Omnibenevolent (all loving)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 07:02 PM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 05:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:There is nowhere where God says that sacrifice is unnecessary - only that it is unwanted if it is only going through the motions.

I didn’t use the word unnecessary. It wouldn’t be approbate to claim that The Lord Supper, Water Baptism is unnecessary, even though they are rituals. There’s a variety of non-religious rituals that we couldn’t dismiss as unnecessary, which are rituals nonetheless, like the ones involved in funeral ceremonies, weddings, etc… The point being emphasized is that the ritual is meaningless in and of itself, and only derives it’s meaning by it’s representations. Hence why we can say a sacrifice is meaningless void of an “inner spiritual attitude”, but we can’t say than an “inner spiritual attitude” is meaningless without a sacrifice.

I have said nothing about rituals - where did you get that? This is about what the God of the Bible deems necessary or meaningful.

Quote:By the 2nd Century, with the destruction of the temple, the Jews were no longer sacrificing animal's either. Yet repentance, “the inner spiritual attitude” continued without this practice.

Good, they started to become civilized.

Quote:
Quote:Except that it is based on vicarious atonement by blood sacrifice.

You can’t have it both ways can you? You can’t concede that sacrifice without “inner spiritual attitude” is meaningless,

I am pointing out that God finds it meaningless without “inner spiritual attitude” , not me.
I'd say it's always meaningless - and barbaric.

Quote:than imply that atonement requires blood.

I am not the one implying that atonement requires blood; that would be the Bible that does that.

Quote:You can’t say that flowers are meaningless without an apology, and than claim forgiveness is based on the offering of flowers.

No, I wouldn't. How did you go so completely off track?

Quote:While there are Christian groups that subscribe to some vicarious view of atonement, it’s primarily certain fundie evangelical groups. The Eastern Orthodox clearly don’t, the Catholics don’t either, and considered it to be a distorted view, one highlighting the point made my flower analogy:

“The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction.

This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustin). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Even so, I doubt even among believers who do subscribe to some form of vicarious atonement theology, any description you have of these views, is likely to be rejected even by them. Seen more as a strawman, than an accurate interpretation of their views.

Oh, dear. Then "God gave his only begotten Son" doesn't mean that God gave his only begotten son? That Christ's death on the cross is meaningless to Christians? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-08-2015, 06:15 AM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(27-08-2015 07:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have said nothing about rituals - where did you get that? This is about what the God of the Bible deems necessary or meaningful.

I said rituals. And I described animal sacrifices as a ritual. The God of the Bible doesn’t deem the ritual meaningful, he deems what embodies the ritual “inner spiritual attitude” as you put it meaningful. Without the thing which it embodies, the act is meaningless. It’s just going through the motions.

Quote:Good, they started to become civilized.

Not really. As per Deut 12, the Jews were only permitted to commit sacrifices in the Temple, which was destroyed by the second century, and whose space is currently occupied by a Mosque. Orthodox Jews pray for the restoration of the temple, and the resumption of it rituals, and that when the messiah comes, a placed will be provided for sacrificial purposes.

So they didn’t stop because they become more “civilized”. The point here is, that even though the practice of animal sacrifices stopped, forgiveness, repentance didn’t. That these aspects were not dependent on animal sacrifices. This is a part of the biblical understanding. The book of Jonah tells of an entire community that was condemned to destruction for their inequities, and were forgiven because they repented, without ever offering any sacrifice, blood or other wise.

Quote:I am pointing out that God finds it meaningless without “inner spiritual attitude” , not me.
I'd say it's always meaningless - and barbaric.

What your trying to claim is what the OT, and NT views on sacrifice are, and I’m just pointing out that your views are wrong. That the biblical view is bit more complicated than what you’re trying to reduce it to. And your views will likely be rejected by both Christians and Jews of any stripe.

Quote:I am not the one implying that atonement requires blood; that would be the Bible that does that.

No, the Bible has many accounts in which atonement was granted, without blood, like in the case of Ninevah. Hence why you don’t find Jews in a panic, worried that they can no longer be forgiven for the transgressions, because the Temple has been destroyed.

