Saved from what again? His threat of eternal torture? Sounds more like blackmail to me.

(January 11, 2015 at 1:07 pm)robvalue Wrote: Saved from what again? His threat of eternal torture? Sounds more like blackmail to me.

If God liked to torture us why would he sacrifice himself for us so that we could avoid punishment?

If he didn't want to torture us, he could just not torture us. Who is demanding he torture anyone? There was nothing to be saved from until he started threatening us. And he didn't sacrifice anything, he moved a bit of himself around a little bit, then back again. Doesn't sound like a lot of effort for a being of infinite power.

If he's gonna torture me for using my brain, and assessing evidence, then he sucks.

(January 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 11, 2015 at 1:07 pm)robvalue Wrote: Saved from what again? His threat of eternal torture? Sounds more like blackmail to me.

If God liked to torture us why would he sacrifice himself for us so that we could avoid punishment?

He likes torture why would he create hell then. Also god dying for himself to please himself didn't make him less angry and vengeful.

(January 10, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 4:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: Refuse to seek out your god, you mean. Why would they do that when they have been indoctrinated by the exact same logic to worship another god? And if they are in a dictatorship, they may well have no opportunity to even become aware of other religions. God gonna roast them?

It's all arbitrary of course, people have all different ideas and are just making it up based on their favourite verses.

There is only one God, but we have different concepts of who he is. If someone is seeking God, they are searching for that one God. They could have never heard the name of Jesus, but still be in touch with God. They are reliant on God for the revelation that they receive from him. Coming to God is a process and we're all in different stages of that process.

Nope, that’s not what your religion says, it is very clear:

John 14:16
5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."…

There is no wiggle room. According to your scriptures no one who doesn’t know Jesus will be with God.

---

(January 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 11, 2015 at 1:07 pm)robvalue Wrote: Saved from what again? His threat of eternal torture? Sounds more like blackmail to me.

If God liked to torture us why would he sacrifice himself for us so that we could avoid punishment?

Vicarious redemption is an extension of the Middle Eastern tradition of scapegoating. A convenient way of making believe your misdeeds/sins have been taken away. This is an ancient tradition that predates Christianity and someone had the bright idea of trading in a goat for a man-god. Remember that these traditions were concocted by people who shat in their own water supply.

(January 11, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Full Circle Wrote: Nope, that’s not what your religion says, it is very clear:

John 14:16
5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."…

There is no wiggle room. According to your scriptures no one who doesn’t know Jesus will be with God.

Read post #80 for my thoughts on this. He is the only way.

Quote:Vicarious redemption is an extension of the Middle Eastern tradition of scapegoating. A convenient way of making believe your misdeeds/sins have been taken away. This is an ancient tradition that predates Christianity and someone had the bright idea of trading in a goat for a man-god. Remember that these traditions were concocted by people who shat in their own water supply.

It's not an extension of any tradition. It's about us screwing up and God making it right for us. That's the message of the bible, which is what christians follow. We take responsibility for our own actions.

(January 11, 2015 at 4:53 pm)Lek Wrote: Read post #80 for my thoughts on this. He is the only way.

Your thoughts are not scripture, you either believe the scripture or you don’t, you don’t get to change it because you don’t like it.

Quote:It’s not an extension of any tradition. It's about us screwing up and God making it right for us. That's the message of the bible, which is what christians follow.

Yes, it is the extension of tradition from long before Chrsitianity, it is a belief co-opted and woven into the dogma. Read the history for scapegoating, here are a few links to make it easy:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi.../scapegoat
and
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/scapegoating and

“Ancient Syria:
A concept superficially similar to the biblical scapegoat is attested in two ritual texts in archives at Ebla of the 24th century BC. They were connected with ritual purification on the occasion of the king's wedding. In them, a she-goat with a silver bracelet hung from her neck was driven forth into the wasteland of "Alini"; "we" in the report of the ritual involves the whole community. Such “elimination rites", in which an animal, without confession of sins, is the vehicle of evils (not sins) that are chased from the community are widely attested in the Ancient Near East.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

Quote:We take responsibility for our own actions.

Non sequitor

(January 11, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Full Circle Wrote: Your thoughts are not scripture, you either believe the scripture or you don’t, you don’t get to change it because you don’t like it.

You're right that my thoughts are not scripture and neither are yours. How do my thoughts in post #80 conflict with Jesus being the only way to salvation? I was speaking of an individual who had never heard the name "Jesus" being saved through him.

Quote:Yes, it is the extension of tradition from long before Chrsitianity, it is a belief co-opted and woven into the dogma. Read the history for scapegoating, here are a few links to make it easy:

“Ancient Syria:
A concept superficially similar to the biblical scapegoat is attested in two ritual texts in archives at Ebla of the 24th century BC. They were connected with ritual purification on the occasion of the king's wedding. In them, a she-goat with a silver bracelet hung from her neck was driven forth into the wasteland of "Alini"; "we" in the report of the ritual involves the whole community. Such “elimination rites", in which an animal, without confession of sins, is the vehicle of evils (not sins) that are chased from the community are widely attested in the Ancient Near East.”

