The Atonement makes zero sense because Jesus' "suffering" was merely an inconvenience

[Rivendale]

The equations of electrodynamics are simple, but those of gravity are hard. That’s not a contradiction, because those are two completely different sets of equations. Yes, they’re both part of physics, but distinguishing different aspects of a tricky subject is being precise, not self-contradictory.

The “hypostatic union” is not the same as the Trinity. The HU is an idea about the sense in which Jesus could have been both human and God, whatever God might be like. The Trinity is an idea about what God might be like, regardless of who or what Jesus of Nazareth might have been.

I’m not sure either of them is a clear idea, but they’re different topics. Finding one clear, and the other not, is no contradiction.

Do people really think that people are using Schrödinger's cat to describe the strange details involving the trinity?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The equations of electrodynamics are simple, but those of gravity are hard. That’s not a contradiction, because those are two completely different sets of equations. Yes, they’re both part of physics, but distinguishing different aspects of a tricky subject is being precise, not self-contradictory.

The “hypostatic union” is not the same as the Trinity. The HU is an idea about the sense in which Jesus could have been both human and God, whatever God might be like. The Trinity is an idea about what God might be like, regardless of who or what Jesus of Nazareth might have been.

I’m not sure either of them is a clear idea, but they’re different topics. Finding one clear, and the other not, is no contradiction.

Do people really think that people are using Schrödinger's cat to describe the strange details involving the trinity?

It’s Quantum Jesus. His wave function collapses when measured as a god or a man, depending on the observation.

- Doc

[huckelberry]

The equations of electrodynamics are simple, but those of gravity are hard. That’s not a contradiction, because those are two completely different sets of equations. Yes, they’re both part of physics, but distinguishing different aspects of a tricky subject is being precise, not self-contradictory.

The “hypostatic union” is not the same as the Trinity. The HU is an idea about the sense in which Jesus could have been both human and God, whatever God might be like. The Trinity is an idea about what God might be like, regardless of who or what Jesus of Nazareth might have been.

I’m not sure either of them is a clear idea, but they’re different topics. Finding one clear, and the other not, is no contradiction.

Lol.

> The Trinity totally makes sense! Because the math works!

> The Duality is totally mysterious! Because I don’t understand the math!

C’mon, man.

> God’s nature, I get it!

> Christ’s nature, wow so weird! So unknowable!

It’s just larping nonsense trying to make sense of scripture that begets confusion, hence tHe TrInItY and hYpOsTaTiC uNiOn. It’s technobabble to create world building.

- Doc

Doc, your statement here is a good clear statement of your point of view. Ok. I can understand what you are saying.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc, your statement here is a good clear statement of your point of view. Ok. I can understand what you are saying.

Well. Help me understand your mindset, then. How does the Trinity make sense to you, but the duality of Jesus’ nature doesn’t?

- Doc

[Rivendale]

Do people really think that people are using Schrödinger's cat to describe the strange details involving the trinity?

It’s Quantum Jesus. His wave function collapses when measured as a god or a man, depending on the observation.

- Doc

That has to be it. Quantum tunneling? Slippery treasures. Entanglement? Gift of the Holy Ghost. Invisibility of a Neutrino? Spirit material. Wonder what dowsing is.

[drumdude]

It’s Quantum Jesus. His wave function collapses when measured as a god or a man, depending on the observation.

- Doc

That has to be it. Quantum tunneling? Slippery treasures. Entanglement? Gift of the Holy Ghost. Invisibility of a Neutrino? Spirit material. Wonder what dowsing is.

It’s magic all the way down.

[huckelberry]

Doc, your statement here is a good clear statement of your point of view. Ok. I can understand what you are saying.

Well. Help me understand your mindset, then. How does the Trinity make sense to you, but the duality of Jesus’ nature doesn’t?