Atonement requires sincerity if anything, without that everything else is meaningless.

Quote:Oh, dear. Then "God gave his only begotten Son" doesn't mean that God gave his only begotten son? That Christ's death on the cross is meaningless to Christians?

You just pull out one strawman after the other don’t you? Just because Christians subscribe to a wide variety of atonement theologies, doesn’t mean they believe atonement is meaningless.

But I think we need an analogy here to help clarify your confusion.

Imagine if a man and his sister are estranged, but their’s mother death, brought them together, and healed their broken relationship. We can all agree that her death brought them together, and healed their fractured relationship. And perhaps we could even say that if it wasn’t for her death, they would likely have continued to be estranged. Through her death, they were able to let go of their resentments, return to a loving relationship, which they’ve lost for a long time.

When we say their mother's death brought them together in such away, it’s an observation of the effect. Something that can be acknowledged, without knowing how exactly her death brought them together. The second question, the question of how, is the questioning attempting to be answered by Atonement theologies.

But the problem that these various theologies suffer from, that will leave the question open for a long time, is that the Gospels and the NT don’t really answer the second question either, they devote themselves articulating the effect, and the first 100 or so years of Christianity were spent just acknowledging this. Even Anselm who formulated satisfaction theories of atonement, has to concede that his views are provisional. In his own words: ““we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.”

Christians of all stripes acknowledge the effect, so anything they have to say about the “how”, has to be connected to that. While many atheists seem to think that the two can be disconnected, that you meaningfully speak about the “how” with that “inner spiritual attitude” as you put it.

I think the question of the effect is more interesting than question of the how, because the effect allows to ignore what takes place at a some cosmic level, and speak of those things that change people lives, amend broken relationships, etc.. In this sense we wouldn’t be speaking just of one man’s death and suffering, but death and suffering.

I remember years ago, when I wasn’t much of a believer, watching the Passion of Christ in theater in the Bay Area. I remember afterwords looking at the faces of grown men, many probably your age, who probably looked a bit like you, moved by that image of living tragedy. Men who I would have thought were stones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
(28-08-2015 06:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 07:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have said nothing about rituals - where did you get that? This is about what the God of the Bible deems necessary or meaningful.

I said rituals. And I described animal sacrifices as a ritual. The God of the Bible doesn’t deem the ritual meaningful, he deems what embodies the ritual “inner spiritual attitude” as you put it meaningful. Without the thing which it embodies, the act is meaningless. It’s just going through the motions.

True, but not the point. The sacrifice was required.

Quote:
Quote:Good, they started to become civilized.

Not really. As per Deut 12, the Jews were only permitted to commit sacrifices in the Temple, which was destroyed by the second century, and whose space is currently occupied by a Mosque. Orthodox Jews pray for the restoration of the temple, and the resumption of it rituals, and that when the messiah comes, a placed will be provided for sacrificial purposes.

So they are still Bronze Age barbarians?

Quote:So they didn’t stop because they become more “civilized”. The point here is, that even though the practice of animal sacrifices stopped, forgiveness, repentance didn’t. That these aspects were not dependent on animal sacrifices. This is a part of the biblical understanding. The book of Jonah tells of an entire community that was condemned to destruction for their inequities, and were forgiven because they repented, without ever offering any sacrifice, blood or other wise.

I'm not talking about today; this is about what the God of the Old Testament required.

Quote:
Quote:I am pointing out that God finds it meaningless without “inner spiritual attitude” , not me.
I'd say it's always meaningless - and barbaric.

What your trying to claim is what the OT, and NT views on sacrifice are, and I’m just pointing out that your views are wrong. That the biblical view is bit more complicated than what you’re trying to reduce it to. And your views will likely be rejected by both Christians and Jews of any stripe.

You are, again, missing the point. Animal sacrifice is barbaric and the God of the Old Testament demanded it of the righteous.

Quote:
Quote:I am not the one implying that atonement requires blood; that would be the Bible that does that.

