I am not qualified to make theological pronouncements.
But today, on the appointed anniversary of His sacrifice, I sinned.
So, I made him suffer today, two thousand years or so, after He took the burden of my sin upon Himself.
Trying to apply human accounting systems to the debt and credit of Salvation is pointless. There is a miracle, and you can be the one who benefits from it. You cannot be the one who judges. That, He took to Himself, along with the blame. It isn’t about being fair; it is about divine love, beyond human limits.
Well, I didn’t realize I would spark any interest. Now I feel like I’ve gotten myself into a spot. :o I’ve picked one of the most complex, difficult, absolutely central doctrines of my church to comment on. I’m not as much of a theologian as I ought to be, so I hope you’ll all bear with me.
I’m not all that sure. I’m not familiar enough with all brands of Christian theology to say. I think we put it in rather more explicit terms, and we use The book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants as justification for our unique beliefs. The BoM is actually our main text on the Atonement; we find it clearer and more detailed. (For those unfamiliar with the LDS, we consider both of those books to be inspired scripture.)
Ah, there you get into another one of our unique beliefs. You did choose to be born and work through this system. I tried explaining this once by starting this thread, so hopefully the OP there will help you out a bit. (I was genie at the time.)
He was in close communion with God the Father, he was ministered unto by angels, he could do miracles. But I think that since he was human and went through the veil of birth, he could not actually remember volunteering for the job of Savior, creating the earth, or any of that. He would have had it revealed to him through vision and revelation, I suppose–he would have known it through faith, but not through remembering having experienced it.
Coming up in my next post; I’m off to find a chapter of a book. We can’t claim to be mainstream, though; you’ll have to ask someone else for help there.
Contrary to the prevailing view in Western Christianity, the point of Christ’s suffering was not to suffer for the sake of somehow paying a cosmic debt of sin, but to destroy death. Death is an unnatural affliction of humanity that came about because of the Fall, and Christ, by becoming human, giving Himself up to death, and then rising again, destroyed it. The Resurrection, not the Passion, is the most important bit.
Wait…Can I assume you survived plummeting to earth in an aircraft, suffered physical injuries and great pain while waiting to be rescued? …and if so…What sort of undeserved blame are we comparing that awful pain to?
…and did you specifically fashion your life to accept that blame? ;…no matter the pain?
It really doesn’t matter I guess…the reasoning, strategy, timing and physical act of the crucifixion is what most folks argue about; but what I sometimes think is that it had to be arguable. It had to be “over the top” in appearance, in history and in fact; simply to be argued, discussed, debated and kept on the hearts and minds of everyone that heard of it.
Well, here we go. QtM, as I said above, we tend to concentrate on the BoM for doctrine about the Atonement, because we find it clearer and more detailed. So I haven’t got a lot from the Bible for you. Here are a few from the Book of Mormon. Clicking on the link will give you the highlighted verse within the entire chapter.
Here we have a short and well-known address by Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle. The Purifying Power of Gethsemane describes the Atonement and the importance thereof.
And now for a longer description, taken from the 1915 book Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmadge, who was an apostle who wrote two large books which still form a major reference for Mormons. I can’t find the text online, sadly, but it’s over 700 pages long and so I hope four paragraphs won’t be too much (in any case I should think the text is out of copyright by now):
The links are to scriptures.
So, QtM, it is not the fact of Jesus being God and man that itself made the suffering transcendent and ‘more than human,’ but that by that power he took on an infinite weight of all pain and sin, which no other could have done. In that way he satisfied the demands of justice, so that mercy could come into play. Through the Atonement, both justice and mercy are satisfied.
Now, that all covers the suffering and death part of the Atonement. After the three days in question, Christ conquered death for all time and for all humanity by taking up his body again and returning to earth as a resurrected being. Through the resurrection, we will all take up our lives again in the same way and as a free gift. That is, everyone gets resurrected. Salvation is conditional; that’s the repentance and accepting Christ as Savior part–but you get resurrected either way. So, (to comment on yBeayf’s remark), both the suffering and the resurrection are part of the Atonement to the LDS, and both are important.
