[davidk]

Dear Soma,
[I genuinely fail to see how my last post could conceivably have been bad mouthing anyone. It appears like a rush to judge me. Should I consider your post bad mouthing my faith? Of course not.
While I don't pretend not to have offended anybody, asking questions can only be considered offensive if one allows to be offended. I cannot control anyone being offended. If I have made any incorrect observations, simply correct me. I'm not attempting any personal attacks, but a clear understanding. Much posted here is a "foriegn language".
It's as if I am hard of hearing, and you're getting offended if I ask you to repeat something more clearly.

Call me what you will. My being offended is under my control.]
---
In reference to the initial segment of your post: I understand your "red light" analogy. It's entertaining, but it seems insufficient to me. Our human red lights function on bad information from time to time. It has been found on occasion, ones conscience may actually bother them for no reason, or it may not bother others at all.

I agree we should ask: what is right from wrong and how do we know the difference? But we are witness to diverse red lights; Stalin vs De Sade vs Hitler vs Mother Theresa vs - the line would be endless. Whose "red light" conscience reflects truly and why should it or why doesn't it? What do we compare against that we may determine a love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith. What are such things and where do we get such knowledge? How do we know what is the "good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." from which we are able to examine ourselves at all?
Of course I acknowledge the Biblical references, but how, in progressive apologetics concerning Biblical unreliability, can any of them be considered reliable? Or can some progressives actually believe what has been written and considered to be "The Word of God"? If it were mere man and his immature intellect, all of Scripture is suspect. Even quotes you may think nice to post.
- Dk
---
Dear Joseph,

I agree God does not thrust guilt upon us, we earn it. God loves us. ( are you still sure you're not attributing personality traits to God? You know like, love 'n' teaching?)

But at the same time, since God is always happy with us, would there be a need for Soma's 'red light'? If nothing man does can make God unhappy with us, why would there be any guilt for man to remove or a need to repent? Would it matter if Man were either noble or cruel? Could it be considered that good and evil would fail to exist since nothing then would require any forgiveness or repentence? Sin would cease to exist.

Like you always say,
Just a few rash and inconclusive thoughts of obvious error for you to consider from your highly opinionated, man centered, progressive throne of superiority, (whew! )
-Dk
---
I can't offer this any more clearly, but everyone seems to just bristle at rather than contest the content/context of the original statement: "There is no Atonement without the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ." Then later, McKenna asked: "Are there any interpretations, in your opinion, that would work within a Progressive Christian epistemological framework? How should we, as Progressive Christians, interpret Christ's death and Resurrection? Or is it simply irrelevent?" I responded, "Without original sin, there would be no need for Atonement nor Grace, and the death of Jesus Christ would be irrelevent." Still to date, no one here can explain, without original sin, the truth of any of those needs. They simply would not exist and Jesus death- ultimately irrelevant.' In the context: eternal relevance.

This post has been edited by davidk: 25 July 2008 - 01:31 PM

[JosephM]

davidk, on Jul 25 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

(snip)
Dear Joseph,

I agree God does not thrust guilt upon us, we earn it. God loves us. ( are you still sure you're not attributing personality traits to God? You know like, love 'n' teaching?)

But at the same time, since God is always happy with us, would there be a need for Soma's 'red light'? If nothing man does can make God unhappy with us, why would there be any guilt for man to remove or a need to repent? Would it matter if Man were either noble or cruel? Could it be considered that good and evil would fail to exist since nothing then would require any forgiveness or repentence? Sin would cease to exist.

Like you always say,
Just a few rash and inconclusive thoughts of obvious error for you to consider from your highly opinionated, man centered, progressive throne of superiority, (whew! )
-Dk
---
I can't offer this any more clearly, but everyone seems to just bristle at rather than contest the content/context of the original statement: "There is no Atonement without the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ." Then later, McKenna asked: "Are there any interpretations, in your opinion, that would work within a Progressive Christian epistemological framework? How should we, as Progressive Christians, interpret Christ's death and Resurrection? Or is it simply irrelevent?" I responded, "Without original sin, there would be no need for Atonement nor Grace, and the death of Jesus Christ would be irrelevent." Still to date, no one here can explain, without original sin, the truth of any of those needs. They simply would not exist and Jesus death- ultimately irrelevant.' In the context: eternal relevance.

