# Christians, will you explain how this parody comment misses the mark? (regarding the atonement) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389 "2009-07-27T03:16:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bri1600bv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@bri1600bv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bri1600bv)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/41 "2009-07-27T19:47:17Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I don’t want to get too far off-topic here, but I think there’s an important point to be made here. That is, I don’t think the nature of God is relevant to salvation and, really, it’s the sort of thing that theologians and monks spend their time trying to understand. In fact, as I stated above, I don’t believe in the trinity, but I do believe that the nature of God is a little bit more complex than either he’s multiple gods or he’s one god. > > I also think that, as we’ve been discussing, “he sacrificed himself to himself to undo something he did a long time before that” isn’t a fair representation because, to my knowledge no Christian, even one who doesn’t believe in the trinity, believes that he sacrificed himself to himself or that it was to undo something. Jesus’s crucifixion wasn’t a sacrifice to himself, nor was it a sacrifice to the “other god”; it was an atonement for the sins of man. So, really, I don’t see how his nature as one god, multiple gods, or as a trinity is even relevant. Well if you don’t believe in the trinity, then Jesus was either a man or was God. If he was God he performed an atonement by sacrificing himself to pay for sins of man. The idea that man’s sins must be atoned for is…HIS IDEA. If you believe that Jesus was man, then how would one guy be able to ‘atone’ for someone else’s sins? He’s just a random guy. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/42 "2009-07-27T19:54:05Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > “God is three persons, and yet one.” A “simple” sentence, yes, but utterly contradictory and clearly impossible. That’s not the Christian formulation of the Trinity, though. It doesn’t state that God is three persons who are also one person. Rather, the Trinitarian statement is that there are three persons in one God. One might disbelieve this statement or fail to grasp it, but regardless of one’s belief or disbelief, it’s simply incorrect to say that Trinitarianism teaches “three persons and yet one person.” ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/43 "2009-07-27T19:56:15Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > What kind of religion is it that has to have the fundamental information of the faith interpreted? What kind of profound truth manages to eliminate the need for interpretation? It’s foolish to reject a religious worldview on the grounds that people may disagree about how it is to be interpreted. All but the most basic and elementary of statements are bound to be misinterpreted by some, or even a great many. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/44 "2009-07-27T20:23:56Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I must be misunderstanding; some form of atonement is required in both cases. I don’t see how you’re equating no change to no atonement. Just that if the atonement did something, anything, it changed something. If it didn’t change something, there was no “atonement.” If it didn’t accomplish anything, what was it? I do see where you are splitting out the act from the punishment, but the whole idea of Christianity is that something fundamental changed because of the death of Jesus. The whole idea of the snarky comment that I quoted in the OP is that something fundamental changed because of the death of Jesus. The death of Jesus brought about something new. Things are different now than they were before. If anyone argues with _that_, then they are making the very premise of the sacrifice nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/45 "2009-07-27T20:34:07Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > One view of the meaning of the Crucifixion is that Jesus’ mission was not to make it possible for mortals to be forgiven by God, but rather to dispel the illusion that God did not love us in the first place. I think this honestly causes more trouble than it solves. 1. Why would humans possibly have the impression that God doesn’t love them, and 2. How in the world does someone dying _and it being our fault_ make that impression go away? You just end up with an abusive parent whose life revolves around guilt trips by accepting this argument. “You’re a worthless scum who will suffer forever for your shortcomings, oh and I’ll just stand here in the RAIN and DIE of pneumonia because you don’t LOVE ME enough not to SUCK SO MUCH.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/46 "2009-07-27T20:37:19Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > 1. Why would humans possibly have the impression that God doesn’t love them, and Because life is unpleasant-to-horrible for most people, and was far worse at the time? The world isn’t consistent with a God that even likes humans, much less loves them. It’s the Problem of Evil again. