- This topic is empty.
- Posts
On page 253 of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins writes:
I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity. If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment – thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of Jews to pogroms and persecution as ‘Christ-Killers’: did that hereditary sin pass down in the semen too?
Paul, as the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes makes clear, was steeped in the old Jewish theological principle that without blood there is no atonement. Indeed, in his epistle to the Hebrews (9:22) he said as much. Progressive ethicists today find it hard to defend any kind of retributive theory of punishment, let alone the scapegoat theory – executing an innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. In any case (one can’t help wondering), who was God trying to impress? Presumably himself – judge and jury as well as execution victim. To cap it all, Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed in the first place: an awkward fact – excusably unknown to Paul but presumably known to an omniscient God (and Jesus, if you believe he was God?) – which fundamentally undermines the premise of the whole tortuously nasty theory. Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.
In the thread on the immorality of christianity Christopher Hitchens explains how the christian concept of atonement is immoral. Dawkins's take includes the explanation that atonement doesn't even make logical sense.
Stuart
when dawkins can refrain from using his beliefs to discredit and degrade others, then he will still end up with the same he has now, nothing of importance to say.
princess
I think it is pretty clear already that the arguments that discredit christianity have been made, and would appear not to have many good answers, but might the question here not be why does a religious believer allow himself to feel degraded just because someone mounts a rational argument against the ideas he carries in his head?
I am more than happy to be proved wrong, it is a way of learning new things about the universe. Why is it that even being questioned is so devastating when it is religious belief in question?
Stuart
you do not have to be religious to know that dawkings degrades. he cannot make it any more obvious in his opening statements.
he does not do what he does with a pure heart.
princess
Stu,
I do not worship Progressive ethicists whom I hold to be under the influance of evil.
Jesus sacrificed himself that believed in him should receive the Spirit of God. He stated as much when he told his students if he did not go then the Spirit of God would not come to them.
Those that live by the Spirit of God wil not sin thus fufilling the condition that leads to forgiveness.
Atonement most likly means ” To reconcile or harmonize” which is an obsolete definition according to thefreedictionary.com since you cannot give anything that was not his due in the first place.
Thus one who lives by the spirit atones for their sins.
Blaming Jews for the sins of those among them that either through ignorance or corruption chose to sin is serving the Devil. All ethnicities have those among their number who have done henious sins.
Quote (Stu @ June 04 2011,11:46) On page 253 of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins writes: I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity. If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment – thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of Jews to pogroms and persecution as ‘Christ-Killers’: did that hereditary sin pass down in the semen too?
Paul, as the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes makes clear, was steeped in the old Jewish theological principle that without blood there is no atonement. Indeed, in his epistle to the Hebrews (9:22) he said as much. Progressive ethicists today find it hard to defend any kind of retributive theory of punishment, let alone the scapegoat theory – executing an innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. In any case (one can’t help wondering), who was God trying to impress? Presumably himself – judge and jury as well as execution victim. To cap it all, Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed in the first place: an awkward fact – excusably unknown to Paul but presumably known to an omniscient God (and Jesus, if you believe he was God?) – which fundamentally undermines the premise of the whole tortuously nasty theory. Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.
In the thread on the immorality of christianity Christopher Hitchens explains how the christian concept of atonement is immoral. Dawkins's take includes the explanation that atonement doesn't even make logical sense.
Stuart
This is complete foolishness and displays the ignorance of Dawkins and yourself as atonement is only a product of repentance so obviously the forgiving of someone's sins would be contingent upon their understanding of what a sin is.The logic of darwin is the basis of wanton MURDER and you seem to assist his belief
Quote (princess @ June 07 2011,14:31) you do not have to be religious to know that dawkings degrades. he cannot make it any more obvious in his opening statements. he does not do what he does with a pure heart.
princess
I have no idea what you mean. I think he is sincere and has backed up what he claims. I'm sure you are sincere too, but I'm not sure you have done any backing up of your claims.Stuart
Quote (kerwin @ June 07 2011,15:26) Stu, I do not worship Progressive ethicists whom I hold to be under the influance of evil.
Jesus sacrificed himself that believed in him should receive the Spirit of God. He stated as much when he told his students if he did not go then the Spirit of God would not come to them.