Ya know, I don’t think Qadgop was trying to equate crucifixion at the hands of the Romans with his plane crash. More of a “physical pain is worse than undeserved mental anguish” thing.
Like how they always say “the worst pain is a broken heart”–no, I believe we can all think of some pretty intense physical tortures that would be less fun. I started typing a sentence involving razor blades, salt, and your corenas, but I decided to refrain. I mean, hell, getting kicked in the groin hurts pretty bad. Worse than any broken heart I’ve ever had.
On preview, I see that dangermom has returned, quotes in hand…
Very well then, I must say the Church of LDS has taken a rather sensible approach to the issue. I commend them. I have just about reached the point where I am unable to move any further into the issue and make any progress other than saying “I don’t believe it.” Certainly, if we assume for the sake of argument that Jesus is omnipotent and can suffer the infinite burden of sin, then Jesus’s sacrifice seems to be very commendable.
But as I think about it more, did God not create the very concept of sin in the first place? If he were all-powerful, could he not merely erase it from this plane of existence without inflicting it on a martyr? I have difficulty reconciling “all powerful” with “God was required to do such and such.”
Also, given that this is an infinite suffering, is Jesus still “in pain” today? Or does my use of mortal terminology merely show that my comprehension of the phenomenon is insufficient?
I can’t see how either are even relevant, much less satisfied. You can’t punish some innocent, non-involved person to satisfy your lust for revenge so that you can grant mercy: none of that makes any sense. If you want to grant mercy without asking anything from someone, you just do it. You don’t have to throw in some radnom pagan sacrifice of an innocent person to appease the gods: especially not when YOU are the god demanding appeasement. There is no way to mangle the concept of “Justice” into demanding that some random person must “pay” for wrongs done as if right and wrong were a business transaction. Killing an innocent compounds injustice, not solves it.
But the silliest thing about these explanations is that they are ad hoc: i.e. they make up constraints that need to be satsified so as to explain the crucifixtion, rather than the other way around.
But if you look at the actual early theology of the people who first came up with the idea that the crucifixtion was important, you find instead a mismash of various reasons for different elements of it. And the main functional element, first explained by Paul, is precisely the sort of pagan idea of a purfication (in this case mostly focusing on the gentiles) via a blood sacrifice. Of course, Jewish scholars are particularly disgusted by this since it seems like a mangled misunderstanding of Jewish tradition, wherein blood sacrifice was not only being phased out, but it was never really the best or most important forms of atonement in the first place.
This is a very good point and also I would like to add that while God was on earth as Jesus (fully human) he certainly wasn’t omniscient. If he were then he certianly wouldn’t have experienced so much doubt about his own ultimate fate. Just take a look at his final statements on the cross.
Unfortunatly, the OP is difficult to answer without going through the whole Christian story. The problem the OP may have in understanding the role of Christ in Christianity rests in the OP’s original assumptions on life in general:
This really isn’t quite true as I stated above, Jesus wasn’t omniscient (at least while he was here on earth), but the real problem is that it misses the point of the event.
And here is where I believe you have gotten sidetracked a little. In the Christian tradition in which I partake the main point of the Christ’s death and resurrection isn’t focused on the experience of pain and death as you say (although that is a very important part of it) . The focus is rather on the choice that God made in offering redemption to mankind. We believe that everyone is sinful (sin = behavior contrary to God’s will) and that justice must in some way be served in order to allow humans to be in communion with God. In the OT people would sacrifice animals, perform rituals, and abide by certian rules in order to satisfy or even appease God’s sense of justice. In spite of this, however, true justice was never served and Death was allowed to rule the world (physical and spiritual) as the consequence of continual sin. So - God offered himself/his Son as the remedy to that breach of justice that could never be resolved through the means devised by mankind. That is what is most significant. So. . . if you don’t believe that people can “sin” or that God is a personal being, or that human history is a cosmic drama in action then I don’t really see how you could understand the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. It has to be taken in context with a whole host of other beliefs.
and I’m trying to give an example of a story that could explain the significance of Christ’s death/resurrection, so here is a VERY weak one:
You (an investment broker) have bilked thousands of people out of hundreds of millions of dollars. You are caught, convicted, and sentenced to life in pound-your-ass prison with a very large and horny cellmate who loves pretty boys. Just before your first day in prison, Bill Gates shows up and secures your release. He also gets your conviction overturned with a deal he strikes with state. He pays off all of your debts including paying back all the people you have stolen from with interest. He also buys you a new house, car and boat, and sets up a college fund for your kids. He does this entirely at his own trouble and expense, and only asks of you not to defraud people ever again. You could focus on the fact that he could afford it anyway. Or you could focus on the fact that a completely innocent person just saved your ass from a lifetime of torment that you deserved while asking for little in return.