- Doc

Doc, I actually started the comment trying to warn myself away from pursuing the subject.(due to uncertainties in the subject I am sort of walking into a target zone with the subject) One might say both ideas are cobbled together with much haggling to fit the puzzle of the New Testament. Neither of these ideas would exist without the idea of some sort of atonement being made by Jesus. It does not have to be a payment idea but a divine participation is the starting point of an atonement idea. Neither Judaism nor Islam uses the Christian approach to such ideas and as such has no Trinity or hypostatic union.

Both of those ideas make some sense to me and also present uncertainties to my mind. It was just a personal relative observation noting I see more difficulty with the idea of Jesus being true human and true god. I can just say ok and note that I do not know how all the details work. There is an obvious tension between these two aspect of Jesus. I think it is important to see Jesus with human limitations. I noticed looking online yesterday that there are squeaky conservative sites (there are always squeaky conservative sites) which sounded a bit uncomfortable with a Jesus who was not omniscient and all. I find the idea of Jesus walking around knowing everything absurd and a bit alien.


I think that the fundamental in atonement is in Jesus we can participate with Jesus and God can participate with us. (at least that is how I read Romans and the comments from Jesus) I think that should be about living well now not just some future deal.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Write a paragraph on if the Atonement is logical.

There are many potential logical inconsistencies in the concept of the atonement in Christianity. One possible inconsistency is the idea that the death of one person, Jesus, could pay the price for the sins of all humanity. Some people may question how the death of one person could have such universal significance and impact. Another possible inconsistency is the idea that God would require a sacrifice for sin. Some people may question the justice of this, or may have difficulty understanding how God's love and mercy could be reconciled with the idea of punishment and sacrifice. Additionally, there may be questions about the role of free will in relation to the atonement, as the idea of a predetermined sacrifice raises questions about the responsibility and accountability of individuals for their own actions. These are just a few examples of the potential logical inconsistencies in the concept of the atonement.

[Res Ipsa]

Doc, your statement here is a good clear statement of your point of view. Ok. I can understand what you are saying.

Well. Help me understand your mindset, then. How does the Trinity make sense to you, but the duality of Jesus’ nature doesn’t?

- Doc

I don't think I can claim that the Trinity makes sense to me, but I do find it easier to wrap my brain around than the hypostatic union. I think it might be because, when it comes to the Trinitarian God, I'm trying to imagine something that I have no real world reference point for. It's an excursive in straight up trying to imagine something. With the hypostatic union, I have a very concrete point of reference: me. I'm human. The Trinitarian God is omniscient and omnipotent. I'm kinda puny with a tiny brain. How in the world could something that is fully human, like me, also be fully God, unlike me. The two seem so opposite in nature that I just can't create any sort of mental map of what fully human/fully god would look like.

[huckelberry]

Write a paragraph on if the Atonement is logical.

There are many potential logical inconsistencies in the concept of the atonement in Christianity. One possible inconsistency is the idea that the death of one person, Jesus, could pay the price for the sins of all humanity. Some people may question how the death of one person could have such universal significance and impact. Another possible inconsistency is the idea that God would require a sacrifice for sin. Some people may question the justice of this, or may have difficulty understanding how God's love and mercy could be reconciled with the idea of punishment and sacrifice. Additionally, there may be questions about the role of free will in relation to the atonement, as the idea of a predetermined sacrifice raises questions about the responsibility and accountability of individuals for their own actions. These are just a few examples of the potential logical inconsistencies in the concept of the atonement.

Back in medieval Europe a fellow named Anselm developed this idea that Jesus died to make payment for sin to satisfy Gods demand for justice. The theory has become pretty popular I think in part because it provides a pat answer in a few phrases. I get the impression for LDS this theory is the explanation.

With whatever strength or weakness it has the theory depends upon the idea that In Jesus God your creator was suffering for your sins not just some fellow. It is the who that matters not that amount of blood or degree of suffering.

To my understanding God is free and able to forgive whomever upon whatever terms God chooses. It would be fitting if God chooses terms which establish and further Gods overall plan. Our participation in the renewal.