Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[The Grand Nudger]

God as "the ideal father" that's rich. I'm sure you won't be engaging in willful ignorance to make that accusation stick. Are we done with the subject of vicarious redemption? Moving on to greener pastures?

[Esquilax]

Esq: you seen to be repeating yourself, so I won't be following.

I covered some of the same ground because your response to me was a complete non-sequitur given what I was actually discussing. I also expanded upon it, too.

[fr0d0]

Yes God is the ideal father. It's established Christian doctrine. It doesn't go along with the conspiracy theorists view, no. But then it's not going to be me supporting a minority interpretation. It's always good to be skeptical though, and anything that doesn't make us fall off our chairs with laughter should be considered.

Since you're discussing my subject esq, I would think you'd want to address it rather than your own pet theories. Non sequiturs to the actual subject take precedence over non sequiturs to non sequiturs

[The Grand Nudger]

Established church doctrine you say? Well I guess that settles it.

[Whateverist]

I'm more uncertain than ever what it is exactly we are discussing. It just struck me as wrong that Christianity could only be interpreted as involving vicarious sacrifice. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I'm not at all sure. It would be interesting to know if that is in fact an essential tenet of Christianity, but I don't think that is going to be settled here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Redemption, vicarious redemption. Whether or not it was sacrificial is something that varies from sect to sect. I would hesitate to state that anything is ever settled in any finite sense regarding religion, no more or less so with christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy offers a subtle difference on this count. Christs crucifixion was not sacrifice (he loses nothing, death cannot contain him - it isn't his blood doing the magic, etc) but it is still redemptive. Without this man would not have a path available to him to achieve theosis. In their view, a man must live a christian life, we must be baptised into partaking of christs death, we must repent, etc etc etc. The act in and of itself is not sufficient in order for us to find salvation, nor is mere belief in him or the act. While this is a significant difference (from, say, the catholic concept of the same) what is not changed is the redemptive nature of the act, and it's vicariousness. You, for example, Whatevs, could not have erected that bridge (no matter how good a life you lived) - even though you may now cross it and be redeemed.

(tons of small differences from eastern orthodoxy, btw, you could barely perceive any given issue in a vacuum- but they all amount to one massive theological dispute as a whole)

[Whateverist]

Well there you go. Thanks for the info. Since I don't believe in any of it, I'm not at all sure why I care whether Christians see themselves as paying their own sacrificial way. Looked at in the way Hitchens describes just makes the whole xtian enterprise seem so debased. I can't believe anyone could be drawn to Christianity because of their desire to ride a scapegoat to a happier place. It may be descriptive looked at in a certain way from the outside, but it can't possibly describe the intentions and motives of believers. (The world and people just can't be that fucked up.)

[fr0d0]

The dogma is confusing you rhythm. Yes it's true that given the message, you could never build the bridge. It's only God coming to you that saves you. As I explained, your nature marks you separate from perfection. So it's not any fault that you can correct, that would enable you to be completely fulfilled. That's a fact of life. Christian dogma reflects life, and to rail against that is blindness. Hitchens was ignorant of the subject which is why he could make such a ludicrous statement.
Outside the dogma, the same laws of nature apply. It's not by your own efforts that you're going to overcome your physical limitations. By incredible coincidence you could happen across the solution. It would still be vicarious. No scapegoat needed.
It depends on how wide you cast your net too. JWs for example, get to heaven by their own works, and call themselves Christians.

[The Grand Nudger]

JW's subscribe to the ransom theory of vicarious redemption Frods.......perhaps the most vile (Matt 20:28, John 3:16 of the NWT, their official party line). You seem to think I'm confused, but honestly, none of this is all that confusing. Horrid, embarrassing, difficult to swallow, maybe. Confusing - not so much. That you can, with no winkys or anything (lol), call these variations on sociopathy facts of life is -precisely why I'm an anti-theist. Your christianity has eroded your humanity.

[Chas]

Yes God is the ideal father. It's established Christian doctrine. It doesn't go along with the conspiracy theorists view, no. But then it's not going to be me supporting a minority interpretation. It's always good to be skeptical though, and anything that doesn't make us fall off our chairs with laughter should be considered.

Christian doctrine makes me fall of my chair laughing.

Vicarious redemption is a base, cowardly doctrine. It is scapegoating, a noxious superstition practiced by the ignorant.