This is from this Pit thread and is obviously a snarky attempt at summing up the atonement. Frylock stated that it was not just snarky, but incorrect. I would like to be educated about how it misses the mark (while acknowledging that it is definitely snarky and not a generous way of stating it).
So, how does it fail?
I don’t think you’re going to get an answer, because it’s true. IANAC BTW.
It “fails” by not giving a fundamentally ridiculous idea respect it doesn’t deserve. Everyone is supposed to refrain from pointing out how silly a religious belief is and pretend it’s perfectly reasonable. As long as the religion in question is widespread and powerful, that is; making fun of, say, Mormons and Scientologists is OK even though their beliefs aren’t any sillier.
It fails because it is rooted in ignorance.
There are basically three mainstream Chrisitan interpetationsof atonement. The view held by many Christians today is the moral influence view. The atonement is seen as an act of love, rather than a sacrifice. Also, and perhaps more imporantly, no “rules” were changed. Jesus *fulfilled *the laws and the prophecies. He did not nullify or change them. He simply taught that love is at the roof of all of God’s laws. In fact, He often cited scripture (what we would call Old Testament scripture) in His ministry.
So that’s why it fails. It is ignorant about modern interpretations of atonement, and it makes a false claim about changing “a rule”.
It fails by completely misrepresenting the Christian understanding and theology of atonement. Christians do not assert that God “had a child”. They do not assert that the Sop is “really” the Father; in fact they insist that they are distinct persons. They do not assert that God sacrificed his child to himself. They do not assert that the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice was to “change a rule”.
The atonement is quite an easy concept to attack. It doesn’t reflect well on the framer of this piece that he wasn’t up to the task, and had to make up his own concept to attack instead.
That’s not the most common view in Christianity, though, is it? Isn’t the common view this one:
Swapping from sacrifice to love still doesn’t make any difference so far as the statement is concerned. Whether he sacrifices himself to himself or makes love to himself, neither one serves any particular purpose–presuming that Jesus’ purpose was to teach mankind the correct teachings. It’s non-obvious what purpose getting pulled in for being a cultist and rabble-rowser and executed for it is supposed to teach as a moral lesson, except perhaps to not be a cultist and rabble-rowser. That just doesn’t seem like a moral lesson requiring that level of theatrics.
Well that doesn’t make any more sense. If my wife were to say to me that she intends to get herself arrested and executed because she loves me so so much, I’d get her help, because, well, it makes no sense.
I agree with you that this part of the OP was worded wrong. God sacrificed himself, to himself, in order to obey rules that he himself made.
"REDEMPTION, n.
Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sin, through their murder of the deity against whom they sinned. The doctrine of Redemption is the fundamental mystery of our holy religion, and whoso believeth in it shall not perish, but have everlasting life in which to try to understand it.
We must awake Man's spirit from his sin,
And take some special measure for redeeming it;
Though hard indeed the task to get it in
Among the angels any way but teaming it,
Or purify it otherwise than steaming it.
I'm awkward at Redemption -- a beginner:
My method is to crucify the sinner.
Golgo Brone"
– Ambrose Bierce
Well let’s try to break it down…
Looks pretty correct to me. UDS says “Christians do not assert that God “had a child”” but this seems more a choice of using more delicate language than a problem of accuracy. Mary had a son, he was the son of God => God had a child.
Yup, “Godhead three in one” and all that.
You might quibble “had” and prefer “chose” instead, but apart from that… unless you’re saying an omnipotent dude couldn’t beat the Roman empire if he wanted to.
Not clear on this one. Presumably goes back to Garden of Eden and Original Sin and that. How does the parody say the rule was changed? Can anyone clarify?
I agree that the assertion is that the atonement was to follow the rule (the wages of Sin is Death), not change it.
Most Christians do assert that Jesus was the Son of God. It’s difficult to not have it follow that God had a child…
Christian theology holds simultaneous positions that the Godhead is both three persons and the same being. Three-in-one; trinity; and all that.
Whether that is self-contradictory or just a marvelous mystery is, of course, an argument of the ages the resolution of which probably depends on your faith.
Basically, the statement is a snarky bit of ignorance, whicn revels in its complete non-understanding. Der Trihs is certainly… a fine example of this particular attitude. He hates and fears what he doesn’t understand. He once believed he would be in a Christianist Concentration Camp for atheists for the last decade was out.
I’ll ignore the first part, since at least it betrays a only a completely inadequate understanding fo something which really is hard for humanis to wrap their tiny minds around.
The second is a lot more complex, and therefore much more easily comprehended. It’ salways the simplest things which are hardest to understand.
One option: Jesus volunteered to pay the price for humanity, since it was so heavy we couldn’t ever make good on the debt. This has the advantages of being very easy to understnd, even if it is not very satisfying intellectually. This is usually the “kid’s” version of Christianity, and many Christians never bother to educate themselves on other concepts. Thus, they remain childish in spite and reject Christianity because it’s not “adult” enough.
Another option: God is seen as being perfectly just as part as perfectly good. As such, He can’t simply “let humans off” a bit. Moreover, even if He wanted to (which he definitely doesn’t, as it would be unjust) He can’t just ignore that evil. It will have to be dealt with one way or another. Therefore, He became Jesus (whom He is always becoming and who goes before the Father) and as a man took the punishment we had earned and took our sins upon Himself.