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/47 "2009-07-27T20:39:27Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I don’t want to get too far off-topic here, but I think there’s an important point to be made here. That is, I don’t think the nature of God is relevant to salvation and, really, it’s the sort of thing that theologians and monks spend their time trying to understand. In fact, as I stated above, I don’t believe in the trinity, but I do believe that the nature of God is a little bit more complex than either he’s multiple gods or he’s one god. I believe it’s probably more important to establish that god actually exists before arguing over what color his hat is. > [@](#): > > I also think that, as we’ve been discussing, “he sacrificed himself to himself to undo something he did a long time before that” isn’t a fair representation because, to my knowledge no Christian, even one who doesn’t believe in the trinity, believes that he sacrificed himself to himself or that it was to undo something. Jesus’s crucifixion wasn’t a sacrifice to himself, nor was it a sacrifice to the “other god”; it was an atonement for the sins of man. So, really, I don’t see how his nature as one god, multiple gods, or as a trinity is even relevant. Jesus’ crucifixion is repeatedly referred to as sacrifice. If the question is to who or what, then there aren’t many candidates. Who were the sins against? Who declared things sins in the first place? Who declared heaven closed? Who declared that sacrificing their son would open heaven again? Who was the atonement to? God. God is the only thing possible for the atonement to have any meaning. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/48 "2009-07-27T20:45:28Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because life is unpleasant-to-horrible for most people, and was far worse at the time? The world isn’t consistent with a God that even likes humans, much less loves them. It’s the Problem of Evil again. Yeah, sorry, I was being sarcastic. I think having someone say that you suck so much you deserve to die (which is what the atonement is supposed to be taking care of in some way) is kind of a hint that they aren’t all that fond. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/49 "2009-07-27T20:57:55Z")
Trying to parse some kind of semantic distinction betwen a “sacrifice” and an “atonement” is lost on me. What’s the difference? What do humans need to “atone” for, and how did the crucifixion accomplish that? Most importantly, who SAYS humans need to atone? Only God. So why couldn’t God just skip the crucifixion and go right to forgiveness (as much as it can make sense to forgive people for doing only what he wills them to do)? What was accomplished with he crucifixion that couldn’t have been accomplished _without_ one? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/50 "2009-07-27T21:02:01Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > One view of the meaning of the Crucifixion is that Jesus’ mission was not to make it possible for mortals to be forgiven by God, but rather to dispel the illusion that God did not love us in the first place. In this view, the estrangement of humanity from its maker was based not on God’s anger but on man’s being subject to an illusion; God always loved us, warts & all, and at no point ever intended us to be subject to his punishment. But because of Adam & Eve’s “sin”–which in this sense is not a violation of God’s law, but a disregarding of God’s counsel–humans came to believe that God was repelled by the most basic elements of their nature. The purpose of the Incarnation, then, was to demonstrate that God was willing to suffer and die as we suffer and die, to share in our limitations, vicissitudes, and grief; it was to demonstrate his love for us, and show us that we were already forgiven. Except for that God did quite explicitly throw Adam and Eve out of Eden, and he did do his big baby with a mallet routine on Sodom and Gomorrah, not to mention flooding the Earth and killing 99.999% of everyone on it. So he did punish us for eating the apple, and he clearly is perfectly fine to punish us for any other sort of misdeed. It also seems handy that God should choose to kill himself just as the Roman-Jewish authorities decided to kill Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/51 "2009-07-27T21:35:16Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Except for that God did quite explicitly throw Adam and Eve out of Eden, and he did do his big baby with a mallet routine on Sodom and Gomorrah, not to mention flooding the Earth and killing 99.999% of everyone on it. So he did punish us for eating the apple, and he clearly is perfectly fine to punish us for any other sort of misdeed. > > It also seems handy that God should choose to kill himself just as the Roman-Jewish authorities decided to kill Jesus. I didn’t say _I_ believed it. But that reading the the meaning of the Crucifixion requires you to believe that the Old Testament God is a Demiurge–that is, an evil and deceitful being, powerful but nonetheless subordinate to the true creator. That reading is easy to support from the text, as there is hardly any other way to read the Garden of Evil story except that the character presenting himself as God was setting Adam & Eve up. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389/52 "2009-07-28T03:21:07Z")
> [@bri1600bv](#): > > If you believe that Jesus was man, then how would one guy be able to ‘atone’ for someone else’s sins? He’s just a random guy. IIRC, it’s that any man who’s free from sin can be a worthy sacrifice, rather like how scapegoats and sacrificial animals need to be without blemish; the problem with picking a random guy is that you’d probably get someone who’d racked up a whole bunch of sins, which is no more acceptable to He Who Demands Sacrifices than if you’d plopped some diseased calf that’s missing a testicle on the altar. If you believe that, and you also believe Jesus was special enough to be “without blemish” right when he was offering himself up as a sacrifice, then it presumably scans: he was like unto a sacrificial animal that’s altar-worthy, because he was as free from sin as an observant Jew who dies maybe three seconds after Yom Kippur. (Whether this means the Romans could have arranged a good enough sacrifice by killing such a Jew maybe three seconds after Yom Kippur is another matter entirely.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-will-you-explain-how-this-parody-comment-misses-the-mark-regarding-the-atonement/504389.md?page=2)