Not to interrupt, but leander, could you briefly describe the difference between the remedial and the sacrificial in the context of this discussion for me? Keeping in mind that I have never heard of the Socian influence?
iampuhna, I think leander just brought up the point I am trying to make.
No. Why?
If I said wishes were fishes, would they all fly away? Or to put it a bit more bluntly, what the fuck are you talking about?
I hear you on all this. It is all irrelevant, but I hear you. I know that you think the two comments were aggressive and bigoted. The golden question, though, is are the two comments equally as aggressive and bigoted?
And the answer to anyone other than a complete idiot, is no. One is a claim that a particular religion calls for genocide of unbelievers (I doubt one could devise a more slanderous lie about a religion) and the other is a comment that a religion involves people dying for the sins of others, in the most famous instance at the hands of unbelievers.
One is a comment to the effect that a religion calls for its followers to be cold blooded mass murderers, the other says nothing at all to that effect.
To put it in your terms, your commment was like saying that a breeze is as bad as a hurricane because they are both wind.
I understand the crux of the point you are trying to make, j66. I merely do not accept it with the credulity you assign it; however much or little you give it, I’m fairly sure I give it less. Some see the idea of God’s only son being sacrificed for the world as something upon which they can base all their beliefs, all their life, etc. Some see it with less gravity. And some think it is limiting, to be diplomatic, and are not impressed by that sort of deity. I quite frankly do not care to knowingly associate with any being who would make one of his faithful think that same faithful man had to sacrifice his son to please the being, but then given a choice between a metaphysical being of whose presence I remain unconvinced and any future offspring, I side with the one I’ll hopefully be holding in coming years. YMMV.
Hmm. Interesting. I just tried Googling it, as I’m sure you did as well. Nothing on that story from the search strings [“madeleine murray o’hare” +“god bless you”] or [“madeleine murray o’hare” +hand +stabbed] or similar ones. Searching for the phrase “hand-stabbing atheist” only returns a post by Libertarian on another board. That does seem a bit suspicious.
True, genocide is a slanderous lie, but so is claiming that the God of another religion is a murderer Himself. (That would be the “killing people is the only way to atone for sins” bit)
Look, we can argue about my use of “as” in the comparison all night and into tomorrow, but the whole point of my argument is that gobear is an overzealous, unempathetic, bigoted, self-righteous asshole for sugesting that revtim attack his widowed mother’s religion using aggresive, over-simplistic, offensive, impolitic mischaracterization tactics just because she occasionally annoys him. That’s why I entered this thread.
Gobear’s initial post was just wrong.
Pretty, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, it doesn’t really have shit to do with our discussion of Atonement. But it sounds impressive enough to fool some folks.
(If you want to learn about Abelard’s theory of Atonement, try reading Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Gobear is essentially talking about a scholastic methodology developed by Abelard, used by him and others to study the bible (and other works).)
I make no comment on gobear’s initial post. You say that it was wrong and over aggressive etc. Your post under discussion was at most wrong, and at the least aggressively exaggerated and lacking any sense of proportion.
In short, you are a hypocrite: you are so wrapped up in your own religion that you can compare gobear’s little theological goads to accusing another religion of inciting mass murder, and consider them equal. You appear utterly unable to see that this is as much or considerably more of an exaggeration than anything committed by gobear.
Sure. Gobear’s genius notwithstanding, the Atonement has puzzled scholars for centuries. Several theories have arisen, but none has been “set in stone”, so to speak; that is, the Church has not sanctioned any one theory.
Sacrificial (also Anselmian) basically supposes that Christ’s sacrifice is for the sins of man; though, again, this is more complicated than it appears. Some say the sacrifice was made for divine justice, ie, we’re all sinners so someone has to pay the price; others say the sacrifice was made to show us sinners the importance of Christ and his teachings (“If he would do all that for us, his stuff must be really important…”).
The remedial is that God lived through Christ to eliminate sin for us and make a new covenant.
And the Socian (or moral) theory is that God was here to influence us morally.
That’s a simplistic breakdown (hey, it’s late), but it should give you a basic idea. And it should tell you that this issue is extremely complicated, and in spite of idiots like gobear, not so easily tossed aside.
