Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2016, 06:39 AM
Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
I still have these musings about religion, so I have recently been contemplating atonement.

A good example of the concept of atonement is represented by this verse in Romans:

Romans 5:18:- So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

There is a basic principle here that asserts that sin entered the world through one disobedient act, of course the consequences of this one act conferred suffering upon everyone. Everyone became subject to death, pain and suffering even though they had nothing to do with this act. Then it turns it right back around and says everyone can be delivered from death, pain and suffering by the act of sacrifice by one man. Yet this benefit of alleged deliverance is not automatically conferred on everyone like the initial act of disobedience. For you to be delivered from sin and its consequences, you have to accept the demi-gods sacrifice, but for you to be subject to sin’s consequences is an automatic process, you have to do nothing.

So it’s a one-way street, you automatically get the curse, but you have conditions to meet to be delivered from said curse. Even within the framework of this flawed atonement concept, sin has more power than atonement. Sin is automatic and universal, atonement is limited and conditional. I would think this has important implications theologically. It makes god into an ineffectual dufus, he can surely curse everything and cause planetwide suffering and death, but he can only dole out a limited and conditional fix for it.

There is also another fundamental flaw in this atonement concept, it has an incoherent definition of what sin is. It treats sin as two contradictory things:

1. A universal force
2. An individual act

If it’s a universal force, then no one can be responsible for what they do, if it’s an individual act, then they can be held responsible for what they do. This is a concept that’s trying to have it both ways, but these assertions are mutually exclusive.

One more point to bring up about this, it makes a laughably false claim. It says that by accepting Jesus’ blood sacrifice, you are delivered from death, pain and suffering – in the afterlife.

Once again, the consequence of the ambivalent force that is sin is far more powerful and obvious than the alleged deliverance from it. You will suffer in this world and then die, this is undeniably true, the evidence is pervasive and all around us. You live with abundant evidence of the reality of death and suffering.

Yet where is the evidence that we have deliverance from all of this? Zero, nada, you’ll find out after you die, you depend on death to give you the ultimate evidence of this alleged deliverance, but you will obviously have no way of knowing about consciousness after death until you’re dead.

You will have no way of knowing if a god exists or will even give you these rewards after death. All you have is a book that says so, the weaksauce that is called faith that is ultimately unable to deliver any evidence that one book’s claims are more true or less true than any other’s book’s claims.

Perhaps I can respect what the authors of this idea tried to do- promote a religious concept that gives you infinite benefit while providing zero evidence. It's apparent they deliberately shoved any potential evidence for their claims into the realm of the unfalsifiable, the afterlife.

I'm not sure if this was incredibly brilliant or incredibly sinister, maybe a little bit of both. Consider

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like TheInquisition's post
04-06-2016, 06:53 AM
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
Great post.

I vote for “a lot of both”.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
04-06-2016, 07:03 AM
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I still have these musings about religion, so I have recently been contemplating atonement.

A good example of the concept of atonement is represented by this verse in Romans:

Romans 5:18:- So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

There is a basic principle here that asserts that sin entered the world through one disobedient act, of course the consequences of this one act conferred suffering upon everyone. Everyone became subject to death, pain and suffering even though they had nothing to do with this act. Then it turns it right back around and says everyone can be delivered from death, pain and suffering by the act of sacrifice by one man. Yet this benefit of alleged deliverance is not automatically conferred on everyone like the initial act of disobedience. For you to be delivered from sin and its consequences, you have to accept the demi-gods sacrifice, but for you to be subject to sin’s consequences is an automatic process, you have to do nothing.

So it’s a one-way street, you automatically get the curse, but you have conditions to meet to be delivered from said curse. Even within the framework of this flawed atonement concept, sin has more power than atonement. Sin is automatic and universal, atonement is limited and conditional. I would think this has important implications theologically. It makes god into an ineffectual dufus, he can surely curse everything and cause planetwide suffering and death, but he can only dole out a limited and conditional fix for it.

There is also another fundamental flaw in this atonement concept, it has an incoherent definition of what sin is. It treats sin as two contradictory things:

1. A universal force
2. An individual act

If it’s a universal force, then no one can be responsible for what they do, if it’s an individual act, then they can be held responsible for what they do. This is a concept that’s trying to have it both ways, but these assertions are mutually exclusive.