Dear David,

As I said before, Progressive Christianity is not dogma or doctrine so you won't find an agreed upon theology answer here in my view.

Secondly, I speak for myself, No God is not a person with personality traits. God is Spirit. I must be abstract because God is beyond definition. Its seems to me Soma's red light may have nothing to do with God beingunhappy or happy with us as you might suppose. God is complete and beyond emotions. The red light is part of the creature structure for our sake, not God's.
There is guilt because it is self-created by the creature. It is built in the design. Since God is all-knowing, all-present and all-powerful, its stands to reason God has no enemies. (Think about it) Since God made the creature subject to the things he (the creature) is subject to and God knows the unlimited possibilities that will be chosen how could God be diappointed? I do not expect an answer because the answer is self-evident, God can't be dissappointed.

It seems to me that the need to repent is because man will continue to suffer from his actions until he does. The sufferring is self-created because in truth we are all One and so whatever you do to your brother/sister you do it in essence to yourself. That can only be seen in the spirit. We are many in the flesh but there is only One Life. Repentance is not required by God, it is chosen by man through his suffering which is always self-inflicted. (Yes, I know you can't see this in the flesh with your reasoning mind but nevertheless it is true I have no need to prove it or defend it to you.

Glad you put the lol on your last statement. No superiority here except possibly in your flesh mind. lol
People as a rule are very accepting of those who believe differently , however, one must be careful to be respectful of their opinions and be careful to not put words in their mouths when restating their opinions and drawing conclusions that attack progressive Christianity without a clear understanding of what it is. (See the 8 points for details) Its pretty liberal and avoids dogma and theology.

With Love in Christ,
Joseph

[JosephM]

Davidk,

P.S. Just in case you were wondering what kind of statements you were making that might illicit questions/comments such as you received in Post #38 at the last sentence, Read your Post #30 and tell me if your last paragraph you wrote seems in the least bit dis-respectful to the people who make this site their home. I'm saying this not to chide you or judge you but rather as a possible answer to the question you posed to Soma in #38 that remains unanswered in this thread. You be your own judge. I will not disagree with your findings.

With Love in Christ,
Joseph

[minsocal]

The original question:

Quote

there have actually been five different major ways of understanding the Atonement throughout Christian history, substitutional atonement only being the most popular one right now.

Any responses?

[soma]

Our lives become productive and fulfilling in proportion to the love we exchange so for that reason alone we should learn to appreciate and to feel the greatness of love. Harmony comes when one feels one with all
things. DavidK your mantra is Progressive Christianity is wrong.......................What is your purpose to change progressive or to prove your right. I am here to learn, share, question and exchange ideas and concepts. We are not here to defend Progressive Christianity. We love Christ, but you seem to be at war with the word Progressive. I want to grow in the love of Christ and not get drawn into a war where I have to prove God is on my side and not on the other. I feel God loves us all. The concept of love is taught in the Bible as well as in other writings, but one does not learn how to love from reading, one only gains the spiritual inspiration to love. Love is progressive. It moves and grows as we learn from experience once again experiencing life directly. When someone doesn't know what progressive means, one should learn and not criticize what one does not know. When one knows what progressive means, one works to give people different, yet always acceptable, spiritual insight so their experience with Christ can deepen according to capabilities of their spiritual awakening.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Jul 26 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

The original question:
Any responses?

I am assuming there to be expectations to recieve, at the minimum, one. And not wanting to disappoint the writer, I shall respond thusly: I had relied upon the readers knowledge for it to be understood to mean: my original post, which caused so much consternation on this thread, in response to McKenna's query on progressive epistemology. I quoted it again as reference. If it were confusing to some, I'll continue to provide more detailed reasoning in the future upon request.

[davidk]

soma,

To be understood, I'll try and rephrase. The progressive philosophy has not articulated any epistemological support for the need of the Atonement via the particular crucifixtion of Jesus.

