I'm just taking this all in. It's a new idea for me to think of such a cornerstone of Christianity as something possibly beyond redemption.

Perhaps the only way to redeem Christianity is to transcend all the literalness. When the Jesus character of the bible says "I am the way" I've always thought that pointed toward a path whereby everyone redeems the world -or at least his own world. Of course I never thought everyone needed to be nailed to a cross - that would just be getting lost in the allegory. But I always thought the "way" referred to an example, not a passive acknowledgement of another's sacrifice.

So my brain is just giving me a 'loading signal'. Not sure what I'll make of all this yet.

(September 21, 2014 at 6:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Your debt is paid because you want to receive it. Not because you're worthy. It's a reward that you aren't naturally capable of earning. You think that it's immoral to withhold something only justly received. A contradiction in terms.

An infinite reward (or punishment) for finite acts isn't justice. Justice is when someone gets what they deserve, in proportion to what they've earned.

---

(September 21, 2014 at 7:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Haha nice spin attempt esq.

To get away with that nonsense you'd have to think that humans were capable of perfection. A nice delusion if you can get it, and I'm very happy for you.

So... back in the real world, for anyone wishing to consider it with me, your imperfection is natural. You may be elevated to live guilt free, even with your innate imperfections.

Surely sufficient roasting (or whatever punishment it is you think that God metes out) to atone for one's sins would solve the problem? Everyone goes to hell, for as long as it takes to atone for their sins. The less you sin, the less time you spend in hell, and no one gets into heaven who hasn't paid for their sins themselves.

It's only the permanence of hell that necessitates a 'get out of hell frree' card.

---

(September 21, 2014 at 10:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Esq: you seen to be repeating yourself, so I won't be following.

Bm: as the ideal father, God forgives everything in enabling the child to choose what's unquestionably best for itself. You, the child, are free to choose to self harm all you like. Your dad will be there waiting for you when you come to your senses. What your dad won't do, is reward you for hurting yourself.

So after a few seconds of hell, I'll know there's a God and know I'd rather be anywhere else, and then he'll take me back?

That actually sounds kind of reasonable.

(September 23, 2014 at 5:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Well it's theories that don't follow there information, but instead try to guess at a sub plot isn't it.
I think is always healthy to question. In this case, it's the concept that's being misrepresented as something potentially bad when it was devised as the opposite. I get the objection. I see it as a gross misrepresentation.

"Their information" is that they hold to the ransom theory Frodo. I didn't coin the term, I didn't decide which of the many models they would declare to be an article of their faith. I didn't have a say in what information they would use to reach that conclusion, and I have done nothing but relay their position. I have not interpreted that position at all, so I could not misinterpret it, let alone grossly so. The interpretation is their own (based upon those two verses I linked) - my opinion of that interpretation- that it is vile, immoral, etc -is mine-.

I'm not arguing that their position is "potentially bad" when it is devised as the opposite(wtf that's supposed to mean)...but that it is "actually bad" when simply accepted -as is- (and yes, yours as well..in fact..all vicarious redemption schemes - and all of them for the same reasons).

---------

Michael, you've made mention about the willingness of the subject as though it modified the situation. I don't think that it does. I think that this, like your invocation of moral influence, is window dressing. If someone volunteered to be executed in the stead of a convicted murderer sentenced to die and we went with it - would that be moral, ethical, or just....would you allow it, and would it have some redemptive effect or ameliorating influence on said convicted murderer?

Approaching this from a different angle (so that neither of us has to argue -for- killing anyone regardless of what it is they've done) suppose that I were a genius inventor, and I've been tinkering in my basement these last few years and have come up with a two seat time machine. We both hop on, I dial it back to the crucifixion. Would you be willing to help me kidnap jesus in order to save him from the cross (and yes, potentially from himself, his own suicidal intentions)? Suppose that I weren't a genius inventor, but that I worked at the suicide hotline and you were an ems first responder for the metro police. I get a call from an immigrant named Jesus - says he's going to kill himself -suicide by cop- as an example to those around him. I call you. What's the proper course of action from that point forward?
(I can come up with hundreds of these, if you'd like different examples)

Also, you need to add the substitutionary model to the list of redemptive schemes you hold to- as you just described it to a T. So now its sub, victory, and influence.

-------------------
For MA

Quote:That actually sounds kind of reasonable.

But potentially not very just, daddy's loving arms may be wrapping themselves around someone who deserves to be there a hell of a long time - if anyone deserves to be there at all, eh? Reasonable, I'd say no, understandable based on human empathy and familial bonds and our willingness to bend or break any and every rule in service to our closest kin......sure.

(September 23, 2014 at 9:19 am)whateverist Wrote: I'm just taking this all in. It's a new idea for me to think of such a cornerstone of Christianity as something possibly beyond redemption.

Huh?...I think Michael, Frodo, and I still consider redemption central in the sense that Christ saves us from ignorance, sin, and error. Not sure about Frodo, by Mike and I both favor Christ Victorious.