One more point to bring up about this, it makes a laughably false claim. It says that by accepting Jesus’ blood sacrifice, you are delivered from death, pain and suffering – in the afterlife.

Once again, the consequence of the ambivalent force that is sin is far more powerful and obvious than the alleged deliverance from it. You will suffer in this world and then die, this is undeniably true, the evidence is pervasive and all around us. You live with abundant evidence of the reality of death and suffering.

Yet where is the evidence that we have deliverance from all of this? Zero, nada, you’ll find out after you die, you depend on death to give you the ultimate evidence of this alleged deliverance, but you will obviously have no way of knowing about consciousness after death until you’re dead.

You will have no way of knowing if a god exists or will even give you these rewards after death. All you have is a book that says so, the weaksauce that is called faith that is ultimately unable to deliver any evidence that one book’s claims are more true or less true than any other’s book’s claims.

Perhaps I can respect what the authors of this idea tried to do- promote a religious concept that gives you infinite benefit while providing zero evidence. It's apparent they deliberately shoved any potential evidence for their claims into the realm of the unfalsifiable, the afterlife.

I'm not sure if this was incredibly brilliant or incredibly sinister, maybe a little bit of both. Consider

This is a very valid point, and it the one thing that my very religious friend tripped over.

One day she asked me why we had to die when Jesus delivered us from the sin Eve committed. Should that not have reversed the death sentence?

So, this is a stumbling point for believers. She believes in taking the bible literally. Things don't make sense...

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
04-06-2016, 09:16 AM
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I still have these musings about religion, so I have recently been contemplating atonement.

A good example of the concept of atonement is represented by this verse in Romans:

Romans 5:18:- So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

There is a basic principle here that asserts that sin entered the world through one disobedient act, of course the consequences of this one act conferred suffering upon everyone. Everyone became subject to death, pain and suffering even though they had nothing to do with this act.

Except according to any given variety of Christianity, everyone has something to do with the act. No common form of Christianity, has a person confessing to be a sinner because of the acts of some dude several thousand years ago. They may believe that sin entered the world through Adam, yet they hold that we're all active participants in it in the here and now. It's why folks like Kirk Cameron go around asking people if they have ever lied, stolen, lusted after a women etc... No person ever seems to convicted of being a sinner for the actions of Adam.

Quote:So it’s a one-way street, you automatically get the curse, but you have conditions to meet to be delivered from said curse. Even within the framework of this flawed atonement concept, sin has more power than atonement.

Which would be like saying our transgressions have more power than forgiveness. Or our indifference, and hatred, have more power than love. Which may be true, at least for those who never lay witness to the power of grace, forgiveness, or love.

The reality of being human, is that failings, our transgressions often consume us, and become a seemingly irreparable aspect of who we are. How to heal, to be made whole again, constantly alludes us.

Quote:There is also another fundamental flaw in this atonement concept, it has an incoherent definition of what sin is. It treats sin as two contradictory things:

1. A universal force
2. An individual act

Sin is an archery term, meaning missing the mark. If that mark is to be perfect, to be Good, that it's to miss that mark. It's to point to human history and recognize that truth doesn't bear the marks of love, justice, or goodness, but often the marks of indifference, hatred, and injustice which prevail.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2016, 09:25 AM
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
(04-06-2016 09:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I still have these musings about religion, so I have recently been contemplating atonement.

A good example of the concept of atonement is represented by this verse in Romans:

Romans 5:18:- So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

There is a basic principle here that asserts that sin entered the world through one disobedient act, of course the consequences of this one act conferred suffering upon everyone. Everyone became subject to death, pain and suffering even though they had nothing to do with this act.

Except according to any given variety of Christianity, everyone has something to do with the act. No common form of Christianity, has a person confessing to be a sinner because of the acts of some dude several thousand years ago. They may believe that sin entered the world through Adam, yet they hold that we're all active participants in it in the here and now. It's why folks like Kirk Cameron go around asking people if they have ever lied, stolen, lusted after a women etc... No person ever seems to convicted of being a sinner for the actions of Adam.

Quote:So it’s a one-way street, you automatically get the curse, but you have conditions to meet to be delivered from said curse. Even within the framework of this flawed atonement concept, sin has more power than atonement.

Which would be like saying our transgressions have more power than forgiveness. Or our indifference, and hatred, have more power than love. Which may be true, at least for those who never lay witness to the power of grace, forgiveness, or love.