Those that live by the Spirit of God wil not sin thus fufilling the condition that leads to forgiveness.
Atonement most likly means ” To reconcile or harmonize” which is an obsolete definition according to thefreedictionary.com since you cannot give anything that was not his due in the first place.
Thus one who lives by the spirit atones for their sins.
Blaming Jews for the sins of those among them that either through ignorance or corruption chose to sin is serving the Devil. All ethnicities have those among their number who have done henious sins.
My Concise Oxford has a specific term “the Atonement” which it defines as “the expiation by Christ of mankind's sin”. In turn, “expiate” means “to pay the penalty for”.However, I do understand there are many different ways of interpreting a word that literally means “at-one-ness”.
All the following copied from the relevant Wikipedia pages:
Moral influence theory of atonement
The moral influence view of the atonement teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection.
Recapitulation atonement
In the recapitulation view of the atonement, Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed. Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life (including morality).
Substitutionary atonement
The term Christus Victor refers to a Christian understanding of the atonement which views Christ's death as the means by which the powers of evil, which held humankind under their dominion, were defeated.
Drawing primarily from the works of Anselm of Canterbury, the satisfaction theory teaches that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God's honor by his infinite merit
[Ransom theory] claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that grace pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.
Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.
Governmental theory of atonement
The governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans apart from punishment while still maintaining divine justice.
Limited / unlimited atonement
Limited atonement states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.
Unlimited atonement states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.
I think it reasonable to say that Dawkins has not misrepresented christianity, but rather there are christians like yourself who dissent from the interpretation he claims is immoral. He is probably criticising the Anglican view of his youth, and fair enough given it is the established church of his country, and a significant denomination of the US where his book is popular. And I’m sure there are trinitarians who would argue that you and others here are Arian or Adventist in their views, and could quote scripture that they claim negates those views. Indeed scripture is dangerously ambiguous. Just look at the trinity thread: did you ever see a forum thread run to over 10,000 posts?
So I learn about your position, sounding as it does like “Jesus paved the way”, perhaps most similar to moral influence and recapitulation views above. Is that fair?
But I think it contradicts:
Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1 Timothy 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Hebrews 9:13-15For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
1 John 2:2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(Propitiation unquestionably being “appeasement”)How am I doing with the correct stitching on the hem of the emperor’s new vestments?
Stuart
Stu,
You have definitely convinced me that atonement is a disputed issue in the religious establishments of those who call themselves Christians.
Scripture can be hard to understand.
Dawkins may be correct about the Anglican church.
You have given me some things to think about. Thank you.
Quote Dawkins's take includes the explanation that atonement doesn't even make logical sense. mayas/incas along with other ancients believed otherwise.
the question is:
what brought about blood atonement, where did it begin, why so important, how did the practice become so widespread.
when did dawkins attain his anthropology degree, dawkins intentionally specifies and directs his comments toward one religion. shows bigotry laced with bias.
Quote If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment dawkins conclusion with the christian text is jesus is god. a perfect choice, brings him up the ranks a bit, strange how some use information.
actually, kepha was more jewish then paul, the questions still exist who is the writer of hebrews, the book does not reflect paul's teaching, tis the reason why you have pauline christianity, which removes all the jewish way of worship.
if you could direct me to the proof that 'adam' did not exist. even the theory of ape to man, the first man 'which is the meaning of adam' would be.
the atonement post is very well thought out, however, as the writer of the post agrees with dawkins, one tends to wonder, a copy and paste occur, or did the writer propose this on their own.
Princess,
Quote the book does not reflect paul's teaching, tis the reason why you have pauline christianity, which removes all the jewish way of worship. You blame too much on a book that is not even opposed to what God states in the Old Testiment.
Peter was correct when he stated the ignorant and corrupt men misinterpret scripture to their own damnation.
Dawkins is addressing a particular Christian tenet among many competing tenets. I may also disagree with that defintion of atonement.
Hebrews is speaking of contracts sealed with blood. Atonement is merely part of that contract just like it was with the one sealed with blood that even now exists between the children of Israel and God.