Proposing this concept is not any judgmental attempt to say progressive christianity is right or wrong. It is simply to bring to bare that the progressive christian has not articulated any necessity for Atonement.

If the progressive church can explain why man needs the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to pay for his sin. The floor is open.

But, if progressive christianity does not need the Atonement, so be it; and the loss of Atonement doctrine should be of no consequence for the progressives.

God's Grace,
Dk

This post has been edited by davidk: 26 July 2008 - 09:10 AM

[minsocal]

davidk,

Why do you continue to conflate "progressive philosophy" with progressive theology?

minsocal

[McKenna]

davidk, on Jul 26 2008, 10:08 AM, said:

soma,

To be understood, I'll try and rephrase. The progressive philosophy has not articulated any epistemological support for the need of the Atonement via the particular crucifixtion of Jesus.

Proposing this concept is not any judgmental attempt to say progressive christianity is right or wrong. It is simply to bring to bare that the progressive christian has not articulated any necessity for Atonement.

If the progressive church can explain why man needs the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to pay for his sin. The floor is open.

But, if progressive christianity does not need the Atonement, so be it; and the loss of Atonement doctrine should be of no consequence for the progressives.

God's Grace,
Dk

I don't disagree that this understanding of the Atonement - substitutionary atonement - is probably irrelevant to most Progressive Christians...but that's why I asked in the OP what other interpretations there could be (as minsocal just reminded us in post #44), as well as if there are "any interpretations...that would work within a Progressive Christian epistemological framework."

This link may have been offered already in this thread, I can't remember: http://en.wikipedia....in_Christianity

I am intrigued by this: "The third metaphor is that of healing, associated with Pierre Abélard in the eleventh century, and Paul Tillich in the twentieth. In this picture Jesus’ death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God’s love for us, and moved by this great act of love mankind responds and is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. This view is favoured by most liberal theologians as the moral influence view, and also forms the basis for Rene Girard’s “mimetic desire” theory (not to be confused with meme theory)." Perhaps this does not count as "atonement," exactly, but it does provide an explanation of Jesus' death that could fit into a Progressive Christian's theology. Thoughts, anyone? (Again, this may have already been discussed, and if so I apologize for the redundancy.)

[minsocal]

McKenna, on Jul 26 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

I don't disagree that this understanding of the Atonement - substitutionary atonement - is probably irrelevant to most Progressive Christians...but that's why I asked in the OP what other interpretations there could be (as minsocal just reminded us in post #44), as well as if there are "any interpretations...that would work within a Progressive Christian epistemological framework."

This link may have been offered already in this thread, I can't remember: http://en.wikipedia....in_Christianity

I am intrigued by this: "The third metaphor is that of healing, associated with Pierre Abélard in the eleventh century, and Paul Tillich in the twentieth. In this picture Jesus’ death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God’s love for us, and moved by this great act of love mankind responds and is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. This view is favoured by most liberal theologians as the moral influence view, and also forms the basis for Rene Girard’s “mimetic desire” theory (not to be confused with meme theory)." Perhaps this does not count as "atonement," exactly, but it does provide an explanation of Jesus' death that could fit into a Progressive Christian's theology. Thoughts, anyone? (Again, this may have already been discussed, and if so I apologize for the redundancy.)

McKenna,

This is the perspective I noted in Post # 3, and the same source. I chose this perspective for myself because it is linked with both A. N. Whitehead and the prophetic tradition often favored by progressives. While this is known as the "moral influence view", Whitehead (1929) turns the argument upside down when he comments that "love is a bit amoral" (sometimes unconditional). The concept of unconditional Love alters the entire discussion, as far as I am concerned.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 27 July 2008 - 04:53 PM

[McKenna]

minsocal, on Jul 27 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

McKenna,

This is the perspective I noted in Post # 3, and the same source. I chose this perspective for myself because it is linked with both A. N. Whitehead and the prophetic tradition often favored by progressives. While this is known as the "moral influence view", Whitehead (1929) turns the argument upside down when he comments that "love is a bit amoral" (sometimes unconditional). The concept of unconditional Love alters the entire discussion, as far as I am concerned.

minsocal

Yes, I thought you had brought this up earlier - sorry to be redundant!!