Some Christians believing in substitutionary atonement and appeasement theories of salvation does not mean that redemption depends on the validity of these particular theories. Redemption also means transforming what was before worthless into something useful.
In Christ Victorious theory the body or Flesh is not intrinsically evil; but rather corrupted in such a way that people cannot, by their own power overcome its limitations, like in Paul’s rhetorical example when he says, “that which I wish to do, I do not and that which I wish not, I do.” In its corrupted state the body is an active hindrance to the life of virtue.

So along comes Jesus. Like everyone else, He has by birth a corrupted physical body. That is the basis for biblical references like, took on the sins of the world, the Word became flesh, etc. However, because of the virgin birth outwardly He has the body of Man, but inwardly He has the Holy Spirit. He is uniquely qualified to redeem the flesh, by overcoming all temptations to which the body is prone. The temptation in the dessert describes this process.

Those who study such things recognize parallels between Jesus and pagan Osirus-Dionysus mystery religions. But there is very important difference. In the mystery religions, the initiates underwent rituals designed to cultivate an awareness of the Higher Self, or daemon, by which the initiate could, by their own power overcome the limitations of the eidolon, or physical body.
In contrast to this, Christianity says, no, ordinary humans cannot by their own power do that on their own. (…they are weak, but He is strong.) Thus they need to borrow the power of the Holy Spirit to drive out the evil out for them. This is the inner meaning of the parable of the Strong Man (Matthew 12:25-26).

(September 23, 2014 at 9:19 am)whateverist Wrote: Perhaps the only way to redeem Christianity is to transcend all the literalness…a path whereby everyone redeems the world -or at least his own world.

I agree that much of the Gospels include allegorical elements. However, a purely allegorical Christ would symbolize each person’s self-overcoming which is not what Jesus himself taught. Thus we need a historical Christ, someone who, by the power of the Holy Spirit, actually did have the power to overcome that corruption, so that when people invite Him into their hearts, He drives the evil from them, thereby redeeming their flesh. The invitation is called repentance. The process of regeneration is called “the forgiveness of sin.” And the final state of redemption is called “glorification”.

(September 23, 2014 at 10:26 am)ChadWooters Wrote: In Christ Victorious theory the body or Flesh is not intrinsically evil; but rather corrupted in such a way that people cannot, by their own power overcome its limitations

Then so be it. If I can build that bridge myself, without any help from a murder (or suicide), then I deserve redemption. If not, I do not, and scourging christ - whether he's okay with it or not...is not okay with me. I will not lay my foundation with the bones of another. If that's just the way it is, and someone has done this for me and I have no say, again...so be it - I'm simply not interested in being a party to it.

Rhythm. Would I travel back and try to kidnap Jesus? No. If we trust in the main messages of scripture then our Lord's Passion was, and is, necessary for the new Kingdom to be established. Jesus spoke sternly to Peter when Peter objected to the idea of Jesus's death, and later told him to put away the sword so that Jesus may drink from the cup given to him by the Father.

So the next time I see someone being tied to a post and whipped to satisfy the desires of the mob and the ruling authority...I can't count on you to pick up a rock and stand between said person, the mob, and the authorities - with me?

(September 23, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Michael B Wrote: Rhythm. Would I travel back and try to kidnap Jesus? No. If we trust in the main messages of scripture then our Lord's Passion was, and is, necessary for the new Kingdom to be established. Jesus spoke sternly to Peter when Peter objected to the idea of Jesus's death, and later told him to put away the sword so that Jesus may drink from the cup given to him by the Father.

"Allegedly" just isn't a word in the Christian lexicon, is it?

(September 23, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So the next time I see someone being tied to a post and whipped to satisfy the desires of the mob and the ruling authority...I can't count on you to pick up a rock and stand between said person, the mob, and the authorities - with me?

If we had the same hindsight, that the person was divine and was freely standing in front of the rocks to break the bondage of sin of mankind (to take violence on themselves in order to return it with blessing), and that he would rise again from the dead three days later, then, no, I would not stand with you.

(September 23, 2014 at 1:04 pm)Michael B Wrote: If we had the same hindsight, that the person was divine

siding with the authorities

Quote: and was freely standing in front of the rocks to break the bondage of sin of mankind (to take violence on themselves in order to return it with blessing)

siding with the desires of the mob

Quote:, and that he would rise again from the dead three days later

Invoking sugar free ice-cream, actions without consequences. Crime without guilt. All this from the man fond of the term "counter-factual"....as though it even mattered. How about we beat some guy to death for the crimes of another and then...resuscitate him, take care of his expenses....that sort of thing?

Quote:, then, no, I would not stand with you.

Hence my anti-theism. I stand with those who would stand with me in defense of each other, and I stand against those who would side with authority or the mob in their aggression against -any- of us. Let me be perfectly clear here, even if the mob turned on itself.....I would circle the wagons around the poor schmucks who so recently felt that they were safe with the "in-crowd" - provided they stop whipping the fucker tied to the post, wishing that some poor fucker be tied to a post, or accepting the goodness (the virtue) of some poor fucker being tied to a post.