Nobody, not even Hitler or Pol Pot, deserve eternal punishment. A few million years, tops. Besides, Christian doctrine teaches that you are damned for being born human and contaminated with original sin, not for anything you have done.
And the doctrine of the Atonement is also nonsense. God created rules to require that He sacrifice Himself to Himself.
All religion is garbage–Christianity is particularly toxic.
You know, you keep asking me to explain huge chunks of LDS theology that take up whole books on my shelf. Poor QtM is going to feel very hijacked at this rate. Perhaps you should start emailing me with any other questions.
Anyway, no, we don’t think of it that way. If you read my OP of the other thread I linked to, you saw that we don’t think of people in the same way as most Christians–some part of us is uncreated and eternal, with agency to choose. This solves a lot of that whole “problem of evil” thing.
We also don’t really think of God as “all-powerful” as in “no rules.” He has rules, and he follows them. The main rule is that we get to choose freely. Another is that justice exists–I tend to think of this simply as a condition of the universe, almost like gravity or something (I don’t know how other Mormons do). The goal is to help us to grow up and become like Him, if we want to. In order to do that, we have to go through things that aren’t easy–in a lame comparison, say that you’re in basic training for heaven. Basic training in the military involves pain and hard work, but it prepares you and makes you stronger, and there’s no way to gain that strength without some trouble. Becoming like God requires pain and hard work, but there’s no way around it if you’re going to get there. He’s not giving you the test because He wants to know the answers, but because you need to know the material.
First question: no. Second question: probably. Mormons tend to feel that we can’t really understand or grasp the Atonement completely. I can’t say I do.
And hey, as long as I’m talking to nameless:
Just to fill that in (in case you care), Mormons also believe that children are innocent and go to heaven if they die. And, people have the chance to learn more after death–so someone who dies with no knowledge of Christ gets that opportunity later on.
Which was the point of the quote dangermom provided (labelled Alma 34:9-12 – follow the link and read the whole chapter).
Um, blood sacrifice wasn’t exactly “phased out”. It was extinguished by force when the Romans levelled the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.
Not surprisingly Apos I disagree with your assessment of “the people who first came up with the idea that the crucifixtion was important.” Christians believe not that Jesus was a blood sacrifice (and dangermom’s quote–specifically verse 10–speaks directly to that point). We believe that the blood sacrifice was a foreshadowing of Christ and his one great sacrifice.
Jesus didn’t come down because his Father said “yer gonna take a whippin’ boy.” Jesus’ role was as Creator, Savior, and Judge. He organized the world and as such was willing to do whatever was necessary to offer us salvation with him. His motivation was from love, to do what would most help us to become better. That “what” included somehow experiencing the agony of all the sin of man and suffering of mortal creation (all sickness, all infirmity, etc.)–it included becoming “at one” with his creation (hence “At-One-Ment”) that he could know from experience what it is like to be mortal and hence truly offer to help even the least of us.
That whole work provided us with an environment where we could experience good and evil and learn to choose to be like God. The Atonement offers to us the means by which we can overcome the choices to become unlike God if we so choose.
If this is true, that He died for our sins and took all the blame for them, then how is it that we still have Hell? How can I be condemed to everlasting torment by this ‘loving’ God for the horrible sin of not really caring all that much about this God if my sins have already been paid for by this God’s Son?
So, let me get this straight. I say that something makes no sense, and you point me what is essentially just a restatement of what I don’t think makes any sense. In fact, it makes even less sense. Verses 11 and 12 of what dm posted seem to not only directly contradict how other sects of Christianity see things, but also follow a logic like this:
Can anyone else take on the punishment of/atone for another? Nope.