I think that I may agree with the idea that love is amoral, particularly unconditional love. In what way does this alter the entire discussion? I'm not disagreeing - in fact I think I agree - I'd just like further thoughts on the matter if you don't mind

Actually, I found that paragraph on Wikipedia a bit confusing. At first it says, "The third metaphor is that of healing...In this picture Jesus’ death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God’s love for us, and moved by this great act of love mankind responds and is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit." And then it talks about "moral influence," and if one follows the link to the specific page on this view, it says, "The moral influence view of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology that explains the effect of Jesus Christ's death as an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it." To me these sound almost like 2 different ideas; or perhaps it is just the word choices - "healing" vs. "moral influence" - that confuse me. Moral influence sounds more like "Jesus set a great example with his death"; healing sounds more like - well, in their own words - a "demonstration of the extent of God's love for us." Healing sounds like there is more of a divine influence, or theological ramifications at least; moral influence sounds like there could be philosophical or moral ramifications, but not necessarily theological ones, because it does not necessarily have anything to do with God, it is simply Jesus and a choice made by him which we should use as an example. Am I making any sense...?

At any rate, to get back to the thing about unconditional love, I think the "healing" version is a better illustration of God's unconditional love than moral influence (or in fact than any other theory of atonement, in my view, since for me substitutional atonement indicates a love that is not unconditional, but in fact is conditioned by that sacrifice which is deemed "necessary" - but I digress). So I personally prefer the healing idea, although of course Wikipedia does not make a distinction between the two so I could be off in my own little world here. But I cannot shake the idea that Jesus' death is a demonstration of God's love for us - not in a sacrificial way, but...I can't even explain it. This sense, this intuition if you will, simply gripped me when I was in the middle of Huston Smith's the Soul of Christianity - I think it struck me that somehow Jesus' death on the cross demonstrated not only God's complete and utter love for us - His sympathy for our suffering - but also His humility - except I can no longer remember exactly what train of thought led me to this conclusion. (Perhaps I should read the book again, maybe it will shake my memory )

Okay, so I'm babbling. But does anyone have similar thoughts? (Or completely opposing ones? )

[JosephM]

McKenna, on Jul 27 2008, 11:54 PM, said:

(snip)
Okay, so I'm babbling. But does anyone have similar thoughts? (Or completely opposing ones? )

Hi Mckenna,

I think your post was rather interesting. It seems to me to be more believable than orthodox teaching yet I do have a much different view for the following reason.

God's Love in my experience is not an act at some point in time. God's love is his essence and can only be known by identifying in that essence which is Love, (sort of a total and unconditional acceptance of all things). All of creation is a witness of that Love.

Thinking about Jesus death and believing that it was out of love and to forgive our sins for us indeed can remove barriers that causes an experience to be felt within us that is extremely powerful. We see giving up ones life here for another as an extreme act of love since we identify with life here so strongly. As we identify with that love for a moment our true nature which is eternally found in God surfaces and we have something many call 'a born again experience'. That is a powerful experience and in the case of the story of Jesus life and death has transformed many a life. Where can you find greater love than a friend substituting his life for you. If we were on a sinking boat and I told you God loved you and voluntarily jumped overboard to lighten the boat and save your life at the expense of mine you might experience the same thing. Many have been transformed by life saving events.

Having said that, by experiencing that, one might come to the conclusion that we are saved by that act. Yet I find that regardless of the story one is told through a Sacred document, (and there are many), that unconditional love is here and available at all times to experience and transform one whenever the barriers that prevent it are sufficiently removed whether it be temporary as a glimpse or more permanently as in a more permanent identity shift as the story of Jesus demonstrates he had.

By saying thus, I do not deny the transforming power to change ones life by belief in such a doctrine of atonement that exists, however, my experience show it merely a trigger of that which has, is, and will always be available with or without the story because God IS in this present moment. We are One and eternal regardless of beliefs which we identify with and the Truth of this takes on many stories yet most all point to the death of self so that our true identity in God might shine through.

