First, regarding Jersey Girl's explanation, above, I understand, I think, what she is trying to suggest, and if I'm not mistaken, on some points she and I are suggesting the same thing. (That is not to suggest that she and I agree on all points or espouse the same personal beliefs.)
She's saying (I think) that whether or not the Fall, or Adam and Eve, were literal events, that the depravity of mankind (which can also be stated as man's separation from God) necessitates "a savior" (in the sense that human longing, at least, required it, if not universal law or God's judgment).
I'm beginning to think I can't write an understandable post to save my pathetic life. In my post to marg, I am not stating personal belief. I am "wearing" a position. I didn't make it up out of thin air. There are many in Chrisitanity who espouse a allegorical read of the Fall. I'm trying to see if it fits with the need for the cross. At least in my posts to marg.
Has no one ever heard of this prior to this thread? Again, I didn't make it up.
I don't think marg understood my post. I think you sort of nailed it in the bolded portion above.
First, regarding Jersey Girl's explanation, above, I understand, I think, what she is trying to suggest, and if I'm not mistaken, on some points she and I are suggesting the same thing. (That is not to suggest that she and I agree on all points or espouse the same personal beliefs.)
She's saying (I think) that whether or not the Fall, or Adam and Eve, were literal events, that the depravity of mankind (which can also be stated as man's separation from God) necessitates "a savior" (in the sense that human longing, at least, required it, if not universal law or God's judgment).
I'm beginning to think I can't write an understandable post to save my pathetic life.
My feelings exactly.
Jersey Girl wrote:In my post to marg, I am not stating personal belief. I am "wearing" a position.
My feelings exactly.
Jersey Girl wrote:I didn't make it up out of thin air. There are many in Chrisitanity who espouse a allegorical read of the Fall. I'm trying to see if it fits with the need for the cross. At least in my posts to marg.
My feelings exactly.
Jersey Girl wrote:Has no one ever heard of this prior to this thread? Again, I didn't make it up.
I don't think marg understood my post.
My feelings exactly.
Jersey Girl wrote: I think you sort of nailed it in the bolded portion above.
Whew.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Both you women think I have assumed you were expressing personal beliefs. Could you please quote me from which you made that assumption. What I was attempting to argue against was the arguments you presented. Even within a Christian context your conclusion didn't follow from the premises you both presented.
J.G. you presented premises and then from those premises leaped to the conclusion that "we need a savior" I'm not assuming you are saying you believe we need a savior. I understand you are talking within a Christian context. But why would a God need a sacrifice if he has created imperfect humans with the potential to do evil. If in your argument it was God who created man that way, then man's potential depravity has nothing to do with man.
And Hana you argued that the atonement could be viewed as teaching about God's love, that a physical atonement isn't necessary. That seems like an illogical leap to me. Where do you get God's love out of Jesus dying? Who is doing the sacrificing and why?
Both you think I have assumed you were expressing personal beliefs. Could you please quote me from which you made that assumption.
No, it was others on this thread who've made that assumption, not you necessarily.
What I was attempting to argue against was the arguments you presented. Even within a Christian context your conclusion didn't follow from the premises you both presented.
As I noted, you didn't correctly understand the assertions I was making them, so whether or not what you misunderstood made sense is to me irrelevant. It wasn't what I was suggesting.
And Hana you argued that the atonement could be viewed as teaching about God's love, that a physical atonement isn't necessary.
No, as noted above, that's not what I said.
Again, I wasn't talking about what it might be teaching. I was proposing a theory as to why it could exist.
That seems like an illogical leap to me.
As noted, it makes no sense for me to argue a point that you misunderstood and believe I said, but I didn't.
Where do you get God's love out of Jesus dying? Who is doing the sacrificing and why?
Maybe no one made the sacrifice. Maybe the sacrifice is just perceived (even if the death, and resurrection, are real and literal). Maybe that's what's important, is that it's perceived as a sacrifice, whether or not it is.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Both you women think I have assumed you were expressing personal beliefs. Could you please quote me from which you made that assumption.
I didn't think you assumed that I was expressing personal beliefs. I clarified my position regarding a comment made by hana.
What I was attempting to argue against was the arguments you presented. Even within a Christian context your conclusion didn't follow from the premises you both presented.
Why do you think my conclusion didn't follow the premise I presented? Is it what follows here? I'm going to address that in some form.
J.G. you presented premises and then from those premises leaped to the conclusion that "we need a savior" I'm not assuming you are saying you believe we need a savior. I understand you are talking within a Christian context. But why would a God need a sacrifice if he has created imperfect humans with the potential to do evil. If in your argument it was God who created man that way, then man's potential depravity has nothing to do with man.
I don't think I leapt to a conclusions that "we need a savior". I attempted to present a line of thinking that begins with the premise that the fall was metaphorical which was one of my assertions on this thread. Now, let me make a request of you. I'd like you to quote the New Testament in order to support your assumption that Christ was a sacrifice. Where does Christ claim that?
