John 3:61

[_Molok]

I'm giving it serious consideration.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ok. Well, feel free to continue complaining about how awful this place is until you make that decision.

[Guest]

John 3:62

Whereof this is an addendum to John 3:61: Thou shalt also believe in a penal substitutionary atonement and thou shalt wait until St. Anslem for the first articulation of said atonement theory. I may be "the way, the truth, and the life," but Anselm is the bomb-diggety, therefore thou shalt see Cur Deus Homo for further light and knowledge.

ROFLMAO!! What he means is that John 3 has 36 verses. Are you accusing Catholic insistence on Scripture plus tradition is the same thing as LDS open canon?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Was that your understanding of Christ’s death while you were a Christian, Chris?

Most days, yes. I experimented with other atonement theories, but never found one that was both biblical and satisfying. This issue was by far the single most important cause of my apostasy.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I treated Jesus' death as a voluntary act of solidarity with human suffering by God, who suffered with us on the cross, and rather than concentrating on the dying that God did for us, I focused on the resurrection as a sure sign that, at the end of it everything, all should be well, and all manner of things should be well.

It was a really good story. Pity that is all it was ...

Maybe I would have stayed a Christian if I had been more death-centered? But life seemed so much more the kind of thing that God would be interested in.

+1

[_Ceeboo]

Molok,

You no like the Ceeboo?

[_CaliforniaKid]

This place is REALLY sucking lately!

I'm sorry that is your reaction to what I posted. Believe it or not, my post is meant to be a serious conversation piece. I spent the morning explaining to a friend why I couldn't accept an alternative theory of the atonement such as the one Chap posted. The biggest obstacle is the Bible itself: Eph 5:1-2 ("Christ... gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma"), 1 Cor 15:3, 1 Pet 3:18 ("Christ died for our sins"), Rom 3:25 ("whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood"), 1 John 2:2 ("He Himself is the propitiation for our sins"), 1 Pet 2:24 ("He bore our sins in his body on the cross"), Rom 5:9 ("we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved from by him from the wrath of God"). I should note that the word "propitiate" means to appease or mollify. God is apparently angry at us and regards us as enemies until he is mollified by death and blood. True, he also loves us enough to send his son to die for us. But why should I be grateful to God for sacrificing his son to appease himself? Instead of sacrificing his son, why couldn't he sacrifice his own pride and just forgive us outright? The biblical model makes no sense, but it is what it is, and I don't see much room for metaphorizing. Even if we can make the blood and death metaphorical somehow, there's still all that sin and wrath and purity stuff to deal with.

[_Hoops]

ed

This place is REALLY sucking lately!

edited by harmony

Ok.

[_Ceeboo]

edited by harmony.

Ok.

OK.



(Love and peace to all) :)

Ceeboo out!

[_Drifting]

God is apparently angry at us and regards us as enemies until he is mollified by death and blood. True, he also loves us enough to send his son to die for us. But why should I be grateful to God for sacrificing his son to appease himself? Instead of sacrificing his son, why couldn't he sacrifice his own pride and just forgive us outright? The biblical model makes no sense, but it is what it is, and I don't see much room for metaphorizing. Even if we can make the blood and death metaphorical somehow, there's still all that sin and wrath and purity stuff to deal with.

Yep, God would not make the short list for 'Parent of the Year'.

Of course, all we really have to go on are second hand accounts of what mere mortals claim Jesus said or did and what God is or isn't like.

Perhaps God is exasperated at being blamed for all the crap He is powerless to control.

(thought we'd try and get back on topic after all the unnecessary drama queen stuff)

[_consiglieri]

Dear Ceeboo,

Please do NOT leave. I don't want you to even consider leaving!

Having said that, the CKT of John 3:16 resonates with me to some degree, reminding me of a sign-off I have heard frequently on a local evangelical radio program called "The Bridge."

Right before inviting listeners to recite the sinner's prayer, the pastor says, and I quote, "God loves you so much that he died to give you the ability and the opportunity to ask him to forgive you."

The perfect marriage of Trinitarianism and Solafidianism.

The only answer I have ever encountered to the conundrum of why Jesus had to be sacrificed in order to offer salvation is the one offered by Mormonism--there was no other way.

God himself is limited by law, which could not have been created by him and to which he must subscribe, or else forfeit the position of God.

Joseph Smith never seems to have used his unique view of the less than omnipotent status of God in order to answer this dilemma, but he nevertheless supplied all the component parts.

It is not an easy answer, I admit, but at least it is an answer.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri