Jump to content

Atonement


McKenna

Recommended Posts

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 :D

 

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 :lol: )

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply
(snip)

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

 

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:

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ;)

 

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! :lol: Valid questions, though. Thanks for keeping me on my toes ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k

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. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Good post, very welcome, very literate, but fraught with what I might consider a poorly discerned traditional position. That being said those issues would be better served in another thread, for this one is the progressive defense of an atonement that means something to those who have jettisoned the traditional Christian position of Jesus as the third person of the Trinity, original sin, and a need for Salvation. I think I could go on, but the point is made.

 

As far as the historical account is concerned, I have no reservations in considering that both the Pharisees and Rome saw a way to rid themselves of Jesus "threat" to their turf while still maintaining the split loyalties of the populace.

---

There seems to be a lot of difficulty in the progressive philosophiocal movement to explain the need of man for any atonement at all. It just seems to be endless debate on endless details, never reaching a concensus or defining any real need. If man does need an atonement, now you have something to talk about.

 

So, "the first problem first"; find out if there really is a need for an atonement.

Second; Once that is at rest, find out what sufficiently solves the problem, if you have one after the first problem is taken care of.

--

Do our wives know each other? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
So, "the first problem first"; find out if there really is a need for an atonement.

 

Hmm...I *think* I know what you are saying, David. Permit me a couple more thoughts. BTW, I don't speak for the entire progressive/liberal/emergent movement in Christianity. I speak only for myself..but I do consider myself to be progressive. One of the attractive things about progressive Christianity to me is that we don't have at official spokesMAN (like Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell for the fundies) to tell us what to think or what must be believed about a doctrine in order for us to be orthodox or "in". We rather enjoy thinking for ourselves and then sharing what we think with each other without judging who is in and who is out. So, as I'm sure you know, you will find a wide range of beliefs in PC.

 

Okay, now back to MY understanding of atonement. I was a conservative fundamentalist for 30 years. I have *some* idea of what *some* conservatives believe atonement to be. And the gist of it that I was taught and that I believed is this: without Jesus' blood, everyone would go to hell. That was the bottomline in the circles that I was in. The framework for that understanding is that every human is born into this world a sinner bound for hell if his/her sins are not somehow removed. Technically, sins cannot be forgiven by God, instead they must be "paid for" by blood, ultimately by the blood of Christ which was foreshadowed by OT sacrifices. Without this sacrifice to remove sins, sinners could never spend eternity with a holy God who cannot abide sin. Of course, Christians can't agree as to whose sins Jesus' blood took care of 2000 years ago. The Calvinist say that his blood is only effective for the elect, the very few chosen to be Christians before the foundations of the world. The Armenians believe that Jesus' payment is applied whenever anyone places their faith and trust in God. And the Universalists believe that Jesus' blood takes care of everybody, that Jesus truly was the lamb of God who took away the sins of the world.

 

All of these interpretations of the atonement, however, rest upon the notion that sin separates sinful man from a holy God and that Jesus' blood is the ONLY thing that can bridge the separation. This understanding of the atonement posits a problem that only the atonement can solve. The problem is, of course, the removal of sin from humans.

 

But, to my understanding, it is fraught with holes...plenty of them. Please see my next post which will explain why *I* don't believe that Jesus was a literal atonement and that his death was not absolutely necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k

My view of the problems with a literal understanding of the atonement:

 

1. Why can't God forgive sin instead of insisting that it be "paid for" by Jesus' blood? There are plenty of accounts in the bible where God forgives sin just because people ask or repent. The answer to this is certainly not "because he knew Jesus would pay the price". That is a stretch.

 

2. The "taking away of sin" in the OT was done, not by blood sacrifice, but by the "scapegoat" which symbolically had the sins of the Jews placed upon it and then, rather than being killed, was sent off into the wilderness. Why is Jesus, if he is the ultimate atonement, not called "the Goat of God"?

