(July 31, 2014 at 2:28 pm)alpha male Wrote: Because God's sense of justice requires it.

So, God's sense of justice requires him to sacrifice a third of himself to another third of himself to appease that second third, and then to resurrect that first third and bring him back to heaven?

Weird. Seems like a good paradigm for atonement and justice.

(July 31, 2014 at 2:28 pm)alpha male Wrote: How does saying "I'm sorry" atone for your wrongs to one person, but not to another? How does paying a fine to the state atone for going through a stop sign? How does prison time atone for anything anyway - former convicts are now free people?

ETA: How does one atone for murder?

If my child A hits child B and I tell child B to simply forgive A, does that mean that I must likewise do so, and cannot punish A? If I do punish A, does that mean that B must also punish A in the same manner?

If a president pardons one criminal, why doesn't he simply pardon them all?

Is your god great, or not? Why do apologists always insist on answering these questions by comparing God to humans?

Do humans have the ability to atone for the sin of others by committing a sacrifice? Does God have the ability to atone for the sin of others by committing a sacrifice?

If the answers to these questions are different, then your previous questions are moot and off-topic.

---

(July 31, 2014 at 3:03 pm)frasierc Wrote: Jesus isn't just one person paying for another person's sin. Though he remains divine he becomes a human to represent the whole of humanity in bearing their physical death (dying on the cross) and spiritual death (experiencing abandonment from the Father when he says ' Father why have you forsaken me'). Which should have been borne by humanity because of the choices of Adam (the first human representative).

Jesus is a sacrifice - because he died. But if he dies only our slate is wiped clean but we're not at one with God. In his resurrection he was a 'first fruits' of a new humanity so that we may share in his new humanity which is everlasting relationship with God i.e. atonement - we become one with God. So atonement requires Jesus death, resurrection and ascension.

So, how does this mechanism work?

He symbolically pays everything while functionally paying nothing to somehow erase the real sins? That sounds a lot like me paying for a mansion with a giant novelty check that isn't actually worth any money.

(August 1, 2014 at 10:17 am)RobbyPants Wrote: So, God's sense of justice requires him to sacrifice a third of himself to another third of himself to appease that second third, and then to resurrect that first third and bring him back to heaven?

Weird. Seems like a good paradigm for atonement and justice.

Your opinion is noted. That's what positions on justice boil down to - opinions.

Quote:Is your god great, or not? Why do apologists always insist on answering these questions by comparing God to humans?

Er, you were comparing God to humans yourself. Remember the whole if we're instructed to simply forgive (which was shown to be a false premise) why can't god line you were pursuing?

Quote:Do humans have the ability to atone for the sin of others by committing a sacrifice? Does God have the ability to atone for the sin of others by committing a sacrifice?

If the answers to these questions are different, then your previous questions are moot and off-topic.

I agree - I was lampooning your comparison of God to men. I'm glad we're on the same page now.

(July 30, 2014 at 3:55 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Jenny A Wrote: If ever there was a non-answer, that's it.

Atonement has two meanings: "the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ"; or "reparation for an offense or injury." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atonement The first simply defines atonement as the cruxifiction of Jesus which answers nothing. . . ..

So you don't believe the dictionary is truthful?

You said that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary because of the very nature of atonement. The point is that the dictionary definition of atonement says it the reconciliation of God through the sacrifice of Jesus. As an explanation of why Jesus was sacrificed, that really means no more than BECAUSE.

(July 30, 2014 at 3:55 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(July 30, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Jenny A Wrote: To see how odd this really is consider the following scenario. Jim kills Jane's daughter Anne. The judges orders Jim executed in the criminal case, and awards Jane $100,000 of Jim's estate in the civil case. Looks like reparations to me.

But on appeal the Appellate Judge decides to execute his own son as atonement for all the defendants past and present (not just Jim). The son, who's a little soft in the head agrees. The son is electrocuted after have been beaten. The Appellate Judge lets Jim go, and reverses the award of damage.

How is the crucifixion different?

Jim would have killed the judge not Jane's daughter.
The judge's son would have offered himself.
The judge's son would have a fully divine and fully human nature.
The judge's son would have been guilty of no crimes against the judge.
The judge would be God.

Let's see if I get this:

Humans kill (surely you really just mean injure here) God
God's son who has done no harm to anyone (and is god) offers to be killed
God say OK son and self, good idea.
God kills son/self in very painful humiliating manner.
God resurrects son/self three days later.
Humanity absolved.

Clear as mud.

Daughter number one and her many brothers try to kill me.
I want a revenge killing.
Daughter number two who is blameless offers to die for her siblings.
I say peachy.
Daughter number two goes off and does herself in.
My remaining children and I happily reconcile.

Would it be better if Daughter Number Two only sincerely tried to kill herself but was later resuscitated by me? How about if it wasn't me my kids were laying into but each other and I claimed that was an injury to me?

----- I think this would be one messed up family Mom ain't helping. And considering my willingness to accept the death of daughter number two resuscitated or not, I'm beginning to have some sympathy for the kids If god were just, he'd think so too.

(August 1, 2014 at 11:17 am)alpha male Wrote: Er, you were comparing God to humans yourself. Remember the whole if we're instructed to simply forgive (which was shown to be a false premise) why can't god line you were pursuing?

No. I wasn't comparing the ability of God to the ability of humans. I was questioning why God commands us to forgive yet refuses to do so himself.

You, then asked a bunch of questions about what people would do to justify God's "justice". Your equivocation is false.

(July 31, 2014 at 1:07 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: @ no one in particular:

Is it that you don't understand what Christianity teaches about Christ's sacrificial atonement, or is it that you reject what Christianity teaches about Christ's sacrificial atonement?

