Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[Michael B]

From the Christian perspective, Rhythm, Christ is the only perfect moral example and martyr. So to ask 'couldn't someone else have done the same thing?' is another counter-factual question from our perspective. Again I'm not sure how far you can go in understanding Christian doctrines by going down paths that are contrary to a Christian understanding of history.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, Michael, I'm asking you about things which can follow from the position. I'm going to rake you over the coals on the use of the word "counter-factual" before long....it's a rather generous allowance to be able to claim your own facts to begin with....

These objections are not "contrary to a christian understanding" - they are contrary to -your- understanding. They are objections raised by christian understanding and ultimately they are the objections upon which other christians have decided both in the past and the present that moral influence is insufficient. Pretend, if you must.,...that I'm a protestant, or a southern Baptist, or a JW......anything you like.

[Mudhammam]

Thank you for the correction, Mike.

So Christians have always tried to make sense of what did happen (our God was crucified)

I take it you would agree--using Nietzsche's formulation--that the following utterly fails to make sense?

"God's sacrifice of himself for the guilt of human beings, God paying himself back with himself, God as the only one who can redeem man from what for human beings has become impossible to redeem - the creditor sacrifices himself for the debtor, out of love (can people believe that?), out of love for his debtor!"

[Anomalocaris]

From the Christian perspective, Rhythm, Christ is the only perfect moral example and martyr. So to ask 'couldn't someone else have done the same thing?' is another counter-factual question from our perspective. Again I'm not sure how far you can go in understanding Christian doctrines by going down paths that are contrary to a Christian understanding of history.

I am not sure how much you can possibly understand something, as oppose to simply echoing what you wanted to believe until it sounded true, unless you were to go down different alternative paths to examine the thing from other perspectives.

Counter factual musings often give the clearest perspectives on putative facts.

[fr0d0]

What conspiracy Frodo? That's just the position they hold. I don't think that it required any conspiracy to reach it (beyond the most innocent usage of the word...as in, a bunch of folks got together and said "what's the line going to be on this one fellas?".........................................hrugs:

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.

[Ben Davis]

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.

I wanted to seek clarity from you on what you think's being misrepresented. As I understand, we're talking about the Christian process for redemption, where redemption is defined as 'the action of God saving humans from the consequences of sin, as a reward for certain behaviour'.

The process steps are:

1. Human sins
2. Human believes in Jesus as saviour & redeemer
3. God places consequences of sin on Jesus
4. Human is redeemed from the consequences of sin

It's step 3 that makes the process vicarious. Unless this was changed to something like 'Human accepts personal responsibility for sin and faces consequences', I don't see how this analysis can be avoided.

[Chas]

P.S. Just to be pedantic - the 'scapegoat' was the one not sacrificed. It was simply chased away carrying, symbolically, the sins of the people with it. Its end was much better than the sacrificial goat killed at the same time.

---

What's counter-factual about the question Mike?

What is counter-factual was simply that the question was asking about something (the non-crucifixion of the Christ) that Christians don't believe happened, if you'll excuse the double negative. It's a bit like asking what would have happened if Germany had not invaded Poland. You just end up trying to say something about things that didn't actually happen and after a while you realise that such discussions, while not always uninteresting, never lead anywhere particularly useful. So Christians have always tried to make sense of what did happen (our God was crucified) rather than what didn't.

It is not counter-factual, it is merely counter-your-mythical-beliefs.
Christians keep trying to make sense of a story that doesn't add up.

[Brakeman]

From the Christian perspective, Rhythm, Christ is the only perfect moral example ..

Christ does not make an attempt to correct the use of the old testament to justify slavery, something that was occurring around him at his time. This is a moral failing, thus he was not a "perfect moral example."

[Michael B]

I take it you would agree--using Nietzsche's formulation--that the following utterly fails to make sense?

"God's sacrifice of himself for the guilt of human beings, God paying himself back with himself, God as the only one who can redeem man from what for human beings has become impossible to redeem - the creditor sacrifices himself for the debtor, out of love (can people believe that?), out of love for his debtor!"

Personally I wouldn't hold to a view of God paying a debt to himself (either through 'satisfaction' or 'penal substitution'), no. I don't hold to a 'forensic' view of the cross. But I would still hold to Christ's sacrifice being for our transgressions; that is that he bore the suffering that is a consequence of our sin. He freely took that sin on himself on the cross, and returned that sin with blessing ('Father, forgive them for they know not what they do').

[Mudhammam]

I take it you would agree--using Nietzsche's formulation--that the following utterly fails to make sense?

"God's sacrifice of himself for the guilt of human beings, God paying himself back with himself, God as the only one who can redeem man from what for human beings has become impossible to redeem - the creditor sacrifices himself for the debtor, out of love (can people believe that?), out of love for his debtor!"

Personally I wouldn't hold to a view of God paying a debt to himself (either through 'satisfaction' or 'penal substitution'), no. I don't hold to a 'forensic' view of the cross. But I would still hold to Christ's sacrifice being for our transgressions; that is that he bore the suffering that is a consequence of our sin. He freely took that sin on himself on the cross, and returned that sin with blessing ('Father, forgive them for they know not what they do').

According to what logic is the consequence for "our sins" i.e. every non-religious thought and action that's ever occurred on the planet tantamount to the single Roman execution of a Jewish peasant? On what or who's account does one demand the other? God's? That makes it both completely unjust and gratuitous by any reasonable standard or sensible conception.