 

3. Exactly how does blood remove sin?

 

4. Does the removal of sin make one righteous? I think not. Nor more than a pardon of a thief makes that theif a philanthropist. Righteousness goes beyond making one "not guilty", it must extend to a person not just not committing evil, but doing good.

 

5. The atonement, if taken literally, negates all of Jesus' teachings about obeying him. It says, in a very "The Gospel for Dummies" Pauline manner, that as long as one believes in Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, that one is "saved" and one's security is assured. Jesus' own teaching on "the final judgment" had nothing to do with what people believed or didn't believe about his death and resurrection. He said that people would be judged according to their works. Paul (and most conservative Christians) would disagree, but that is what Jesus said.

 

6. The atonement, and I hate to put it this way but it needs to be said, makes God out to sanction child abuse. God the Father killed his own son because of a rule he made that he himself could not violate. God demanded Jesus' blood in order to be able to save humanity. No other way was possible to an omniscient, omnipotent Being except through blood sacrifice.

 

7. The current understanding of the atonement sanctions war and physical violence. It says that God's only way of dealing with violence in this world is to commit violence himself. Blood for blood. An eye for an eye. Yes, atonement pretends that it is grace by saying that Jesus "took our place", but it still portrays humanity as being God's enemies and the only way to deal with enemies is to kill them. Granted, Jesus was, supposedly, a substitute. But the principle still applies. Jesus became "God's enemy" on the cross because he took our sin, and God had no choice but to kill him. Forgiving him was not an option.

 

There's more that could be said, but that is enough for now. So, do *I* believe that atonement (as understood in popular Christianity "Jesus died for my sins") was absolutely necessary? No, I do not. In fact, as I have described above, it says some bad things about God and sanctions violence between him and humans and, therefore, between humans and humans. After all, if God cannot forgive sins without blood being shed, then we, as people who desire to be transformed into God's character through Jesus Christ, become people who cannot forgive without also demanding that blood be shed.

 

The atonement rest in an ancient belief that the gods could only be appeased or enlisted for help by human blood. Jesus' sacrifice, though seen by many in the NT, also paints a picture of the "final sacrifice". But not even Christians believe this. They still sing and talk as though Jesus' blood still flows, washing them clean of their sin. Though they are thankful for Jesus, it is because, they believe, that without Jesus God would send everyone to hell. In their theology, Jesus saves humans from God. God is an angry deity who has a "woodshed" that he MUST resort to. Someone is going to get it, either Jesus or us. Supposedly, Jesus "got it" at the cross but there will be myriads more who go to an "eternal woodshed".

 

What a horrendous doctrine! It is no wonder the world thinks that there is no "good news" in Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Wayfarer2k

 

Your point about God simply forgiving people in the Bible simply because they repented brings to mind the people of Ninevah in the book of Jonah. After Jonah's sojourn in the great fish he preaches to them and they all repent , even the King.

 

"Then God saw their works,that they turned from their evil way:And God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." (Jonah ch 3 vers 10) NKJV

 

The odd thing is that Jonah was angry that God changed his mind , and did not destroy the city.

 

 

MOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
The odd thing is that Jonah was angry that God changed his mind , and did not destroy the city.

 

Good point, MOW. And no one had to have their blood shed in order for God to forgive.

 

The major problem that I have with the atonement is that it says that the only way God can make things right between himself and humans is for someone to die. Or, to put it another way, the only way God can deal with those different from himself is to kill them (or somebody in their place). Someone once said that we become like the kind of God we worship. So, IMO, atonement theology leads to barriers and even violence between humans. After all, during the Middle Ages the Church did not hesitate to kill those whom they thought didn't measure up to their interpretations of Jesus and faith. And, in a way, this is very similar to the fundamentalist preaching that if you don't believe in a certain creed or confession, God will eternally "kill" you. So what we believe about the atonement is not just about Jesus and the cross, it reflects our view of God and what he intends for humanity.