Just an opposing view for you to consider.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

[minsocal]

McKenna,

My views on the healing motif are also intuitive and somewhat difficult to explain. Some of what I will present may sound a bit radical, but here goes. God's Love is unconditional and our own capacity for love seldom (if ever) achieves this state. We struggle not only to "love our enemy", but also in accepting God's unconditional Love. This accounts for a certain amount guilt as the gift of God's unconditional Love cannot be fully reciprocated (considering only God). But,

Quote

The moral theory teaches that atonement is not attained through a payment to Satan -- as in the Ransom Theory. It is not attained by a payment made to restore God's honor -- as in the Satisfaction Theory. God's justice might demand such a compensation. But God does not ask for it. Rather, his limitless love overrules his need for justice. Yeshua's life and death becomes an inspiration and an example for Christians to follow. The focus of the Atonement is not Satan or God as in these two previous theories. It is the individual Christian believer seeking wholeness [At * one * ment]. Yeshua's life and death are intended to inspire us. We are to be "willing to take up our crosses daily in the service of some good cause to mankind, and thus work out our own salvation."

Note the phrase "overrules his [God's] need for justice". What then is the intended role of "justice", "love", and "mercy"? Consider this well known passage from the Old Testament:

Quote

Micah 6:8
He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Note here that the object of "doing justice" and "loving kindness" is not God, but each other. Only the third phrase has to do with our relationship with God.

I believe we can become whole, but not perfect (in any universal sense). God seems to be saying "that's OK."

minsocal

[davidk]

minsocal, on Jul 26 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

davidk,

Why do you continue to conflate "progressive philosophy" with progressive theology?

minsocal

I use them interchangeably, because they ask the same questions and provide the same answers. Some here do not like the word theology', in which case I try to use 'philosophy'.

I especially liked the Micah quote and the accompanying comments.
---
McKenna,
The third metaphore is intriguing, if for nothing more than why would God want Jesus to be killed as a demonstration of the extent of His love for us? What is not clear is whether it meant Jesus death was just some social commentary, or if there was there any real eternal meaning to it?
---

[McKenna]

Thanks for your thoughts, JosephM and minsocal - I don't think I disagree with either of you...basically I don't know what I believe right now

davidk, on Jul 29 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

McKenna,
The third metaphore is intriguing, if for nothing more than why would God want Jesus to be killed as a demonstration of the extent of His love for us? What is not clear is whether it meant Jesus death was just some social commentary, or if there was there any real eternal meaning to it?

I don't think God "wanted Jesus to be killed as a demonstration of the extent of His love for us." It's harder to explain than that; it was a moment of intuitive realization, as I said, and thus I cannot explain it right now. I just thought I'd share and see if anyone had similar ideas. I'm young and I've barely begun to scratch the surface of Christianity; my theology is constantly shifting and evolving (and, I like to think, growing). So, I'm not trying to dodge your questions, I just don't have the answers yet! Valid questions, though. Thanks for keeping me on my toes

[billmc]

Another thought on the atonement is that Christ willingly chose to die rather than to see his followers slaughtered as rebels against Rome. In this scenario, the atonement is not substitutionary appeasement of God's wrath, but a willing sacrifice on the part of Jesus to prevent his followers from being killed as insurrectionists against Ceasar. Even the Jewish leaders recognized this when they said (paraphrased), "It is better that one man die than the Romans come and take our places." They knew that the more messiahs that arose that called for rebellion against Rome, the more Rome was likely to put their military foot down (as they did in AD70) and crush Israel.

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 5 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

Another thought on the atonement is that Christ willingly chose to die rather than to see his followers slaughtered as rebels against Rome. In this scenario, the atonement is not substitutionary appeasement of God's wrath, but a willing sacrifice on the part of Jesus to prevent his followers from being killed as insurrectionists against Ceasar. Even the Jewish leaders recognized this when they said (paraphrased), "It is better that one man die than the Romans come and take our places." They knew that the more messiahs that arose that called for rebellion against Rome, the more Rome was likely to put their military foot down (as they did in AD70) and crush Israel.