In my so-called argument (that really doesn't belong to me, as I stated previously, I didn't invent this) God created a man with potential depravity (this would be consistent with either the Fall as literal or metaphorical) because that is all man (human beings) could ever hope to be. Non-immortal human beings and the world they were placed in were/are already separated from God by their nature. It has everything to do with being human. Not man's fault, but man's inherent condition.
And Hana you argued that the atonement could be viewed as teaching about God's love, that a physical atonement isn't necessary. That seems like an illogical leap to me. Where do you get God's love out of Jesus dying? Who is doing the sacrificing and why?
I haven't read all of hana's comments here. Is there a necessity to see this as a sacrifice? Is there only one type of sacrifice this can fit in to? Do the scriptures require that it be a "blood sacrifice"? Where does Christ say he came as a blood sacrifice?
I’m glad we’ve got it clarified that I don’t think either of you are expressing personal beliefs. And from this point forward, I’m addressing what you think the Christian argument is.
J.G.: Now, let me make a request of you. I'd like you to quote the New Testament in order to support your assumption that Christ was a sacrifice. Where does Christ claim that?
Where I picked up the concept of “Jesus died as a sacrifice” is from your words.
From p. 9 of this thread you wrote: . I think the single most fundamental belief …. that separates them from non-Christians would be that Jesus Christ was/is the Son of God, entered human history, lived, taught, died as a sacrifice (the sacrificial lamb of God), resurrected, ascended and lives today in an immortal state.
J.G.: In my so-called argument (that really doesn't belong to me, as I stated previously, I didn't invent this) God created a man with potential depravity (this would be consistent with either the Fall as literal or metaphorical) because that is all man (human beings) could ever hope to be. Non-immortal human beings and the world they were placed in were/are already separated from God by their nature. It has everything to do with being human. Not man's fault, but man's inherent condition.
J.G. if God created man with the inherent potential of depravity..then why does God need …a sacrifice/savior...in order to save man? Who is giving up something of value…God or mankind? What are they giving up?
Marg previously: And Hana you argued that the atonement could be viewed as teaching about God's love, that a physical atonement isn't necessary.
Hana: Again, I wasn't talking about what it might be teaching. I was proposing a theory as to why it could exist.
Let's look at what you've written previously: "I'm simply suggesting that it's possible that Christians can adhere to a view of the Fall that's more allegorical and literal and still believe that the resurrection and the atonement were real, but not necessarily physically requirements to satisfy the demands of mankind's depravity, and with no ultimate consequence eternally other than to provide evidence of God's love.
And you wrote: "What if, assuming the existence of deity, the primary purpose of an atoning sacrifice was simply to show the extent of God's love?
Isn’t “providing evidence”…in essence teaching? Isn’t "showing" by actions or example teaching? I wasn’t trying to distort your words but paraphrased with mine. It makes no difference to me, I’ll substitute with your words. Instead of “teaching” my word you object to I'll replace with yours…So Hana you argued that the atonement could be viewed as providing evidence of God’s love or to show the extent of God’s love, and that a physical atonement isn’t necessary. That seems like an illogical leap to me. Where do you get God's love out of Jesus dying? Who is doing the sacrificing and why?
Hana: As noted, it makes no sense for me to argue a point that you misunderstood and believe I said, but I didn't.
Please see above..I’m doing my best trying to figure out what you are saying and I fail to see how the word “teach” distorts your point in essence.
marg previously: Where do you get God's love out of Jesus dying? Who is doing the sacrificing and why?
Hana: Maybe no one made the sacrifice. Maybe the sacrifice is just perceived (even if the death, and resurrection, are real and literal). Maybe that's what's important, is that it's perceived as a sacrifice, whether or not it is.
Why would a perceived sacrifice have any importance? I know you’ve answered that it is to show evidence of God’s love, but where is the connect of the atonement and that showing evidence of God’s love? You’ve made a logical leap that the atonement even if only a story and not true, provides evidence of God’s love to a Christian, but I fail to see how it logical does.
Hana wrote: I don't believe any of them assert that Jesus needed to be sacrificed "to God." The view is that Jesus, as God, or the Son of God, sacrificed himself for and on behalf of mankind.
Let’s put it this way, in the Christian way of thinking, could God accept mankind as is, without any sacrifice made? If not then the sacrifice is made to God for the benefit of mankind. If yes then it's ludicrous that God would sacrifice with torture and death himself. Is the story of Jesus' death in which God is sacrificing himself, unnecessary to Christianity? If you reply that it is only necessary to show God’s love I fail to see how the atonement shows love.
marg previously: So then you do not agree with J.G's argument to conclusion "we (all of mankind) need a savior"
Hana: Sorry, marg, but your response reinforces why I was reluctant to reinsert myself into this discussion. First, it leads people to assume I'm interjecting my own personal beliefs into it (rather than philosophizing, speculating, or trying to have an interesting theoretical theological discussion), and second, it's almost impossible to articulate these thoughts without being grossly misunderstood. Unfortunately, you got most of what I just tried to articulate above completely upside down, but I'll try again to sort it out.
Well as to your first comment we have that sorted out, that I’m not assuming your argument represents your personal beliefs.
Hana: First, regarding Jersey Girl's explanation, …
She's saying (I think) that whether or not the Fall, or Adam and Eve, were literal events, that the depravity of mankind (which can also be stated as man's separation from God) necessitates "a savior" (in the sense that human longing, at least, required it, if not universal law or God's judgment).
If God creates mankind with innate depravity then there is no reason for mankind to sacrifice anything. If God makes a sacrifice of himself, what exactly is he giving up/sacrificing? I don’t see what he’s sacrificing. But anyhow that’s your interpretation of J.G.’s argument, I’d rather address your argument
Hana: But I'm not sure how my statement quoted at the top of this post relates directly to Jersey Girl's assertion.
Well J.G. argued to conclusion “we need a savior” and you seem to be arguing a savior isn’t necessary to the storyline. A savior so that God will accept mankind as is..sins and all.
Hana: My point was that it's a mistake to interpret the sacrifice as taking place "to God." Jesus (and I'm speaking hypothetically here and for the sake of argument assuming historicity of the crucifixion), if he was sacrificed, was not sacrificed "to God." Christians believe he was God, come down to earth as a man, to live among men, and be tempted and suffer like men, descending below it all, as it were, to show that he was willing to take on the suffering and sins of all mankind. Now, here's where people get confused talking about this point. If Jesus was God, does that mean he was God the Father? No. Most Christians don't take the view that Jesus was God the Father come down to earth made man. He was the second person of the Godhead, who was always God in the sense of being part of the Godhead or trinity, come down to earth. Christians believe he was yes, God's son, but also God himself (but not God the Father). It wasn't God killing his son for blood sport. It wasn't God saying, "Someone better offer a sacrifice--who'll volunteer?" (Mormons tend to believe this, but they depart from traditional Christianity on this point.)
So, you have to get past the point of saying that a sacrifice was demanded to God. I'm arguing against that presumption, and suggesting that traditional Christianity does not embrace that point of view.
Ok so God in the form of Jesus decides to torture himself to death, which is viewed as a sacrifice, not [i] to God, it is simply God choosing to sacrificing himself by torturing himself as Jesus the son. And with this sacrifice made, God the father is then pleased and willing to overlook all the sins of mankind. Like I said previously Hana this is convoluted and warped thinking. It really doesn’t make logical sense. I'm not saying that is any fault of yours. I'm saying that the argument you present which is supposed to be representative of Christianity at least some form of it...simply does not make logical sense. And I don't mean because of the assumption of God's existence, I mean the argument which explains the purpose of Jesus's death to Christianity doesn't make sense.
If you also think it doesn't make sense then I'm not sure there is any point in continuuing. I'm assuming that on some level you think it makes logical sense.
I haven't finished addressing your post but will attempt to do so later.
marg wrote: Like I said previously Hana this is convoluted and warped thinking. It really doesn’t make logical sense. I'm not saying that is any fault of yours. I'm saying that the argument you present which is supposed to be representative of Christianity at least some form of it...simply does not make logical sense. And I don't mean because of the assumption of God's existence, I mean the argument which explains the purpose of Jesus's death to Christianity doesn't make sense.
marg, I read through all your comments and wondered just how I could respond that would resonate with you in any way.
It's clear to me that you're completely misinterpreting my comments. And that my continuing to explain them to you is not helping. Worse, anyone else reading your interpretation of my comments will be further confused.
Have you ever had the experience of trying to communicate with someone who's hard of hearing, and have them repeat back to you things you didn't say?
That's how I'm feeling here. I suspect that we can't bridge that gap, partially because you don't speak the language, and by your own admission, don't have a grounding in the subject matter.
One thing I do know is that I can't continue to defend a position that you claim I'm espousing when I'm not. The theory I was proposing yesterday was radical and outside the mainstream, completely unlike what most people would propose regarding the atonement. One of the difficulties with any of this is, whether we're discussing mainstream views or radical ones outside the mainstream, there are no parallels to use to make a valid comparison.
So again, now, I'm sorry I reinserted myself into the conversation, partially because you've misunderstood my comments, and largely because it seems apparent that as a result of that no one else is likely to be able to see it without the complication of that misinterpretation. What seems on its face very simple and straightforward to me is confusing and convoluted to you. The typical follow-up to that is if it seems confusing, people will claim it is incomprehensible, and therefore, false.
I'm not here advocating the truth or falsity of any theory regarding the atonement. I'm suggesting alternate views for the sake of philosophical discussion.
I think, though, that there is nothing I can do to clarify this for you, particularly since you persist in repeating the same errors in characterizing it despite my best efforts to correct them.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
marg wrote:Hana, an end to our discussion is fine with me. I prefer not to waste time with nonsensical Christian theories.
Particularly if they exist only in your own imagination.
I'm sure it's frustrating to try to engage in a discussion on a topic that is of no particular interest to you when you don't understand the other participant(s). I'm still hopeful someone will read my post from yesterday and understand what I'm theorizing. Unfortunately, it isn't going to be you.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.