A third option: Humanity, in rejecting God and trying to find other hapiness, had tainted itself beyond direct salvation. God might fix this by force, but only by a sort of spiritual rape which He would never even consider. But He always wins in the end, and by becoming Jesus change the fundamental nature of humanity. We are now His adopted Sons and Daughters. We are called to dress up as Christ and become not merely lowly humans, but Kings and Queens over all Creation.
Christians ultimately disagree on exactly why it worked or what Jesus did. We agree that it did work, and gave all of mankind possibilities undreamt of before then. What those are, we are still figuring out. We shall doubtless never figure it out totally within this life.
I often wondered about the logic of it when I had to go to a (fundamentalist) church as a kid.
God so loved the world that instead of torturing everyone (like we deserve) he’s going to torture himself. And if you BELIEVE that, then you don’t get tortured! If you’ve never heard of it or think it’s crazy, then torture for you!
They (Christians) change it by saying that “it’s not God’s choice” that people get tortured. That’s THEIR (free will) decision. He can’t make that decision for them. Just like he told Adam not to bite the apple but he did it anyway. But who made this torture system in the first place? They act like it’s a global rule that if you’re not perfect and have sinned that you need to be tortured. Didn’t god make this rule in the first place?
What really made me leave the church as a teenager was the mind control aspect of it. Most people will say "OK, hell is for ‘sinners’, but I haven’t killed/robbed/raped or even cheated anyone and try to be a good all around person’. Xtians in my church would respond to this by saying that ‘all sins are the same’…that getting mad at someone is a sin for example…or lusting after the opposite sex (pretty common for a 15 year old)…so if you have done any of that, it is the same as murdering someone (yes they said this), and thus YOU DESERVE hell.
God can read your mind, you MUST have had some impure thoughts. Thus you deserve hell unless you get on your knees to Jesus now. Total mind control Orwell style. Kim Jong Il probably doesn’t do it that well. Self-flaggelation and self contempt is what the religion breeds.
Back to the OP, so God set up a system whereby people deserve torture for pretty much anything and everything. “It’s in man’s DNA to sin! He inherited it from ADAM! is what I’ve heard them say”. Then he decides that since he’s such a good guy, HE’LL torture HIMSELF so that WE DON’T HAVE TO BE TORTURED!
That’s pretty much the OP and I don’t see how the logic is wrong there. Is there some universal law that is above God that requries humans to be tortured in eternity? And he, God, stood up to that and satisfied it by offering himself? That’s what it seems to be saying. But what is above God? I thought he created the whole ball of wax?
Otherwise it’s like a serial killer comes to you and is about to kill you and then lovingly kills himself instead. What a guy!
I’m going to take a stab at this even though some of my views aren’t mainstream.
I don’t personally believe in the trinity, but I do feel like I have as good of an understanding of it as anyone else in that, plainly put, no one really understands exactly what that nature means. So this, to me, just seems like a snarky way of describing the trinity.
There’s a few things that are important to keep in mind here. We are taught that the wages of sin is death; this is why a sacrifice is required for our sins. We are also taught that God is just; it would be against the concept of justice to simply, as smiling bandit put it, “let us off” for our sins.
Hence, the law has not been changed at all. Instead, Jesus’s crucifixion fufills the death requirement portion of the law.
And even for those who don’t share my specific beliefs, most with whom I’ve conversed on this topic have expressed some similar concept of fulfillment of the law and not changing of the law. I have heard some refer to superceding instead of fulfillment, but I didn’t understand the argument well enough to feel comfortable trying to explain it here.
So to answer the OP, I think it is a snarky and ignorant representation.
That’s because you are skipping out the part where you committed the crime, and she’s taking the punishment so that you don’t have too.
Fulfills it going backwards and coming forward. In other words, it’s no longer the extant penalty. That looks like a change to me.
This is very much on target. Even on Der Trihs’s position, it is very much a red herring to attack someone’s views by claiming the stupidity of a view that they do not hold.
No.
Simple things are simple. That’s what the word means: easy…obvious…clear…
Self-contradictory, oddball things are “hard to understand” if, by “understanding” you mean they need to make simple, common sense.
It is a common practice in all faiths to declare that their concepts are simple, but then revert to words like “mystery” and “hard to understand” when the simple conclusion belies their unsupportable assertion that the concept is, in fact, “simple.”
I’m not debating the theology, per se, but I do get peeved when I see absolutely self-contradictory statements such as “It’s always the simplest things which are hardest to understand” presented as if that were an explanation.
Good question. And I’m not sure it admits of an answer. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement view is the one held by the most vocal (and obnoxious) of Christian apologists. And it appears to be the one held by denominations comprising the majority of professed Christians.
But whether it is the view subscribed to by a majority, or even a plurality, of all those who claim to be Christian? The folks who never go to church but who believe in God in some nebulous way who call themselves Christians? I dunno. And I don’t think anyone else does either.
You’re saying that they don’t say that, and yet when I was a Catholic I would have seen the sentence as snarky and meanspirited but accurate.