Quote (princess @ June 11 2011,15:43) Quote Dawkins's take includes the explanation that atonement doesn't even make logical sense. mayas/incas along with other ancients believed otherwise.
the question is:
what brought about blood atonement, where did it begin, why so important, how did the practice become so widespread.
when did dawkins attain his anthropology degree, dawkins intentionally specifies and directs his comments toward one religion. shows bigotry laced with bias.
Quote If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment dawkins conclusion with the christian text is jesus is god. a perfect choice, brings him up the ranks a bit, strange how some use information.
actually, kepha was more jewish then paul, the questions still exist who is the writer of hebrews, the book does not reflect paul's teaching, tis the reason why you have pauline christianity, which removes all the jewish way of worship.
if you could direct me to the proof that 'adam' did not exist. even the theory of ape to man, the first man 'which is the meaning of adam' would be.
the atonement post is very well thought out, however, as the writer of the post agrees with dawkins, one tends to wonder, a copy and paste occur, or did the writer propose this on their own.
What exactly do the ancient and indigenous people of South America have to do with this? I thought it was specifically about a Middle Eastern god having itself put to death to impress itself, or not, depending on whether your fantasy story has multiple fictional characters rolled into one.There never was a time of just one human, or two. There is no such thing as a “first man”. Species boundaries are debatable, you can't pick a single year and say that is when homo rhodesiensis stopped and homo sapiens began. There was a whole population changing very slowly over a very large span of time.
Stuart
once again prince Stuart, you cannot broaden that mind of yours. the main subject of your post was atonement was it not, the many definitions, comparisons. then do not sound so shocked that one introduces a culture that is well noted for this.
giving blood to a god as appeasement is a staple in theology, i really don't understand what you the writer are proposing. dawkins calls only christians mad for doing this, then my conclusion is correct, he is a bigot and bias in his opinion, something must have happened in his life for him to bring about such hate for one religion, perhaps he was denied being an altar boy, or carrying the golden tray to place the gold in tis hard to tell.
how do you know there was not a first man? seriously, you can state you know what happen seconds before the big bang, you can state why there is lightening but not how.
so you propose that many men were formed, must have been a change in the atomosphere when woman was created. why do you forget so about woman Prince Stuart. how do you explain such things as a woman. what during the time of evolution, not only the male species gradually became man, miraclously the female was evoling at the same rate?
when will you ever get past step one Prince Stuart.
Quote (princess @ June 12 2011,00:23) once again prince Stuart, you cannot broaden that mind of yours. the main subject of your post was atonement was it not, the many definitions, comparisons. then do not sound so shocked that one introduces a culture that is well noted for this. giving blood to a god as appeasement is a staple in theology, i really don't understand what you the writer are proposing. dawkins calls only christians mad for doing this, then my conclusion is correct, he is a bigot and bias in his opinion, something must have happened in his life for him to bring about such hate for one religion, perhaps he was denied being an altar boy, or carrying the golden tray to place the gold in tis hard to tell.
how do you know there was not a first man? seriously, you can state you know what happen seconds before the big bang, you can state why there is lightening but not how.
so you propose that many men were formed, must have been a change in the atomosphere when woman was created. why do you forget so about woman Prince Stuart. how do you explain such things as a woman. what during the time of evolution, not only the male species gradually became man, miraclously the female was evoling at the same rate?
when will you ever get past step one Prince Stuart.
The thread is about the concept of atonement in christianity. I don't think the Incas had christianity.How do I know there was not a first man? For the reasons I gave you already. It is your turn now, what is your basis for claiming there was a time of just one or two people? How do you justify that in population and genetic terms?
Your comment regarding men and women is trite. On this subject you are a clanging bell, you have no love for any of it.
You could say the same about my attitude to your god. I am yet to be convinced there is a moral argument for loving that idea.
Stuart
Quote (kerwin @ June 11 2011,19:19) Princess, Quote the book does not reflect paul's teaching, tis the reason why you have pauline christianity, which removes all the jewish way of worship. You blame too much on a book that is not even opposed to what God states in the Old Testiment.
Peter was correct when he stated the ignorant and corrupt men misinterpret scripture to their own damnation.
Dawkins is addressing a particular Christian tenet among many competing tenets. I may also disagree with that defintion of atonement.
Hebrews is speaking of contracts sealed with blood. Atonement is merely part of that contract just like it was with the one sealed with blood that even now exists between the children of Israel and God.
