Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is The Atonement?
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 202 (251584)
10-13-2005 8:54 PM


This topic came up briefly in another thread, and it got me interested in the idea. One problem I have with Christianity is this notion that Jesus died for our sins.
Here's the problem I have: If God was going to forgive us anyway, why did He not do so? Why was it necessary to go through this painful rigmarole of dying on the cross?
I would like to hear what people think about the meaning of the Atonement.
As I noted in another thread, an ancient tradition says that Jesus died on the cross as a ransom paid to the Devil. This was the prevalent view, apparently, for a thousand years. Mighty strange, that view.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-13-2005 07:54 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2005 9:38 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 10-13-2005 9:52 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-13-2005 10:20 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 10-14-2005 8:28 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 27 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 1:14 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 28 by Philip, posted 10-14-2005 1:27 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 202 (251631)
10-14-2005 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
10-13-2005 10:20 PM


The sacrifice was not so much Jesus death, but rather the fact that he lived. He became man.
Nonetheless, I think we can say truthfully, that "Jesus died for our sins" is a rock-bottom essential doctrine of Christianity.
It's Pauline, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-13-2005 10:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 12:41 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 202 (251638)
10-14-2005 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
10-14-2005 12:41 AM


It points to our belief that GOD becoming Man was the basic sacrifice. His death, which is covered in the next section, again delimited by colons, is simply a continuation of his life.
Jar, the central Christian symbol is not God becoming man. It is the Cross--the crucifixion--the nails going into the hands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 12:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 10-14-2005 1:04 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 1:04 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 202 (251641)
10-14-2005 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
10-14-2005 1:04 AM


the cross is bare
It may be bare, but the cross is there because it stands for something--the crucifixion. It strikes me that the Prostetants, or whoever, don't want to face the Crucifixion.
That's what it's all about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 1:04 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 1:17 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 202 (251643)
10-14-2005 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
10-14-2005 1:17 AM


Piety
It is a message of hope and a lesson of how to live that life.
Love GOD, and love others as you love yourself.
It really is as simple as that.
Well, this is piety, and it is no better or no worse than the humanistic piety I've been reading lately, about how if I can help one fainting robin into its nest again, I shall not live in vain, etc.
Piety is piety, whether humanistic or religious.
It's all a load of crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 1:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by robinrohan, posted 10-14-2005 8:14 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 19 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 11:53 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 202 (251680)
10-14-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by robinrohan
10-14-2005 1:29 AM


Re: Piety
It's all a load of crap.
This was rude and uncalled for.
My apologies, Jar.
I don't know what gets into me sometimes. Must be the liquor.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-14-2005 07:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by robinrohan, posted 10-14-2005 1:29 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 12:11 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 202 (251754)
10-14-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
10-14-2005 11:53 AM


Re: Very sorry you feel that way and thatI failed to make myself understood.
If one works towards the second Commandment, starting with trying to figure out how one loves oneself, then trying to love others in the same way, whether they are Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Confucian, Satanist, Hindu, Muslim or whatever, their life improves.
I understand and appreciate your open-minded, tolerant theology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 10-14-2005 11:53 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 12:48 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 202 (251765)
10-14-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
10-14-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Very sorry you feel that way and thatI failed to make myself understood.
As long as you bear in mind that it is Jars theology.
Yes, Jar's ideas could hardly be called orthodox.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 12:48 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 10-14-2005 2:02 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 35 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 2:24 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 202 (251767)
10-14-2005 1:42 PM


Ransom to the Devil
But how are we to reconcile this ancient belief, which according to the source I read, was the view for a thousand years--that the Atonement was ransom paid to the Devil?
It appears there have been developments in doctrine.

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 2:35 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 10-14-2005 3:19 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 202 (251789)
10-14-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
10-14-2005 2:35 PM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
In a word, bugger the 1000 year belief.
Are you saying that Christians understand Christianity now better than they did in the second century?
Don't rely on man or religion. Rely on God and his word
How are you supposed to tell the difference? The "word" has to be interpreted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 2:35 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 2:57 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 202 (251797)
10-14-2005 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by iano
10-14-2005 2:57 PM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
Now, I gather you are not a believer but if I may be frank, you sound like you would like to believe if only you could. Perfectly rational. How can you believe in something you've no evidence for?
I've always had an interest in theology, for some reason. Perhaps I was a monk in a previous life, who wrote tedious theological tracts by candlelight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 2:57 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by iano, posted 10-14-2005 3:13 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 202 (251804)
10-14-2005 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by robinrohan
10-14-2005 1:42 PM


Dualism
Actually, I like this ransom-to-the-devil idea. It makes the devil powerful, and suggests dualism (in the old sense of that word): Two equal and opposite powers battling it out through eternity.
If you believed that, the world would make sense--the mixture of good and bad that we see.
ABE: In which case heaven would be a military post.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-14-2005 02:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 10-14-2005 1:42 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 202 (251816)
10-14-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nwr
10-14-2005 3:16 PM


Re: Ransom to the Devil
God's word is what he carved into the rocks, the mountains, the fossil beds
A truly Deistic remark. Thomas Jefferson would be proud of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 10-14-2005 3:16 PM nwr has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 202 (252422)
10-17-2005 3:24 PM


Debt to nature
I'll repeat what I said in an earlier thread.
I think the idea in general has something to do with balance. In Shakespeare's tragedies, the world of the tragedy is said to be out of joint, unbalanced, and in order to get the equilibrium back, somebody has to pay, and so the tragic machinery proceeds along its inexorable course. Same thing here. In order to get the world back into equilibrium, somebody must pay the debt by way of suffering.
This is what the idea of a "ransom" suggests to me.
The debt is being paid to nature.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-17-2005 02:27 PM

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 202 (252922)
10-19-2005 12:46 AM


The Christ story
We who have lived in a Christian culture all our lives have gotten so used to the story that we have become insensitive to it, but I think it is possible to step back and be able to see it afresh. If one can do that, one realizes that it is a very powerful tale, speaking of it artistically.
It is probable that it is the drama of this story that led to the triumph of Christianity in the Western world.
Everything I've read on this thread reinforces my idea that it does not make a lot of sense to say that "Jesus died for our sins." But emotionally speaking, it is a very powerful message.
The nails going into the hands--He died for You--each of you personally. That's the idea.
This dramatic quality of the Christ story shows us that the aesthetic aspect of a given doctrine has a lot to do with whether or not it is accepted generally.

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 7:05 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024