What is The Atonement?

Perhaps we need a PNT on the Gospel according to jar.Traditional accounts of the atonement come across as a medieval melodrama. They really don't make sense in this day and age. Jar's theology at least has the advantage of making more sense.

Indeed it is rubbish now, especially YECism.You are doing an excellent job of making the case that religion is a human invention.

God's word is what he carved into the rocks, the mountains, the fossil beds. The Bible is the word of man. It is the history of man creating God in his (man's) own image. Thus we see angry men describing an angry God, vengeful men describing a vengeful God, loving men describing a loving God.

Do you have any references that support this alleged deficit in God's abilities?

quote:

---

nwr writes:

​

Do you have any references that support this alleged deficit in God's abilities?

​

The Cross is about the best one I can think of. If God could ignore sin, what was he doing sacrificing a beloved Son?

---

Thanks, iano.It seems to me that you are creating your own God.

quote:

---

nwr writes:

​

It seems to me that you are creating your own God.

​

The bible doesn't mention the word 'Trinity' Is a trinitarian God a God in my own image too?

---

I presume that your concept of a trinitarian God comes from the traditions of christianity over many centuries. Moreover, the traditions do reference scriptures, even if the scriptural text is not explicit on the issue. Thus I would not consider that to be your creation.It might be interesting to mention this example on the "Sola Scriptura" thread.

quote:

---

iano writes:

​

The Cross is about the best one I can think of. If God could ignore sin, what was he doing sacrificing a beloved Son?

​

Any suggestions?

---

I would suggest that you be a little more careful when making statements such as the one I commented on in Message 69. I don't have any problem with that being your own understanding or your own opinion. But I think it might be better if you were to express it in a way such that it is clear you are presenting opinion rather than accepted fact.

It isn't a fact just because iano says it is.I'm afraid you are missing the point. If tradition says that something is fact, then it is okay to just assert that. For the justification for the claim of factuality can also be found in the traditions. When you assert something as fact, for which there is no support in the traditions nor in scripture, then you have a responsibility to provide some support for your claim that it is fact. The responsibility is even greater when the alleged fact defies common sense. Thus far I do not see you as having met that responsibility. I honestly don't see the relevance. The crucifixion was the work of man, not the work of God. To say that it had a point is to claim that God engineered the crucifixion. To me, that seems almost heretical.