 

I would rather see Jesus' death as proof that "God" would rather die himself than strike back in violence at his enemies. After all, it is written that from the cross, he said, "Father, forgive them." We could probably debate who Jesus was talking about. But his plea is certainly different from "Father, destroy them" as, perhaps, Jonah would have desired.

 

Another poster in this thread whom, of course, is entitled to his own opinion about this important subject asked if progressive Christians valued the "traditional" understanding of atonement. As I told him, I don't speak for anyone but myself. But one of the very reasons that I am "progressive" is because, not only did the "traditional" understanding of atonement not make much sense, but I think it is a doctrine of the Church that must be let go as a primitive, punitive understanding of God. There is still PLENTY of room to talk about Jesus' death, what it means, what it accomplished, what it says about him, us, and God. But Christianity, IMO, must get away from the portrait of a blood-thirsty deity if it is going to survive as a faith in the coming centuries. No modern people (except for a few rare exceptions) believe in human or blood sacrifice as a means of solving problems. I would not punish one of my children in the place of another. But Christianity has had this belief at the center of it's gospel for far too long.

 

One other small point and then I'll drop my part in this discussion. If the death of Jesus is the be-all and end-all of the gospel, then why did Jesus' disciples refuse to believe it when he told them he was going to die???

 

If Jesus' "atonement" was the centerpiece of human history, then Jesus' own disciples, when he mentioned his impending death, should have replied, "Yes, Lord, we know you will die. This was always God's plan and we are well aware that God has never forgiven any sin because the price has not been paid. So, Lord, the Father be with you as you go to Calvary. Without your death, God is powerless to save us. Go with our blessing and thanks."

 

No such encouragement came from the disciples. In fact, they rebuked Jesus for talking about his death. It's very possible that their understanding of messiah's role never incorporated his death. If anything, this should tell us that, as humans, we tend to see in Jesus what we want to see or what we think we need the most. If we think we need a payment for our sins, we see him as that payment. If we think we need a teacher, we see him as a teacher. If we need a "heavenly elevator", we see him as that. Where I think the fundamentalist go astray is painting Jesus as nothing MORE than a sacrifice for sins. They will seldom see him as anything else or as anything more. For some fundies, you could rip the gospels out of the bible and as long as they have Jesus' death and resurrection, that is all they need. But he is more...so much more. They are at a life-giving smorgasbord and confining themselves to only one dish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more "traditional" understanding of atonement should be respected. I would expect the same for progressive views. Many progressive do not emphasize doctrine, choosing instead to study and understand the inherent wisdom found in the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

McKenna raised the question as to how atonement might fit within a progressive epistomology. I will assume, for the moment, that a progressive epistomology includes the Bible, but does not hold to literalism. The next assumption is that we are not perfect, nor were we created perfect. This assumption upsets many people, but I find it reasonable. This simply means that the "fall" of humankind was not really a "fall", but a step forward in the evolution of consciousness that allowed the examination of abstract concepts such as "self responsibility". This was a remarkable change. Imagine being among the first people to recognize that they were responsible for (at least) some of their own actions. Not moved by God. Not moved by animated spirits. Themselves. Now re-consider the literal Creation story.

 

(more to follow)

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
The more "traditional" understanding of atonement should be respected. I would expect the same for progressive views. Many progressive do not emphasize doctrine, choosing instead to study and understand the inherent wisdom found in the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

McKenna raised the question as to how atonement might fit within a progressive epistomology. I will assume, for the moment, that a progressive epistomology includes the Bible, but does not hold to literalism. The next assumption is that we are not perfect, nor were we created perfect. This assumption upsets many people, but I find it reasonable. This simply means that the "fall" of humankind was not really a "fall", but a step forward in the evolution of consciousness that allowed the examination of abstract concepts such as "self responsibility". This was a remarkable change. Imagine being among the first people to recognize that they were responsible for (at least) some of their own actions. Not moved by God. Not moved by animated spirits. Themselves. Now re-consider the literal Creation story.