Kerwin, my fellow teacher.I do not disagree with your conclusion of hebrews, nor that of kepha.
i do not blame books, kerwin tis the teachers of these books is where the milestone lays.
hebrews also speaks that we must take rest, to reflect on the blessings that are bestowed upon us.
your always at such peace kerwin, to find one with a pure heart is too far and inbetween, much love to you. take care of yourself.
Quote (Stu @ June 12 2011,00:34) Quote (princess @ June 12 2011,00:23) once again prince Stuart, you cannot broaden that mind of yours. the main subject of your post was atonement was it not, the many definitions, comparisons. then do not sound so shocked that one introduces a culture that is well noted for this. giving blood to a god as appeasement is a staple in theology, i really don't understand what you the writer are proposing. dawkins calls only christians mad for doing this, then my conclusion is correct, he is a bigot and bias in his opinion, something must have happened in his life for him to bring about such hate for one religion, perhaps he was denied being an altar boy, or carrying the golden tray to place the gold in tis hard to tell.
how do you know there was not a first man? seriously, you can state you know what happen seconds before the big bang, you can state why there is lightening but not how.
so you propose that many men were formed, must have been a change in the atomosphere when woman was created. why do you forget so about woman Prince Stuart. how do you explain such things as a woman. what during the time of evolution, not only the male species gradually became man, miraclously the female was evoling at the same rate?
when will you ever get past step one Prince Stuart.
The thread is about the concept of atonement in christianity. I don't think the Incas had christianity.How do I know there was not a first man? For the reasons I gave you already. It is your turn now, what is your basis for claiming there was a time of just one or two people? How do you justify that in population and genetic terms?
Your comment regarding men and women is trite. On this subject you are a clanging bell, you have no love for any of it.
You could say the same about my attitude to your god. I am yet to be convinced there is a moral argument for loving that idea.
Stuart
then stick with the christians Prince Stuart, tis no bother to me.due tell, who came first man or woman, don't believe any of your theories give great insight.
Dear Prince, you clang once again, about knowing my god. so you wanna play whose bell clangs louder? cant today, perhaps another time.
i do not deter your decision to love a god that demands blood for love.
tis wonderful to see you use the word love and apply it to yourself. perfectly wonderful.
I can see nothing but platitudes there princess.
I'm not sure what else I can say regarding men and women. It is so obviously a ridiculous question. I guess that's what you get when you base your worldview on the ignorant writings of superstitious ancient Middle Eastern desert tribes. The Greeks were already miles ahead even back then.
There were male and female of our ancestor species homo rhodesiensis, and there were males and females of their ancestor homo antecessor before them, and so on back for hundreds of millions of years. How do you think it is that most successful species of animal (at least the multicellular ones) all reproduce sexually? It is not just humans that have male and female. Would you ask the question whether the female crocodile existed before the male? I hope not, it is a supremely ignorant question to ask. It is not an ignorant question when it comes to the origins of sexual reproduction, which is a tricky problem in biology. That is no reason to assert magical fantasy conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends, which will get you no closer to the answer.
Stuart
Quote (princess @ June 11 2011,19:48) Quote (kerwin @ June 11 2011,19:19) Princess, Quote the book does not reflect paul's teaching, tis the reason why you have pauline christianity, which removes all the jewish way of worship. You blame too much on a book that is not even opposed to what God states in the Old Testiment.
Peter was correct when he stated the ignorant and corrupt men misinterpret scripture to their own damnation.
Dawkins is addressing a particular Christian tenet among many competing tenets. I may also disagree with that defintion of atonement.
Hebrews is speaking of contracts sealed with blood. Atonement is merely part of that contract just like it was with the one sealed with blood that even now exists between the children of Israel and God.
Kerwin, my fellow teacher.I do not disagree with your conclusion of hebrews, nor that of kepha.
i do not blame books, kerwin tis the teachers of these books is where the milestone lays.
hebrews also speaks that we must take rest, to reflect on the blessings that are bestowed upon us.
your always at such peace kerwin, to find one with a pure heart is too far and inbetween, much love to you. take care of yourself.
Sounds right. I apreciate the compliment but it only by the power of God that I achieve anything. Keep searching.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
