MDB Bible Study

[_Devoe]

I find the whole idea of Christ's atonement both irrational and abhorrent. There is no sense or justice in the idea that an innocent and totally blameless being has to be cruelly tortured to death before anyone else, however repentant, can be forgiven for one's sins. One critic, whose name I forgot, brilliantly described the atonement (paraphrased) as God having to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from punishment that he himself was going inflict upon us, even if we repented, unless we acknowledged his sacrifice. Is it really so hard to understand why reasonable people would find this absurd?

While TBM, I tried to approach the weekly sacrament with an honest heart, but my damn honest heart taught me that it was absurd to think I was ever going to be truly repentant, it was an impossible aspiration, in my opinion. If your being is built to sin, believing that the renewal of baptismal covenants would cleanse me, only to have to return week after week, because damn, I sinned again and again ... it just became one big circle jerk in my mind.

I dunno, maybe I wouldn't have been overcome with cognitive dissonance if the message was, "Don't worry, you are always going to sin and you will apply the sacrament imperfectly." If they hinted just a little, for those of us that saw the absurdity of the atonement (see quote above) that this was just a neat-o ancient game we play to remind us that we are sinners. "Do your best (but you probably won't because you are a sinner), you shouldn't take it too seriously, just play along and remember you are a sinner. Everybody sing along ... You are here, you are queer, but don't fear, cause Jesus dear." (I'm not gay, I'm just saying all sinners are queer, we are all queer in our individual sinner ways, and I needed the word queer for my little ditty.)

I mean, what's the deal with TBMs that are trying to work it honestly, don't they know they have blind spots, and by their very nature (hidden) they are blind to those spots(sins). And if not one sin can go unaccounted for, what the actual f&ck, it is absurd. Does Jesus give you mulligans for the things you don't know you are doing wrong?

[_honorentheos]

I think huckelberry and I revisit the resurrection almost annually so I'll post a couple of links to save time:

viewtopic.php?p=701338#p701338

viewtopic.php?f=1&p=970955

The question raised at that time was how trustworthy were the gospels of the New Testament in declaring the core message of Christianity. That being, Jesus of Nazareth as redeemer and savior of the world. To address the question, I suggested looking to the birth and resurrection narratives in the Gospels and what that tells us regarding their reliability.

Like with the birth narrative, when Matthew and Luke are without a common source, their stories diverge wildly. One has the disciples remaining in Jerusalem, while the other has them go to Galilee. One has Jesus appear to many people, the other has Jesus appear to a few. Neither account matches up once we lose Mark as the common touchstone.

What we know: Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and the other Gospel writers used Mark while not being eyewitnesses to any of the events described. This includes the resurrection of Christ. The closest we come, as modern readers, to the resurrection is in the word of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 who shares what he was taught from James and Peter. It's here he tells the reader that to have hope in Christ in this life only would be miserable. Thus, Christ had to have been raised from the dead.

Given the nature of this board I will only in passing point out that the many, many issues with the Book of Mormon which for Mormons is intended to be a second and confirming witness of Jesus Christ don't help the Mormon believer out in trying to resolve the question based on scriptural evidence.

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically.

[_honorentheos]

Hey Devoe, welcome to the board.

I find the whole idea of Christ's atonement both irrational and abhorrent. There is no sense or justice in the idea that an innocent and totally blameless being has to be cruelly tortured to death before anyone else, however repentant, can be forgiven for one's sins. One critic, whose name I forgot, brilliantly described the atonement (paraphrased) as God having to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from punishment that he himself was going inflict upon us, even if we repented, unless we acknowledged his sacrifice. Is it really so hard to understand why reasonable people would find this absurd?

While TBM, I tried to approach the weekly sacrament with an honest heart, but my damn honest heart taught me that it was absurd to think I was ever going to be truly repentant, it was an impossible aspiration, in my opinion. If your being is built to sin, believing that the renewal of baptismal covenants would cleanse me, only to have to return week after week, because damn, I sinned again and again ... it just became one big circle jerk in my mind.

I dunno, maybe I wouldn't have been overcome with cognitive dissonance if the message was, "Don't worry, you are always going to sin and you will apply the sacrament imperfectly." If they hinted just a little, for those of us that saw the absurdity of the atonement (see quote above) that this was just a neat-o ancient game we play to remind us that we are sinners. "Do your best (but you probably won't because you are a sinner), you shouldn't take it too seriously, just play along and remember you are a sinner. Everybody sing along ... You are here, you are queer, but don't fear, cause Jesus dear." (I'm not gay, I'm just saying all sinners are queer, we are all queer in our individual sinner ways, and I needed the word queer for my little ditty.)

I mean, what's the deal with TBMs that are trying to work it honestly, don't they know they have blind spots, and by their very nature (hidden) they are blind to those spots(sins). And if not one sin can go unaccounted for, what the actual f&ck, it is absurd. Does Jesus give you mulligans for the things you don't know you are doing wrong?

Theologically, it's an interesting question as to how the average Mormon may see the atonement working? Sometimes it seems people outwardly play at perfection to the point one must wonder if they honestly do see themselves as sinners fighting against a nature they can't overcome on their own in a lifetime? I don't know. I think Mormonism leaves so much space between the things it declares definitively to be true that the contours of beliet vary so much from person to person one might question if they even share a religion if one were able to see their thoughts like one could read a map.

[_huckelberry]

I will propose a couple of observations about Christian atonement. God has been forgiving people since Adam so it is silly to say he could not do so without atonement. I do not think Gods capacity for forgiveness is what is at stake. The first problem with forgiveness is that it may well leave the sinner a sinner and being a sinner is the center of punishment for sin. Well that and the separation from trust and love that sin creates. (think unfaithful spouse , unfaithful business partner etc) The atonement is a foundation for extending a new way of living, to leave sin behind. It follows, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". Jesus does this with his whole self and asks us to join with him in this matter. It has also been said that Jesus paid the right to stand in the dock for us against our accusers(those whom we have wronged)

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Devoe

Welcome - And thanks for contributing to MDB Bible study.

Just so you know, I am a never-Mormon, so I don't think directly engaging your post would be fair to you, or other Mormons. So, I will take the lead of huckelberry and share a few thoughts about atonement in the Bible

First, while many Christians extend great focus on the New Testament (For understandable and obvious reasons) I think it's really important to put entire Bible in context and focus - The Old Testament (Jewish Tanakh) -

In the Old Testament, animal sacrifice was used as a sin offering - I highlighted sin offering because it's important. Here are two Old Testament scripture verses that are relevant - they are:

And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them. (Leviticus 4:20)

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4)

So in the Tanakh, sins were not taken away or completely removed by animal sacrifice - they were an offering for sin that covered sin. While the spilling of the animals blood vividly illustrate how deadly serious sin is, these sacrifices were only like a bandaid or a covering of sin.

Interestingly, like so many other things in the Old Testament, this points to the only One who could remove sin, Jesus and his precious blood.

[_Lemmie]

Hey Devoe

Welcome - And thanks for contributing to MDB Bible study.

Just so you know, I am a never-Mormon, so I don't think directly engaging your post would be fair to you, or other Mormons....

Sure. That's the reason.

Luckily, honor said it quite well already.

Given the nature of this board I will only in passing point out that the many, many issues with the Book of Mormon which for Mormons is intended to be a second and confirming witness of Jesus Christ don't help the Mormon believer out in trying to resolve the question based on scriptural evidence.

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically.

Couldn't agree more.

[_huckelberry]

Considering the Isaiah passage Ceebo presented,
5" But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed."

I am puzzled that people are talking about forgiveness as the point of the atonement instead of healing.

isn't the problem how we get rid of sin, healing, not just forgiveness?

Perfume on my mind has done a reasonable job of pointing out the failing and absurdities of thinking in terms of an atonement only as something which just makes or allows God to forgive.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Huck

Considering the Isaiah passage Ceebo presented,
5" But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed."

I am puzzled that people are talking about forgiveness as the point of the atonement instead of healing.

Yes! - Forgiveness (a bandage or covering) is an Old Testament thing - That's why they had to keep sacrificing animals over and over and over.

isn't the problem how we get rid of sin, healing, not just forgiveness?

Yes! ........ Healing - The complete removal of sin (Being set free of the bondage/chains that sin places us in) is entirely what is at the cross. It was the ultimate and last sacrifice needed for the human condition - That's why Jesus said "It Is Finished."

[_Lemmie]

God has been forgiving people since Adam so it is silly to say he could not do so without atonement.

Are you really suggesting that since an imaginary thing has been happening since the imaginary existence of an imaginary person, it is therefore silly to put conditions on this imaginary thing?

This is not a valid argument.

Forgiveness (a bandage or covering) is an Old Testament thing - That's why they had to keep sacrificing animals over and over and over.

Isn't that why the sacrament is taken, over and over?

Healing - The complete removal of sin (Being set free of the bondage/chains that sin places us in) is entirely what is at the cross. It was the ultimate and last sacrifice needed for the human condition - That's why Jesus said "It Is Finished."

If it were really finished, why do people have to continue to confess and seek forgivness?

These arguments are illogical.

[_honorentheos]

If I were to revisit my former believing LDS self, I would argue that Alma 41 clarifies the LDS view on why repentance is an ongoing process that is tied to the grace afforded by the atonement along with the purpose of the resurrection as more than just wish fulfillment to live forever.

In it, Alma 41 defines what is termed the law of restoration which is the idea that the resurrection brings about the culmination of the pursuits and desires of a person. To the disciple of Christ, it makes perfect the person according to their sincere desire to follow after Christ's example and be a Christlike person which is recognized as impossible to accomplish through one's own works. Ones works matter because a person must desire to follow Christ's example, learn to love others as God loves them, and become an example of the goodness of God. But it's not saving in it's own right. Forgiveness, healing are two sides of the same coin. One is simply trying ones best to continually course correct when one strays out of desire to follow Christ.