 

(more to follow)

 

minsocal

 

Good thoughts. I've been waiting for more! :blink:

 

In the meantime, I think you bring out a good point that has alot of relevance to this conversation: creation is not finished. Despite what the bible might literally say, it is generally believed by most people that we and our universe is evolving. Nothing is static and fixed. Plants and animals continue to change in response to their environment. Galaxies continue to fly away from each other as the universe expands. Stars are still being born in nebulae.

 

If this is true, then there was never a literal time when God rubbed his hands together and said, "Ahh, all done! Perfecto!" Atonement theology rests primarily on the notion that there must be a way for God to get us and our world back to the Garden, back to perfection. Jesus' death somehow does that for those who believe in him. But I don't know any Christians who are morally perfect or who live in Eden, despite the atonement. So, for me, the atonement is a "cure" for a problem that never really existed. I still find alot of meaning and love in Jesus' death, I just don't see it as a means of restoring perfection to humanity or to our world.

 

Post some more, please. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just an observation, but with near unanimous consent there does not seem to be anyone able to uncover a sufficient reason ( "... problem that never really existed", and "... an idea that I do not accept.") for an Atonement. If that is truly the case, then any subsequent detail of what an Atonement may consist of, whether it's blood, coin, repentence, Jewish or otherwise, would just be beating the air.

 

In other words, I agree that if we are normal beings created imperfectly, why would there be any need for an atonement, or even repentence for that matter? Why should we have to repent or atone for being normal? That wouldn't make any sense for us to have to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
Why should we have to repent or atone for being normal? That wouldn't make any sense for us to have to do that.

 

To a large extent, I agree, David. The doctrine of atonement, I believe, tries to fix a problem that doesn't exist. It tries to fix the problem of how sinful humans can be in the presence of a holy God. According to pop Christianity, the whole reason that Jesus died was to take care of the sin issue between God and man so that man, after he dies, can go to be with God.

 

But I still think that this is a false premise. Please try to hear me out on this. Yes, there are certain scriptures that say that God cannot abide sin, that sin cannot be in his presence, etc. But are we to take this literally?

 

In the first place, God is said to be omnipresent, every present in our universe. This means that God is ALSO wherever sin is. If God is omnipresent and fills the universe, then there is no place where he is not, including places that have sin.

 

In the second place, one thing that traditional Christianity claims is that Jesus was God, God incarnate, God in the flesh. Again, if this is true, then God, in Jesus, had absolutely NO problem being around sin and sinners. In fact, he was called "a friend of sinners" and seemed to prefer being with them over the religious of his day.

 

So I think there is a major problem with interpreting the atonement as fixing "the sin problem" between God and man. Even after "the fall", God still continued to talk to Adam and to provide for him. There was no "barrier" that immediately went up between God and Adam after Adam sinned. There was misunderstanding, of course, but Adam did not spontaneously combust when God showed up in the cool of the day to walk with the now-sinful Adam.

 

All of this aside though, I still think the notion of original sin is outdated and non-sensical. As humans, we are incomplete, immature. There is no denying that. But, as a father, I would never punish my children for being immature or incomplete. Rather, I encourage them to grow and mature.

 

A small side note: My wife and I lost two children to miscarriage a number of years ago and a couple of "Bible-believing" Christians used the scriptures to prove to us that because our children were "concieved in sin" and had fallen, sinful natures for which they never exercised faith in Christ to have eliminated, our unborn infants were burning in hell. This is the kind of crap that Christians preach when they believe in doctrines like "original sin" and the necessity of the atonement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a remarkable change. Imagine being among the first people to recognize that they were responsible for (at least) some of their own actions. Not moved by God. Not moved by animated spirits. Themselves.

minsocal

 

I see what you have written as one of the keys to understanding what Jesus taught, and what our relationship with God is meant to be.