Therefore an infinate atonement is required for the entire world, which, wadda ya know, God will take upon himself.
How that works out exactly we won’t say, but the word infinite is in there, so nyah nyah, try to reason with that, suckers.
Not only that, but the Torah seems to directly contradict, again and again, the idea that anyone can vicariously atone for another, seeing this idea as essentially pagan and antithetical to Jewish teachings. Ezekiel says instead that repentance provides full forgiveness for sin, and nowhere does he say anything about a special extra infinate sacrifice being necessary to make the whole thing workable.
Not so. The Prophets in the Torah tell the Jewish people that sin sacrifices are basically becoming a means to lead the Jewish people astray: that they are looking more and more to the pagan’s bloody glee in sacrifice to solve every problem, instead of focusing on the more important forms of atonement. They say that contrite prayer should replace the sacrificial system long before Christianity crops up, and that this will remain until the messianic age (which clearly has not yet come).
No offense meant, but the LDS’s take on things hardly speaks for what all “Christians” believe, and shouldn’t pretend to. Probably just a typo here. Evangelicals do believe that Christ’s death had to be just that: a sacrifice of life, necessitated by the demands of a blood sacrifice (nevermind the altar, apparently, nevermind that sin sacrifices only atone for minor sins, or that any sort or even hint of human sacrifice is strongly condemned throughout the Scriptures).
Regardless, you seem to be denying what I say, and then going back and repeating it again. What “the” blood sacrifice? Blood sacrifice was a system of ritual atonement for unintentional sins, not a singular element or event. And if Christ sacrificed himself to atone for the unredeemable world, then we are right back where I left off: why was any of the drama neccesary or relevant to forgiveness? Why must there be an atonement made beyond what mortal men can make themselves? How can anyone atone for another’s failings? What sort of crazy system of “justice” would demand that?
To me, from a more or less Methodist point of view, the worst piece of Christ’s suffering came from his (voluntary) separation from God. Yes, he knew it was “only a weekend” but the symbolism of it was much more significant.
or to quote the footnotes from my Bible, in reference to Mathew 26:39 which reads: And going a little farther he threw himself on the ground and prayed," My Father,if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want."(NRSV).
The cup of which Jesus spoke has been the subject of much discussion, One school of thought says that Jesus prayed for some other way to save sinners than for him to die. But Calvary was God’s only way, and Jesus accepted it without hesitation or qualification(cf. “not what I want but what you want”) Others hold that Jesus always prayed according to the will of the Father. In his humanity he feared that Satan might kill him in the garden of Gethsemane before he made atonement on the cross. Thus, he was prepared to die in the garden, if the Father so willed. His prayer was answered; he was able to go to Calvary. The most likely view is that Jesus, knowing what suffereing eternal death meant, shrank from the immininent experience of bearing the sins of the world, because the Father would turn his face from him when he became sin for us(cf. 2 Corinthinians 5:21 In this view, the cup meant separation from the Father (cf Matthew 27:46," My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). He left the garden victoriously.
That’s an awfully Southparkian view of hell. Another view holds that there isn’t any difference between “condemned to everlasting torment” and “not really caring all that much about this God”.
Try something else here. Would you voluntarily get into an an airplane if the same conditions existed that would result in your plane crashing just as before?
No? How about if in some convoluted way your sacrifice would result in solving elfbabe’s acne problem?
I guess not. How about if it would save the life of elfbabe’s unborn child ?
Stupid questions I agree, but nevertheless food for thought in trying to put the cross in some sort of perspective.
Which is what I am trying to grasp here. Lots of interesting input above. It looks like I’ll be using the weekend to mull over this stuff.
And nameless has it right. My plane crash was just an illustration of physical pain being worse than the suffering of pure mental anguish (for me).
And many thanks to Dangermom for spearheading the LDS perspective here, but I fear I can barely wrestle with the standard New Testament info. Adding a whole 'nuther Testament at this point is going to be beyond my meager powers of comprehension. At least this weekend.
So far Eureka’s implication of the “separation from the divine” strikes the strongest chord with me. But this topic is gonna take some mental energy!