I can recite several different permutations of the Christian view of how Christ's sacrificial atonement is supposed to work, but they make no emotional, logical or moral sense to me. If there were a god and he operated in such a way, then divine moral sense and human moral sense would have little to do with each other.

(August 1, 2014 at 12:25 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: No. I wasn't comparing the ability of God to the ability of humans. I was questioning why God commands us to forgive yet refuses to do so himself.

And you've been answered multiple times. God tells us to forgive because we've been forgiven ourselves.

Quote:You, then asked a bunch of questions about what people would do to justify God's "justice". Your equivocation is false.

If you answered those questions, we'd see again that justice is a matter of opinion. Yours is different from god's.

---

(August 1, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I can recite several different permutations of the Christian view of how Christ's sacrificial atonement is supposed to work, but they make no emotional, logical or moral sense to me. If there were a god and he operated in such a way, then divine moral sense and human moral sense would have little to do with each other.

Hold on there, cowgirl. you don't get to claim your moral sense as equivalent to human moral sense. The large numbers of Christians across time and culture indicates that God's sense of justice is within the bounds of humanity's sense of justice. That it's nonsensical to you doesn't mean that it's nonsensical period.

(August 1, 2014 at 10:17 am)RobbyPants Wrote: So, how does this mechanism work?

He symbolically pays everything while functionally paying nothing to somehow erase the real sins? That sounds a lot like me paying for a mansion with a giant novelty check that isn't actually worth any money.

Christ didn't symbolically pay our sin debt, He functionally paid it.

Sin is a legal debt to God (see more in depth here). Colossians 2:14 says: (About Christ) 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Therefore, our sin debt to God was removed by Christ on the cross.

The simplicity of the atoning work of Jesus Christ is this: our sins and the punishment that we deserve were imputed to Christ on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21), and the righteousness of Christ and it's subsequent reward was imputed onto us (Romans 5,10, Philippians 3:8-10). To all who are in debt, this is the good news of the gospel.

(August 1, 2014 at 12:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You said that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary because of the very nature of atonement. The point is that the dictionary definition of atonement says it the reconciliation of God through the sacrifice of Jesus. As an explanation of why Jesus was sacrificed, that really means no more than BECAUSE.

I agree with you. If you do not understand what the nature of atonement is then you wouldn't understand how Christ's work on the cross is an example of atonement and the definition wouldn't answer the question.

(August 1, 2014 at 12:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Let's see if I get this:

Humans kill (surely you really just mean injure here) God
God's son who has done no harm to anyone (and is god) offers to be killed
God say OK son and self, good idea.
God kills son/self in very painful humiliating manner.
God resurrects son/self three days later.
Humanity absolved.

I think you've understood the analogy pretty well.

(August 1, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 31, 2014 at 1:07 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: @ no one in particular:

Is it that you don't understand what Christianity teaches about Christ's sacrificial atonement, or is it that you reject what Christianity teaches about Christ's sacrificial atonement?

I can recite several different permutations of the Christian view of how Christ's sacrificial atonement is supposed to work, but they make no emotional, logical or moral sense to me. If there were a god and he operated in such a way, then divine moral sense and human moral sense would have little to do with each other.

So you do understand what atonement is, but you reject Christ's sacrificial atonement because it makes no emotional, logical, nor moral sense to you?

Quote:I wasn't trying to prove the story is true. That wasn't Robbypants' question. His question was about the meaning of Jesus death.
I was just saying how the Bible explained it - not sure how that's bullshitting to the nth degree. Feel free to suggest alternative explanations by all means.

So, if you don't think the story is true, then what was jesus' "sacrifice" about? The bible is a house of cards. If you start dismissing the foundational stories the whole thing comes tumbling down.

If there was no "fall of man" then who needs "jesus?" And to believe that the fall of man actually happened is roughly akin to adhering to any other creation mythology put forward by other cultures across the world.

It's the 21st century. Time to abandon ancient superstition.

(August 1, 2014 at 12:49 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 1, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I can recite several different permutations of the Christian view of how Christ's sacrificial atonement is supposed to work, but they make no emotional, logical or moral sense to me. If there were a god and he operated in such a way, then divine moral sense and human moral sense would have little to do with each other.

Hold on there, cowgirl. you don't get to claim your moral sense as equivalent to human moral sense. The large numbers of Christians across time and culture indicates that God's sense of justice is within the bounds of humanity's sense of justice. That it's nonsensical to you doesn't mean that it's nonsensical period.

Nope, I don't. But I don't think any moral system that allow for the killing of one person in lieu of others in sensible. Humans certainly did a number of things in the past that most people would consider immoral now such and the death penalty for pick-pocketing, punishment of sons for the crimes of their fathers. Some Middle Eastern countries still punish women for being raped and sentence men to have their sisters or daughters raped. But most of us have grown beyond that. It appears to me that god has not. ----You'd expect him to be ahead of us rather than behind.

(August 1, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(August 1, 2014 at 12:49 pm)alpha male Wrote: Hold on there, cowgirl. you don't get to claim your moral sense as equivalent to human moral sense. The large numbers of Christians across time and culture indicates that God's sense of justice is within the bounds of humanity's sense of justice. That it's nonsensical to you doesn't mean that it's nonsensical period.

Nope, I don't. But I don't think any moral system that allow for the killing of one person in lieu of others in sensible. Humans certainly did a number of things in the past that most people would consider immoral now such and the death penalty for pick-pocketing, punishment of sons for the crimes of their fathers. Some Middle Eastern countries still punish women for being raped and sentence men to have their sisters or daughters raped. But most of us have grown beyond that. It appears to me that god has not. ----You'd expect him to be ahead of us rather than behind.

Though alpha male doesn't see it this way, obviously the reason God lags behind us in our sense of justice is because his sense of justice was supplied to him by his very human creators, and they were barbarians.