 

Personal responsibility for the choices one has control over (particularly one's emotional choices in any given situation) takes you closer to God. This way of relating to God requires that you pay attention at all times to what you are thinking and feeling, and especially to what you are choosing. There are no ready-made excuses for one's poorly chosen actions on this path. There is no room for the Devil. There is no room for Original Sin. There is no place for Atonement. There is only you and God, up close and personal. There is only you looking God in the eye and saying, "God, I messed up. I will not blame anyone else for the mistake I just made. Please forgive me, and please help me forgive myself."

 

The "silver lining" here is that gradually one learns not to take personal responsibility for the mistakes that other people have made. That's between them and God.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small side note: My wife and I lost two children to miscarriage a number of years ago and a couple of "Bible-believing" Christians used the scriptures to prove to us that because our children were "concieved in sin" and had fallen, sinful natures for which they never exercised faith in Christ to have eliminated, our unborn infants were burning in hell. This is the kind of crap that Christians preach when they believe in doctrines like "original sin" and the necessity of the atonement.

 

My God, Wayfarer, your small side note, which is not really a small side note, but a huge wake-up call to others, is truly awful. My heart goes out to you. I am a bereaved mother (I lost my younger son to cancer when he was 3) and I know that the pain of the loss and the love for your children fill your heart always.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
My heart goes out to you. I am a bereaved mother (I lost my younger son to cancer when he was 3) and I know that the pain of the loss and the love for your children fill your heart always.

Jen

 

My heart aches for you, too, Jen. I'm not into comparing one person's pain to another, but we never got to see and hold the little ones we lost, whereas you beheld your son's face and held him in your arms. I know of no other pain worse in this world than losing one's children. For me, it made me really question how good God was and how sovereign he was/is in this world.

 

But when the very real sense of loss is intensified by religious morons who can "biblically" prove that God tortures children in hell, that kind of Christianity (and that intepretation of God) needs to die. Jesus never once threatened children with hell. In fact, he used them as a "blueprint" for those in God's kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small side note: My wife and I lost two children to miscarriage a number of years ago and a couple of "Bible-believing" Christians used the scriptures to prove to us that because our children were "concieved in sin" and had fallen, sinful natures for which they never exercised faith in Christ to have eliminated, our unborn infants were burning in hell. This is the kind of crap that Christians preach when they believe in doctrines like "original sin" and the necessity of the atonement.

 

My God, Wayfarer, your small side note, which is not really a small side note, but a huge wake-up call to others, is truly awful. My heart goes out to you. I am a bereaved mother (I lost my younger son to cancer when he was 3) and I know that the pain of the loss and the love for your children fill your heart always.

 

Jen

 

My heart goes out to both of you. I cannot possibly imagine the pain of losing a child...God. I am so, so sorry. I really want to give you both a hug right now...

 

And Wayfarer, if God is so completely detestable that he would burn unborn children for eternity, then I will happily burn right alongside them. Such a deity would not be anywhere near worthy of worship IMO. I am so sorry that, instead of comforting you in your time of need, some "Christians" chose to be so insensitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just an observation, but with near unanimous consent there does not seem to be anyone able to uncover a sufficient reason ( "... problem that never really existed", and "... an idea that I do not accept.") for an Atonement. If that is truly the case, then any subsequent detail of what an Atonement may consist of, whether it's blood, coin, repentence, Jewish or otherwise, would just be beating the air.

 

In other words, I agree that if we are normal beings created imperfectly, why would there be any need for an atonement, or even repentence for that matter? Why should we have to repent or atone for being normal? That wouldn't make any sense for us to have to do that.

 

Perhaps - and this is not necessarily my opinion, I don't know at the moment - but perhaps it is not God who needs the atonement, but us. In other words perhaps there is no objective need for an atonement - we will be with God eventually anyway, because His Grace overrides any "holiness" that makes Him unable to be near sin (and I do agree with Wayfarer's questioning of this idea) - but rather a subjective, psychological one. Humans may be so guilt-ridden when they think of God that they cannot believe His Grace could cover even them - and so either God sent Jesus to be a demonstration of this Grace, or humans invented the atonement to deal with this psychological need, or something.

 

Meh, just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service