With all due respect, this does not appear to be a particularly new thought on the subject.
The Jewish leaders did say "better the one..." and it did apply to what could remotely have been considered a potential threat to Rome. However, Rome saw no threat in Jesus and gave him up to the will of the Jewish pharasaical establishment. "Kill him!" Because He made Himself to be God, but primarily this was felt to have been threatening their esteemed heirarchy. The pharasees looked finally for a political resolution to get rid of Him, used insurrection as an excuse, but instead got an authorization by Rome to "see to that yourselves." Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the behest of the Jews, not Rome.

I would just add that it seems your post doesn't appear in any way to provide any substance for the progressive to consider Atonement has having any eternal relevance. Nothing, in fact, has been added.
The traditional Christian perspective is the only one that does provide an explanation for the eternal relevance of Atonement.

[JosephM]

davidk said:

I would just add that it seems your post doesn't appear in any way to provide any substance for the progressive to consider Atonement has having any eternal relevance. Nothing, in fact, has been added.
The traditional Christian perspective is the only one that does provide an explanation for the eternal relevance of Atonement.

Davidk,

The historical writings of Josephus do seem to support wayfarer2k's idea by historical reference even though the new testament might suggest otherwise. His thoughts are as believable as any, depending on which source you allow to slant your beliefs. While I am neither expressing my agreement or disagreement with his post I think his dialogue is welcome, appropriate and adds to the topic for others that wish to consider other reasoning for the atonement.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

This post has been edited by JosephM: 07 August 2008 - 06:36 PM

[billmc]

Another perspective through which the atonement may be viewed is that the sacrifice was "a shared meal" between God and the Hebrews. They offered him their very best in sacrifice. In return, after the formal rites, the priests partook in eating the sacrifice. So sacrifice was not always considered to be a way to placate an angry God, but a way to share in fellowship, a way to embody reconciliation.

Perhaps this is why Paul claims that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. In Christ's death, he was offered to God. But in the outpouring of the Spirit, everyone was invited to share in the life of Christ.

Just another thought. I in no way claim infallibility or inerrancy. Ask my wife.

[billmc]

davidk, on Aug 7 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

The traditional Christian perspective is the only one that does provide an explanation for the eternal relevance of Atonement.

I think there are two major problems with the "traditional Christian perspective" of the Atonement, David. The first problem is what it implies about God. The second problem is that it distorts the Jewish understanding of atonement.

The first problem first: The traditional understanding of the atonement basically say that Jesus came to save us from God. It pits Jesus against God and says that without Jesus' blood, God could not forgive us and would be "forced" to destroy us. Claiming the well-known verse from the book of Hebrews, it says that God "could not" forgive sin with a blood sacrifice. Such a notion goes against many, many accounts in the bible whereby people simply repented or asked God to forgive them...and he did out of his mercy.

This traditional understanding also says that God cannot forgive out of his mercy. It says that Jesus has to "pay" God off in order to secure mercy and grace. Mercy and grace that is "paid for" is not mercy and grace. It is an exchange, a business transaction. Again, there are plenty of accounts in the bible of God having mercy and showing grace without demanding blood first.

You are correct that the traditional (non-Jewish) understanding of the atonement is a remedy to a problem, supposedly of "original sin". In this paradigm, Jesus is the rescuer of humanity. From who? From God. Jesus saves us from God's wrath. But such a notion is replete with illogical twists and turns. For instance, God doesn't accept Jesus' "payment for sin" until we ourselves permit him to do so by exercising our faith. And exactly HOW blood takes away sin is never explained. Nor it is ever explained how God punishing an innocent man (Jesus) for everyone else's sins is "justice". To put a blunt point on it, if God had to kill Jesus in order to love me, I don't want it. Love that has to be bought, even if it is by "Jesus' precious blood" is not worth much in my book.

For the second understanding, I'd recommend you research the Jewish holiday of Yom-kippur and see how the Israel's interpreted atonement.

There is another paradigm through which to view Jesus' death. But because the word "atonement" is loaded in our culture with the notion of how blood appeases an angry Greek deity, we may have to use other terms. The atonement itself is not a bad thing, but the Greek interpretation foisted upon it from early centuries has alot of harmful baggage that I think needs to be jettisoned.