DCJ

I must admit that I'm not very familiar with Anselm's work; I get my ideas about the Atonement from the clear teaching of the New Testament and related commentaries. Referring to Jesus' death on the cross as merely a "human sacrifice" loses the crucial fact that Jesus was fully God as well (as He attested to). Thus, it was God (in the person of the Son) who took on the burden of sin, as only He could do, since the infinite offense of sin by man required a God/Man redeemer. And I don't say that Christ died for "everyone," since this would mean that everyone is saved. But clearly not everyone will be saved. Some Arminians use this kind of language because they believe Christ's atonement made it possible for everyone to be saved. Calvinists would say that Christ died for the elect. Regardless of which side of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate you fall on, Christ only died for those who would come to him. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I think a cursory glance at the Bible would've answered most of the author's points; nevertheless, I will give it a try... Congratulations! The author has just discovered the Gospel, the Good News which says Jesus bore the punishment that was due us sinners. Though I must admit that I chuckled when the author referred to the crux of the Greatest Story Ever Told with the anti-climactic "unethical procedure." Science is being used out-of-bounds here; science can only tell us that the second law of thermodynamics happens, not why it happens. Science can no more explain the reality of heaven and life after death than it can the reality of the soul. And of course Adam was a real person, as Jesus Himself referred to passages in Genesis dealing with Adam. Because such a god would not be good. A judge that simply winks at sin is not righteous but actually furthers evil. Thankfully the God of the Bible is just: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty." The earliest manuscript evidence we have has Jesus saying the same things he says in our current Bibles (with a few caveats such as the end of Mark.) There is no evidence of the "church" committing a mass-rewrite of the early manuscripts. The author's skepticism would be more appropriately directed at late manuscripts such as the Gospel of Thomas. We can't "prove" the author's unorthodox position either. What is his faith in? Evangelicals certainly live by faith, faith that God's revelation is reliable, which says: "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

I'd say that a post-birth child is much more taxing on a woman's "life, liberty, and happiness." It's much more of a burden to raise and care for a child rather than carry it in your body. In both cases the child is attached to the mother: one physically, and one via responsibility. In such cases I'd bring back the long-forgotten tactics of shame and censure by the community to curb immoral but legal behavior. Our mentality today says that behavior that is immoral but not illegal should be tolerated and in some cases celebrated. Maybe we should shift the debate from "rights" language to talking about duty and responsibility (do I have the right to do something vs. is that something right). Similar to what I was saying above about there being no middle ground between legal and illegal. If we start talking about the duties and responsibilities mothers have toward their children, that could open up a whole new dialog. (Plus, saying it's "wrong from a moral point of view ... but not illegal" would not have resolved the many injustices in our nation's history.)

Or, should the other side's beliefs be imposed by judicial fiat.

Not at all, they just may be missing out on one of God's greatest blessings. Thankfully, those who cannot have children can sometimes adopt. I understand... however, marriage isn't always about our desires. Some marriages are arranged. I may want to marry a married woman or three women, but I can't. The parameters are very strict: a man and a woman are united to form the cornerstone of a family and possibly raise children. I know this answer is probably unsatisfying. I guess we should refer back to Genesis to see that's God's plan is for a man to be united to his wife for the said fruitfulness. Men and women forming families and producing children are the building blocks of civilization, which is why the state has an interest in preserving this unique arrangement. Allowing for certain unfortunate circumstances (like divorce), the Bible and biology tell us that a mother and father are crucial ingredients for producing and raising children. Again, I apologize if this is unsatisfying, and I don't want to offend. Just because society had a wrong prejudice then, doesn't mean that we suffer from the same irrationality now. The circumstances are different. There is no difference between white/black or Protestant/Catholic when it comes to marriage. Ethnicity and religion have no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, is fundamental to marriage, because marriage has always been about a man and a woman. But why discriminate against polygamists?

I appreciate your viewpoint, curlytop, but it's impossible for the courts to be neutral in this case. By ruling that the unborn do not deserve protection, the courts have imposed one group's beliefs on another group, namely, the unborn. Allowing people to "act on their own beliefs" implicitly states that one group's desires trumps all else. Which is fine if the unborn really aren't deserving of protection, but disastrous if they are.

I agree that God will illuminate the Scriptures for us to understand, but it's very difficult to say with any authority that "Sometimes they were wrong, and sometimes they were right on the money" based mostly on that subjective conviction. There are other methods we can use to determine the meaning and truth of the Bible, such as hermeneutics and textual criticism, like we would use on any literary work. The danger in relying on subjectivism alone is that we tend to let our prejudices slip in.

But then you're faced with the dilemma that you alluded to concerning premature birth: why is a premature baby entitled protection, but an unborn baby of the same age not? The only difference is location and the use of the lungs, which shouldn't be factors determining personhood (watch out all you iron lung users). Scott Peterson is facing one side of this argument: he's being charged for the murder of a fetus still in the womb. How can you murder something that doesn't have legal protection? The courts aren't infallible, just ask Dred Scott. Just like in his case, more clear thinking can be applied to this issue.

