Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[RobbyPants]

The want to fit in with majority theists, but feel superior to majority theists at the same time.

I think this explains it:



It strikes me as some sort of hipster intellectualism.

[Michael B]

On the vicarious nature of redemption, back on page 2, some (actually many) Christians have held to a moral influence view of the cross, where Jesus is leading the way in rejection of sin and violence. In this case Jesus points towards a sacrifice we all make (the rejection of violence, even in response to evil). This view of the cross has a very long history in the Church (it is a much more traditional view than 'Penal substitution', for example).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_inf..._atonement

Certainly it should also be remembered that 'penal substitution' was not an atonement theory held for the first 1,500 years of the Church, and today is rejected by all the ancient Churches: the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches (though it is probably the theology held to most commonly in the US).

[Mudhammam]

On the vicarious nature of redemption, some Christians have held to a moral influence view of the cross, where Jesus is leading the way in rejection of sin and violence. In this case Jesus points towards a sacrifice we all make (the rejection of violence, even in response to evil). It has a very long history in the Church (it is a much more traditional view than 'Penal substitution', for example).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_inf..._atonement

Certainly it should also be remembered that 'penal substitution' was not an atonement theory held for the first 1,500 years of the Church, and today is rejected by all the ancient Churches: the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches (though it is probably the theology held to most commonly in the US).

Basically, ignore the entire Old Testament and its explicit use of the scapegoat upon which Christianity formed, along with numerous verses in the New Testament that repeat the point that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness?

[The Grand Nudger]

On the vicarious nature of redemption, back on page 2, some (actually many) Christians have held to a moral influence view of the cross, where Jesus is leading the way in rejection of sin and violence. In this case Jesus points towards a sacrifice we all make (the rejection of violence, even in response to evil). This view of the cross has a very long history in the Church (it is a much more traditional view than 'Penal substitution', for example).

I was kind of hoping that you'd find your way to this thread Michael. Under this view, would it be fair to say that the crucifixion (and christ) was not and is not required for redemption (or even more explicitly, that "redemption" isn;t even a factor...all that is required is that one lead a good life)? It's dissappointing to me, btw, that this wasn't the direction that the church went (just had a convo about that in another thread actually). How about you, is this your preferred concept, or, at the least, one which you find to be more acceptable than ransom, sub, etc -if not specifically preferred?

[Michael B]

The problem with that question Rhythm is that for the Christian it's counter-factual. I think, like history, we have enough challenges making best sense of what did happen rather than what didn't. But without our Lord's Passion I think the moral influence would be significantly weakened: as it was, he lived out his verbal teaching 'do not resist evil' in a way that leaves little doubt he meant what he taught. So to die for Christ has always been seen as noble, whereas to kill for Christ has had an ignoble history.

The Church has taken the question of whether we must necessarily need Christ seriously. Pelagius, for example, argued that we could respond to being told the law of God, but that we don't. But, the consideration was that experience (both our own, and the experiences revealed in scripture) tells us we can't always choose good (though the Eastern Church were and are still more open to the possibility).

[fr0d0]

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.

So your not confused. You're convinced of the conspiracy theory. I find you utterly disgusting in your perversion. Just sayin.

[Michael B]

P.S. As for me Rhythm, I hold to moral influence and to Christus Victor. Two very traditional views. Not very trendy.

[The Grand Nudger]

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:
--------------

What's counter-factual about the question Mike? I've opined on the latter (victus), bit further back, you probably caught that in my comments on Eastern Orthodoxy. While neither the influence or victory models seem to me to be as immoral as ransom or sub - I've gotta say, neither overcome my objection (though it's possible that some answer to that question I posed would - IOW...there's opportunity here...lol). Which probably explains why I'm not a christian...eh?

[Michael B]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Well, the moral influence POV can lead to such conclusions. If he's just an example, a martyr - is there any difference between christ and any other charismatic faith leader -including those that pagans might consider martyrs? Is there really any benefit to christianity exclusively? If he is an example...why didn't god follow this example, simply forgiving adam and eve (rather than cursing them)...thus no sin to transfer to their progeny (rendering redemption from original sin, for example, null as a concept). If we can raise ourselves up, then is the crucifixion really all that important...relative to attending a motivational seminar or somesuch?

These are the sorts of objections that led to this concept not being very "trendy" as you put it, in christian circles. It makes most of the principles of christianity an exercise in irrelevance. I would also wonder just how compatible victus and influence are, to be honest. I mean, it sounds nice, doesn;t it.....but is the moral influence bit doing any of the heavy lifting -even in your own views-, or is it just window dressing?