RE: Explain to me the math behind redemption
June 3, 2013 at 10:59 pm
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2013 at 11:19 pm by ReasonableRuben.)
(June 3, 2013 at 10:50 pm)Zarith Wrote: I see. Can I at least get my sentence reduced by some small epsilon value if I sacrifice someone else? They may not be perfect, but surely it's worth something?
I think you mean "if they sacrificed themselves for me," and no, according to the doctrine of sin, you couldn't.
This is basic Christian doctrine. By that I do not mean to commend it to you as true. I mean rather to say that some simple research into Christian doctrine would probably answer your question better than what I have to offer.
(June 3, 2013 at 10:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It worked -some- way....and obviously - no less? I was unaware.
Like I said, the semantics of "He took the punishment I was going to receive" seem to me to be misleading. Perhaps you have been mislead by them. It's pretty obvious that "the plan" was not for Jesus to suffer eternally, and yet, it seems to me that Christians speak as though it was when they proffer such explanations of the redemption.
I did not commend a specific theory of the redemption and claim that it obviously "worked this way." I criticized a specific theory of the redemption and claimed that it obviously "did not work this way."
I tentatively put forward an alternative way of thinking about the redemption, but I certainly didn't claim that it was obviously correct.
Like I said, I'm no theologian. I haven't thought about the redemption much.
"I know what you are thinking about,' said Tweedledum: 'but it isn't so, nohow.'
'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." ~Tweedledum and Tweedledee discussing the finer points of logic
'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." ~Tweedledum and Tweedledee discussing the finer points of logic