Actually, I referenced that passage in another thread when I pointed out that Jesus affirmed the sacred union between a man and a woman. I agree... and this should be done, as you pointed out later, in order to preserve the integrity of the family (which includes children). Because "they are no longer two but one flesh". Far from trying to trivialize the marriage institution, my purpose was to show what its ultimate purpose is according to God, which is given a few verses before the "one flesh" line: "be fruitful and multiply". Even though having a life-partner is a blessing, it does come back to children.

I too believe the Bible was a divine-human creation, but I don't think that automatically qualifies it as flawed. I believe, as the Bible itself states, that the Bible was inspired by God ("God-breathed"), and the authors wrote under this inspiration. An argument can be made for this by looking at the manuscript evidence, the archaeological evidence, and the fulfilled prophecies. If we assume a priori that God's revelation is flawed, I think we have a real problem discerning what the truth is as well as how to get right with God.

ArmadilloUCC, I understand your frustration... Allow me to try to offer an explanation: It seems we need to go back and determine what the ultimate purpose of marriage is. It's not merely to unite two people (gay or straight) that love each other... What would be the point in keeping two people together if things didn't work out? Marriage is concerned primarily with children. The primary reason to keep two people together, to keep the family intact, is to preserve the home for their children. Since it takes a man and a woman to create a child, it stands to reason that a father and a mother is the best possible basic unit for raising children. If you define marriage in terms of an adult relationship, you're implicitly saying that any adult arrangement (polygamists don't want to be discriminated against either) is equally sufficient for raising children, and this is clearly not the case, as I demonstrated above. Hope that helps...

Absolutely, all people have infinite worth since they were created in the image of God. The Church should not be discriminating against individuals, since the Church is a community of sinners who have themselves been forgiven. However, a distinction should be made between the individual and their behavior, and I wouldn't classify sexual orientation as an "irrelevant factor". Not because evangelicals are bigots or homophobes, but because of the clear teaching of Scripture: Paul made several references to the subject, and Jesus Himself affirmed the sacred union of a man and a woman when he quoted Genesis concerning Adam and Eve.

Actually, I'm not. I was interested in how valid my arguments are as well as a friendly exchange of ideas. I figured the Debate/Dialog board was a safe place to post. While I don't really find anything objectionable, I don't think your explanation fully deals with the problem of sin. It seems to me that there is a real disease (sin) that needs a cure (forgiveness), and only a real atonement can accomplish that. I'd probably agree with one of the reviewers in saying that the author should spend more time being faithful to the Scriptures, which is our objective revelation from God, than appeasing a certain feminist/race/liberal viewpoint.

If the unborn is a human person, doesn't the government have a duty to protect that life? Biologically, we know that the conceptus is alive, and we know that it has the DNA to classify it as human (human offspring is always human). Hence, it's a living human. This should be central to the debate, IMO.

Not by the Israelites, that's correct. But they didn't make the sacrifice in this case. Sacrificing animals could never be sufficient for atonement in the ultimate sense for man's sins, so God Himself had to provide the sacrifice.

Just because someone abuses the institution, doesn't mean the institution doesn't exist. The fact that you pointed out Ms. Spears' shenanigans shows that there is indeed a bright center to marriage that she is farthest from, to use Star Wars parlance. Couldn't have said it better myself...

Sorry for the confusion... I did not mean to say merely that they believed Jesus' death on the cross was real, but that what His death meant (namely, an atonement for sin) was a reality, not just a "reality for them". This was not simply a result of post-death speculation on their part... Christianity probably would've died with Jesus if that was the end of it. It was the claimed bodily resurrection appearances that enabled them to, as you stated, live and die by that belief. It was those appearances that transformed Jesus' demoralized disciples into powerful propagators of the Gospel; and Saul, a persecutor of Christians, into Paul, the greatest champion of the Christian faith.

They certainly had a subjective response to the events that they had witnessed: they were glad. That doesn't detract from the fact that they believed an historical reality had taken place, not something that they had to give meaning to. True, but as you pointed out later, Jesus was considered the Lamb of God. John the Baptist stated that when he first saw Jesus: "Behold, the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world." Yes, the people were performing outward rituals to God but were not giving their hearts to the Lord, which is what He really wanted, which is what the sacrifices were meant to instill in His people. Moreover, the sacrifices were never redemptive in and of themselves, but depended on and pointed to the future "one sacrifice". (Also, it was probably impossible to perform the sacrificial rituals while in captivity, since they did not have access to the temple, etc.)

Yes, but he only accepted the humble and those who knew that they needed redemption. He criticized the self-righteousness of the religious leaders. You mentioned the prostitute... When Jesus saved her from being stoned to death, He did not say, "I affirm your sexual promiscuity." He said, "Go, and sin no more." He did not turn a blind eye to sin, but accepted sinners who knew that they needed forgiveness.

For me, the meaning of the cross is best expressed by others: For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:19-20 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. Romans 3:25 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:27-28 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 1 John 4:9-11 Clearly, any subjective meaning we see in the cross is vastly overshadowed by the objective act accomplished there.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=6704292