BS: Thoughts on 'Substitutionary Atonement'

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.

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: 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 - 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 - 06:11 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 - 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: 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,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 - 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,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 - 03:35 PM

Heh! ;-) Not a bad definition there.

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 - 10:54 AM

Well put, frogprince.

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 - 10:36 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:57 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:25 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 04:53 PM

Right on, Joe!

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-