No, the Bible has many accounts in which atonement was granted, without blood, like in the case of Ninevah. Hence why you don’t find Jews in a panic, worried that they can no longer be forgiven for the transgressions, because the Temple has been destroyed.

Atonement cannot be granted - it must be performed. Forgiveness can be granted.

Quote:Atonement requires sincerity if anything, without that everything else is meaningless.

So?

Quote:
Quote:Oh, dear. Then "God gave his only begotten Son" doesn't mean that God gave his only begotten son? That Christ's death on the cross is meaningless to Christians?

You just pull out one strawman after the other don’t you? Just because Christians subscribe to a wide variety of atonement theologies, doesn’t mean they believe atonement is meaningless.

I didn't say atonement was meaningless. I have said that vicarious atonement is meaningless.

Quote:But I think we need an analogy here to help clarify your confusion.

I'm not confused. You have missed my point.

Quote:Imagine if a man and his sister are estranged, but their’s mother death, brought them together, and healed their broken relationship. We can all agree that her death brought them together, and healed their fractured relationship. And perhaps we could even say that if it wasn’t for her death, they would likely have continued to be estranged. Through her death, they were able to let go of their resentments, return to a loving relationship, which they’ve lost for a long time.

When we say their mother's death brought them together in such away, it’s an observation of the effect. Something that can be acknowledged, without knowing how exactly her death brought them together. The second question, the question of how, is the questioning attempting to be answered by Atonement theologies.

Their mother's death actually happened for them. The Crucifixion? Not so much.
Any number of things could have brought them together. Death was not required.

Quote:But the problem that these various theologies suffer from, that will leave the question open for a long time, is that the Gospels and the NT don’t really answer the second question either, they devote themselves articulating the effect, and the first 100 or so years of Christianity were spent just acknowledging this. Even Anselm who formulated satisfaction theories of atonement, has to concede that his views are provisional. In his own words: ““we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.”

Was he speaking of atonement in general, or a specific one?

Quote:Christians of all stripes acknowledge the effect, so anything they have to say about the “how”, has to be connected to that. While many atheists seem to think that the two can be disconnected, that you meaningfully speak about the “how” with that “inner spiritual attitude” as you put it.

I am saying nothing of the sort.

Quote:I think the question of the effect is more interesting than question of the how, because the effect allows to ignore what takes place at a some cosmic level, and speak of those things that change people lives, amend broken relationships, etc.. In this sense we wouldn’t be speaking just of one man’s death and suffering, but death and suffering.

Off the track.

Quote:I remember years ago, when I wasn’t much of a believer, watching the Passion of Christ in theater in the Bay Area. I remember afterwords looking at the faces of grown men, many probably your age, who probably looked a bit like you, moved by that image of living tragedy. Men who I would have thought were stones.

Are you taking lessons from Q and BlowJob? Consider

Shove your barely-veiled, passive-aggressive insults up your ass.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-08-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: Omnibenevolent (all loving)
It's kinda charming that he thinks we don't grasp the concept of the repentant attitude needed for atonement.

Kinda.

I don't mind the flowers metaphor. I like metaphors. But it still doesn't explain why God ever needed flowers, nor why God sent "His only begotten Son" as a bouquet of flowers, if all that was necessary was a conciliatory attitude and a prayer of forgiveness.

Just as we can't remove the attitude from the practice of ritual atonement, you can't remove the blood sacrifice (or as Chas calls it, atonement by proxy) element.

Remember, we're basically chasing down two competing hypotheses for why these sacrifices.

H1) The Hebrews were a Bronze-Age desert tribal sheepherder people with a lot of religious traditions left over from earlier, animist and polytheist roots, including the notion of blood sacrifice, a death to appease the capricious deities by invoking God Magic™. (Ours.)

H2) There is no such thing as necessary blood sacrifice, you're just imagining that it's in there. All one needs to do is be very, very sorry and give a symbol of how sorry they are. Bring God flowers so he can look at them on his desk at work and sigh about how dreamy you are despite having cheated on him earlier in the week. (Yours.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: