GIA writes:
this thread is on the morality of substitutionary atonement.
OK...lemme pull some stuff together and make a decent post....
Wiki writes:
Technically speaking, substitutionary atonement is the name given to a number of Christian models of the atonement that all regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, 'instead of' them.(...)There are a number of differing theories that come under the umbrella term 'substitutionary atonement'.[4] The four best known are the Early Church Fathers' ransom theory; Gustaf Aulen's demystified version of the ransom theory, called Christus Victor; Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory; and the Reformed period's penal substitution theory.
I must admit that even though my "club" ascribes to substitutionary atonement...not sure specifically which model...though the first one seems the most common.
Some have said that it seems a bit ridiculous for God to have had to go to such ends for something(forgiveness) that could have simply been done without involving a sacrifice.
GIA writes:
I do understand though why those of faith would not like to deal with a moral questions that show that God is quite the vile and immoral demiurge.
I can't quite understand why you seem so eager to villify God, as we understand Him. You have said before that we are the only "god" that will ever be. I disagree with that, and believe in a Being that created all seen and unseen and Who chooses to love humanity while still allowing us the ability to be free (if we so choose) from His communion and influence. The subject does bring up some questions and challenges for prevailing dogma, however.
In my mind, jesus was never "Plan B" in response to human deception through satan. Jesus...in the beginning (before Lucifer even fell to become satan) was Gods answer to our wrong choice---as humanity---on desiring freedom from "forced" communion. The snake promised that we would be like God...knowing good and evil. The price, however, was condemnation---the same condemnation that satan received in choosing to become autocratic and free from Gods Communion.
Jesus was the foreknown conclusion to satans willful rebellion...which allowed potentialized evil to become actualized evil. (of course this is all my self contrived belief and theory...so I digress.....)
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
It appears ringo has challenged GIA by claiming that the beliefs of GIA are "as harmful (to society presumably) as the beliefs of religion--in general--that GIA is speaking of.
™ Version 4.2
