is palpably, even laughably, untrue. I'd call it a lot more than 'difficulties' to be gasping for water in 40 degree heat for twelve hours or more. My poor husband worked for three years on building sites and struggled up ladders with 30Kg loads of blocks on his head, and it nearly killed him. Whatever it is, this ISN'T religion IMO. (No doubt the Taliban will be after me now, having posted this!)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:38 AM

To say 'Allah doesn't want to put you to difficulties' is palpably, even laughably, untrue.

But surely, if it says it in the Qur'an (and I've no particular reason to doubt the page I linked to), then that's that? I really don't understand. But as I said I'm no expert on such things.

I do know that not drinking any water in such circumstances is an insane thing to do though.

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 07:41 AM

'If it says it in the Qur'an...then that's that.' Exactly Ed, and it's why I said in my previous post that one should assess these Holy Books with one's brain before engaging in the practices prescribed therein. There's a myriad examples from the Bible, it's not just Islam. Turning the other cheek, not being jealous, loving your enemies etc etc are just unnatural and I'm afraid I don't practise them at all. (Now the Archbish of Canterbury will be after me as well!)

Subject: RE: BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 10:20 AM

Well, it obviously isn't what God or Allah wants, Eliza. It's what some religiously motivated people a looooong time ago decided that God or Allah must want...and they wrote it down. ;-D

Chances are, they could be wrong!

I very much doubt that God wants anything, given that God already is everything (in the sense of being omnipresent and universal). Only beings that are separated from all the other stuff around them want things, precisely because they are separated, and they therefore have needs. God needs nothing.

People need a whole lot of things and they make up rules for other people based on what they imagine God needs, because they see God, in effect, in their own image....only larger, more powerful, and, amazingly enough, even MORE needy!!! ;-) That's silly.

Holy books always reflect the common values of the culture they were written in. This is why things like slavery, stoning people to death, and many other examples which most of us would not countenance now were seen as perfectly normal when some of the old religious texts were written.

And as a matter of fact, there are things we see as perfectly normal now that will probable horrify people in some unknown future we are all heading toward...but that'll be their view of it, not ours.