The reality of being human, is that failings, our transgressions often consume us, and become a seemingly irreparable aspect of who we are. How to heal, to be made whole again, constantly alludes us.

Quote:There is also another fundamental flaw in this atonement concept, it has an incoherent definition of what sin is. It treats sin as two contradictory things:

1. A universal force
2. An individual act

Sin is an archery term, meaning missing the mark. If that mark is to be perfect, to be Good, that it's to miss that mark. It's to point to human history and recognize that truth doesn't bear the marks of love, justice, or goodness, but often the marks of indifference, hatred, and injustice which prevail.

So St. Augustine and his influence is non existent as an impact on variety of Christianitys?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  There is a basic principle here that asserts that sin entered the world through one disobedient act, of course the consequences of this one act conferred suffering upon everyone.

Yes, that is the "original sin" supposedly washed away by baptism, for catholics anyway. We are born in the sin that someone else committed.

Under that logic, if your great-great-great grandfather murdered someone, you could be held accountable. That makes perfect sense.

(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Everyone became subject to death, pain and suffering even though they had nothing to do with this act. Then it turns it right back around and says everyone can be delivered from death, pain and suffering by the act of sacrifice by one man.

Someone else committed the sin, someone else atones for all of our sins.

Nice to think that the eternal paradise we are told to strive for can only be attained by the actions of another. That's ethical.

(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So it’s a one-way street, you automatically get the curse, but you have conditions to meet to be delivered from said curse. Even within the framework of this flawed atonement concept, sin has more power than atonement. Sin is automatic and universal, atonement is limited and conditional. I would think this has important implications theologically. It makes god into an ineffectual dufus, he can surely curse everything and cause planetwide suffering and death, but he can only dole out a limited and conditional fix for it.

It's even worse then that. Let's say someone wrongs you. Just picture the worst thing you can think of. The person suffers no earthly punishment. (At this point, believers usually spout off the "stand in judgement", etc.) Hours or minutes before the end of their life, the person truly repents and accepts jesus as their savior. They die and according to christians get to go to heaven.

Wait, it gets worse. If you do not forgive them, you are bound by your sins, which since you're born a sinful fuck, worthy of heaven, you are sent to hell.

This is the morality of god.

(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Perhaps I can respect what the authors of this idea tried to do- promote a religious concept that gives you infinite benefit while providing zero evidence. It's apparent they deliberately shoved any potential evidence for their claims into the realm of the unfalsifiable, the afterlife.

I'm not sure if this was incredibly brilliant or incredibly sinister, maybe a little bit of both. Consider

Both. You tell people that they are created sick. You tell them that they will suffer eternally. You tell them that you can help them, then sell them the cure. Like the old saying goes, if there aren't any sinners, priests are out of a job...

I can imagine that religion started as a legitimate search for answers. Weather, natural disasters, astronomy, illness, birth, death. All aspects of life were explained by gods via their priests.

As civilization progressed, religion evolved into a tool of social control and justification of authority. "Do it for god" is easier to say than to provide complex justifications for necessary actions. Laws evolved and law enforcers could not be everywhere. But an all-seeing god could. A clever person could escape earthly judgement, but not damnation from a righteous god.

But as religion has evolved and grown complex, so has our knowledge in other areas. Science has answered many questions that religion could not, or that religion answered falsely.

Religion has also become corrupted and the necessary social control has become manipulation and parasitism. Churches are now international corporations.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
04-06-2016, 11:45 AM
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I still have these musings about religion, so I have recently been contemplating atonement.

A good example of the concept of atonement is represented by this verse in Romans:

Romans 5:18:- So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. [...]

I'm afraid that as a lifelong atheist, I really can't be bothered trying to fathom the intent or the alleged meaningfulness of any of this nonsensical biblical scripture. Why waste one's time trying to philosophise about so-called atonement, when it's neither here nor there in the real world? It's all just fantasy.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
04-06-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
Of course the Christian god would be considered immoral, if it existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
04-06-2016, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2016 12:58 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
(04-06-2016 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I still have these musings about religion, so I have recently been contemplating atonement.