You are saying that because there was an example of scapegoating in ancient Syria, that Jesus' saving act was a myth based on this example? This may be your opinion or even the opinion of some scholars, but it's not even close to justifying your conclusion. I don't doubt that other cultures had beliefs involving the same concept. That's like saying that some society in the past had a certain custom and, because we have a similar custom today, that our custom is derived from that society.

Quote:Non sequitor

Okay. I take responsibility for my own actions.

(January 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 11, 2015 at 1:07 pm)robvalue Wrote: Saved from what again? His threat of eternal torture? Sounds more like blackmail to me.

If God liked to torture us why would he sacrifice himself for us so that we could avoid punishment?

"God" seems to be the egocentric sacrificer of himself, to satisfy his own demand for justice, for a crime he knew would happen since he is the "all knowing" god who after creating 400+ billion planets got at least one juuuuust right, and then blew into a handful of dirt creating man, then planted a tree and said dont eat the fruit, knowing they would eat the fruit, and then demanding payment for the eternal sin...since man can't pay that, he sacrificed himself to satisfy himself....seems...circular. lets take a look at the incarnation and atonement theory, here is a paper I wrote on this back when I finished my degree in religious studies, specializing in christianity from saint leo university.


The relationship between incarnation and atonement

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement means to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as a penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God in human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory which describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world and gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die, since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God he must react against it with holy wrath demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience and discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that the sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done in order to restore the balance. For example, a sin is incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeemed mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point, the author makes a faith claim or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute and has been the center of the debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does however assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works, but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling to in order to validate their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was a ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was a payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune god, did god merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.



Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas, Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.

In the referenced post you write

(January 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm)Lek Wrote: No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if one seeks God with a true heart, and responds to the light God provides him, he will find him. All who are saved are saved through Jesus Christ. I could know I'm a sinner in need of God's forgiveness, and never have heard the name Jesus, but still believe in Jesus in essence.

The reason Christian’s have been sending missionaries out into the world since the apostles is to “bring the good word” and save souls. No Jesus = no salvation.

I suppose I pick on Christianity more than the other religions because I was brought up in it. If I knew more about Islam, Judaism and Hinduism I’m sure I would lambaste them more so forgive me for showing any favoritism.

I’ve been traveling a lot lately; I spent nearly a month in Indonesia (most populous Islamic country in the world, the one exception within the country is the island of Bali which is mostly Hindu) and even more recently traveled to Colombia as well. On both trips I have taken many photographs of children and that brings me to this discussion about who is saved and gets to go to Heaven and who isn’t and goes to Hell.

In the Bible it says, “the only way to the Father is through Me” (John 14:16 as I already quoted). Most everyone I talk to takes this to mean that unless you know of Jesus and have accepted Him in your mind as TOTG (The One True God) you’re SOOL (Shit Out Of Luck). I think this applies to Islam as well but they replace JC with Muhammad (as prophet only and not TSOG, The Son of God). The Jews just skip the middle-man altogether and go straight to the Source until the day they are convinced the real Messiah shows up through the proper gate this time bearing favorable rates or something like that.

Back to the children and my original thought; so JC shows up in one little town and roams around the countryside laying down the law. This law is to be applied to everyone evenly from here on out (what happened to all the humans who preceded Him is another story). There is no internet, cell phones, TV, mail, loudspeakers or the like so it takes many generations for the Word to get around and reach some of the now seven billion plus people in the world. I use the word “some” because I can assure you that most of these kids I have been photographing in far-flung islands and deep jungle don’t have a clue what the hell we’re talking about (cue the missionaries).

What happened or happens to all the people who didn’t get the memo?

Like
1) Those that came before the memo was issued
2) those that were contemporaries but didn’t live within a couple of donkey rides from the memo writer
3) those that came after but never got the memo
4) those that got the memo at the point of a sword
5) those that got a garbled memo and couldn’t make heads or tails of it
6) those that got the memo but thought it was a joke
7) those that had already received previous memos that conflict with the new one and
8) those that were/are not capable of deciphering or understanding the memo.

If I am to believe what the Bible says there are a lot of people, including these children I have been photographing, that are going to Hell. Personally, I just don’t buy it.

Whoever has been tweaking this memorandum all these years has yet to tie up all the loose ends to this fanciful tale. There are just so many holes in it that if people weren’t so superstitious or scared they would file this one away in the drama/fiction/horror heading at Barnes & Noble bookstore and give it no more weight than a second rate novel.

(January 11, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Lek Wrote: You’re right that my thoughts are not scripture and neither are yours.

Show me where I claimed they were.

Quote:You are saying that because there was an example of scapegoating in ancient Syria, that Jesus' saving act was a myth based on this example? This may be your opinion or even the opinion of some scholars, but it's not even close to justifying your conclusion. I don't doubt that other cultures had beliefs involving the same concept. That’s like saying that some society in the past had a certain custom and, because we have a similar custom today, that our custom is derived from that society.

lek, you wrote this about scapegoating, and I quote again, “It’s not an extension of any tradition.” I gave you links showing that there was, indeed, a long tradition of the practice. This is a fact not an opinion.

As for the inference that the Jesus myth of vicarious redemption is a co-opting of an existing, ancient practice, yes that is what I think based on historical scholarly work from the likes of Dr. Richard Carrier for one.