(“But hey, God just sent some guy to be killed, right…? That ain’t cool.”)
I’m an agnostic, ya idiot. I don’t even have a religion, and this was never about mass murder. Damn, you’re stupid.
Anyhow, I’m done. Your “I know you are are, but what am I?” brand of debate has grown tiresome, and I’m fairly confident gobear knows this impartial observer thinks he acted like an asshole. You just don’t say shit like that to your mom. Hell, you shouldn’t say shit like that to anybody. I’m glad revtim has refused his advice, and I have nothing more to say on the matter.
That is all.
OK, then, in short, you are a hypocrite: you compare gobear’s little theological goads to accusing another religion of inciting mass murder, and consider them equal. You appear utterly unable to see that this is as much or considerably more of an exaggeration than anything committed by gobear.
That better? Oh, you’re leaving. I can understand why.
THIS WAS NEVER ABOUT MASS MURDER
I’m fairly sure he is damaged beyond repair from that statement, and the fact that its owner said he was done here, then came back 14 minutes later with more to “add”, does nothing to detract from your point.
Point taken. That was childish and below me.
Missing church is a sin.
Jesus died for all our sins.
Jesus died, in part, for people who miss church.
Hey, blame your stupid religion for making the rules, not me for pointing out their absurdity.
And Monkey with a Gun thinks I’m an asshole? Oh, me, I shall do my best to endure your scorn.
RevTim knows that was never meant to be literal advice to his mother. He knows that, everyone else knows that, except for pointy-headed drool monkeys who can’t figure out what rhetorical expressions are for.
Hey, dumbshit, no, it has zero to do with the atonement. Do you even read posts. I was replying to your attempt to dazzle me with medieval namedropping, and I pointed out that I could do it better.
In any event, you are now espousing heresy–Socianism was formally condemned by the Holy Office (the Inquistion to everyone else.). An influence on the Unitarians, but not a part of any major Christian denominations theology. And remedial and sacrifical are not truly separate doctines.
In any event, that’s just a laundry list, not an argument–you know, premises plus a conclusion. Remind me again why I’m the dimwit and you are the genius?
Certainly it never was from gobear’s point of view, I’m pretty sure. If you didn’t think that’s what it was about, why did you compare gobear’s comments to a statement that Islam was an incitement to mass murder? Or were you engaged in aggressive hyperbole of the type you decry in gobear?
On the first page of this thread I said “it’s not a matter of having no clue regarding theological concepts, it’s a matter of choosing to cut to the chase and ignore large amounts of obfuscatory blather”.
The above is exactly what I’m talking about.
“The Atonement has puzzled scholars for centuries” you say. Why might that be?
Well, it could be because it’s a very difficult subject that can be made sense of, we just need another few millennia, we’ll get it all sorted out right after we figure out how many angels would fit on the head of a pin, and exactly how long a piece of string is.
Or it could be that it basically makes no sense because its a load of self contradictory bollocks.
Define “pitting” however you want, but I was not pitting her with bad feelings toward hers, as you implied with your “Um, you do realize that the OP is Pitting his Mom, right?” statement.
Oh, good; I really thought I just wasn’t getting my point across. Sorry to have been so dense; I was getting really tired last night.
Don’t be.
I just see some beauty in the symbolism.
I have had trouble with that one, too. I would be willing to discuss its meaning, but (I assume) than neither of use is a practicing Christian, so, why bother?
ty & tc
I’m only a short ways into this thread, but this one jumped out at me. If god can’t be described or understood, who – or what are you worshipping, and why would you worship something whose ideas are incomprehensible? You aren’t helping your case, Monkey.
Really? Do I understand it all?
Christ, a manifestation of God, accepted all the limitations of humanity, to expiate the sins of humanity. The limitations of humanity were necessary to make the act purely selfless. Of course, in order for this to make any sense, one has to move past a linear definition of time, but one has to do that to accept free-will.
Am I anywhere near the accepted tennets of the faith?
But now I am really confused about another detail of your debate:
Aah, say what?
That just makes no sense to me at all. I think I have to go research this superficially.