A good example of the concept of atonement is represented by this verse in Romans:

Romans 5:18:- So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

There is a basic principle here that asserts that sin entered the world through one disobedient act, of course the consequences of this one act conferred suffering upon everyone. Everyone became subject to death, pain and suffering even though they had nothing to do with this act. Then it turns it right back around and says everyone can be delivered from death, pain and suffering by the act of sacrifice by one man. Yet this benefit of alleged deliverance is not automatically conferred on everyone like the initial act of disobedience. For you to be delivered from sin and its consequences, you have to accept the demi-gods sacrifice, but for you to be subject to sin’s consequences is an automatic process, you have to do nothing.

So it’s a one-way street, you automatically get the curse, but you have conditions to meet to be delivered from said curse. Even within the framework of this flawed atonement concept, sin has more power than atonement. Sin is automatic and universal, atonement is limited and conditional. I would think this has important implications theologically. It makes god into an ineffectual dufus, he can surely curse everything and cause planetwide suffering and death, but he can only dole out a limited and conditional fix for it.

There is also another fundamental flaw in this atonement concept, it has an incoherent definition of what sin is. It treats sin as two contradictory things:

1. A universal force
2. An individual act

If it’s a universal force, then no one can be responsible for what they do, if it’s an individual act, then they can be held responsible for what they do. This is a concept that’s trying to have it both ways, but these assertions are mutually exclusive.

One more point to bring up about this, it makes a laughably false claim. It says that by accepting Jesus’ blood sacrifice, you are delivered from death, pain and suffering – in the afterlife.

Once again, the consequence of the ambivalent force that is sin is far more powerful and obvious than the alleged deliverance from it. You will suffer in this world and then die, this is undeniably true, the evidence is pervasive and all around us. You live with abundant evidence of the reality of death and suffering.

Yet where is the evidence that we have deliverance from all of this? Zero, nada, you’ll find out after you die, you depend on death to give you the ultimate evidence of this alleged deliverance, but you will obviously have no way of knowing about consciousness after death until you’re dead.

You will have no way of knowing if a god exists or will even give you these rewards after death. All you have is a book that says so, the weaksauce that is called faith that is ultimately unable to deliver any evidence that one book’s claims are more true or less true than any other’s book’s claims.

Perhaps I can respect what the authors of this idea tried to do- promote a religious concept that gives you infinite benefit while providing zero evidence. It's apparent they deliberately shoved any potential evidence for their claims into the realm of the unfalsifiable, the afterlife.

I'm not sure if this was incredibly brilliant or incredibly sinister, maybe a little bit of both. Consider

It was a brilliantly sinister sales pitch..instantaneous guilt upon birth and a lifetime of mental slavery spent bowing, praying, begging and scraping the floor before an invisible un-evidenced transcendental being.....while dropping one's tithing in the plate each sunday. Now I wonder who stood to gain from such a scheme....Consider could it be the good shepherds? The men of cloth who claimed to have the ear of god? Ever wonder why the bible has such intensely detailed instructions for making a sacrificial offering? How it demanded the best cuts for "god" as a sign of devotion? Now, of course, god wasn't there to pick up his offering, that is why he has the good priests to receive it in his name....now what could their agenda have been for writing such nonsense.....hmmmm the best cuts of meat perfectly prepared.....well damn, I can't come up with a reason....Rolleyes

For those of you who have read my musings on this subject before, please forgive and ignore my pasting below. For those who have not, perhaps it can enlighten you on where this nonsense of incarnation and atonement came from....

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674774

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement mean to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal Son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as a penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James Version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God and human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory that describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James Version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James Version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die. Since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God and he must react against it with holy wrath. The demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience and discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James Version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that the sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done to restore the balance. For example, a sin is an incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeem mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James Version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point, the author makes a faith claim or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute and has been the center of the debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does, however, assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works, but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling as validation of their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James Version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil to free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was a ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was a payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune God, did God merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life-creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, and anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seem unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a 2014 study showed that one-fourth of America believes the sun revolves around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.

Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas, Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-06-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Atonement is incoherent and self-contradictory.
Original Sin becomes even more absurd when you add the soul to the mix. How does your soul contract Original Sin? Is it inheritted like eye colour? Or is God cranking out flawed souls?

The whole lot is preposterous and the end result of a theology evolving to snare illiterate bumpkins in the first few centuries CE. Lots of hooks and snares but the philosophy is garbage.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: