-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atonement
- Thread starter lunamoth
- Start date
Comet
Harvey Wallbanger
As a former "christian" I'd bring up two points:
1. Was Adam created with sin? NO? Then why must he "atone" for it.... (Eve as well)
2. Repent? okay... make reparations? ???????? Now we are to be judged by the actions we've done, but not what God has done unto us?
Think about those. Is it accomplished or that to strive for? If you are Christian, Jesus fulfilled this and again you need not worry about it.....
1. Was Adam created with sin? NO? Then why must he "atone" for it.... (Eve as well)
2. Repent? okay... make reparations? ???????? Now we are to be judged by the actions we've done, but not what God has done unto us?
Think about those. Is it accomplished or that to strive for? If you are Christian, Jesus fulfilled this and again you need not worry about it.....
Rom 5:
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
The Atonement of Christ has reconciled the elect world to God. It secured and ensured for it [ the elect world] every spiritual blessing needed to live unto God and for His Glory through Jesus christ.
Even before the elect are born into this world as sinners, they have already [by the blood of Christ] been reconciled to God, it will now be a matter of time for it to be manifested.
The atonement accomplished the complete salvation for all whom it was offered for, that is the death of christ. It provides them Faith, repentance, sanctification, redemption, and every needful spiritual blessing to convert them to God, and remain secured forever.
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
The Atonement of Christ has reconciled the elect world to God. It secured and ensured for it [ the elect world] every spiritual blessing needed to live unto God and for His Glory through Jesus christ.
Even before the elect are born into this world as sinners, they have already [by the blood of Christ] been reconciled to God, it will now be a matter of time for it to be manifested.
The atonement accomplished the complete salvation for all whom it was offered for, that is the death of christ. It provides them Faith, repentance, sanctification, redemption, and every needful spiritual blessing to convert them to God, and remain secured forever.
bain-druie
Tree-Hugger!
I think I count as a former christian, although the abusive environment in which I was raised is not what I now understand to be mainstream christianity.
My problem with atonement from a specifically evangelical/fundamentalist christian viewpoint is first that it's substitutionary. Jesus died to pay for our sins so that we can have eternal life with god forever if we only believe. This is, to me, hideously immoral. If there is legitimate sin that must be paid for {and may I say, that is an ELEPHANT-SIZED IF}, it is the height of injustice that an innocent should pay for it - willing or not.
Second, atonement as a concept in christianity is the payment for sin against the christian god. I have never gone out of my way to offend this god, and in fact I want nothing to do with him. Yet he insists that for failing to worship him to the exclusion of all else, even my own life, I have sinned to such an extent that I deserve to be drowned in a Lake of Eternal Fire, with no hope of death or release...EVER. Can we agree that this god is incredibly easy to offend? I mean, we are talking paper-thin skin on an all-powerful deity.
We're assuming for the purposes of this thread, of course, that this god exists (which I highly doubt) and is at least somewhat accurately portrayed by his holy book and his people.
Given that assumption, I have absolutely no patience with the idea of atoning for anything I've done to offend him. Not interested; generally I don't interest myself in the tantrums of bullies who take umbrage at imagined offenses; it offends ME that anyone would expect such a ludicrous thing.
My actual beliefs do not include the concept of atonement, except in a fairly universal karmic sense. What I do to hurt others deliberately will come back on me in some way, at some time, and I will by such lessons (and less painful ones as well) become a better person as I continue my journey.
My problem with atonement from a specifically evangelical/fundamentalist christian viewpoint is first that it's substitutionary. Jesus died to pay for our sins so that we can have eternal life with god forever if we only believe. This is, to me, hideously immoral. If there is legitimate sin that must be paid for {and may I say, that is an ELEPHANT-SIZED IF}, it is the height of injustice that an innocent should pay for it - willing or not.
Second, atonement as a concept in christianity is the payment for sin against the christian god. I have never gone out of my way to offend this god, and in fact I want nothing to do with him. Yet he insists that for failing to worship him to the exclusion of all else, even my own life, I have sinned to such an extent that I deserve to be drowned in a Lake of Eternal Fire, with no hope of death or release...EVER. Can we agree that this god is incredibly easy to offend? I mean, we are talking paper-thin skin on an all-powerful deity.
We're assuming for the purposes of this thread, of course, that this god exists (which I highly doubt) and is at least somewhat accurately portrayed by his holy book and his people.
Given that assumption, I have absolutely no patience with the idea of atoning for anything I've done to offend him. Not interested; generally I don't interest myself in the tantrums of bullies who take umbrage at imagined offenses; it offends ME that anyone would expect such a ludicrous thing.
My actual beliefs do not include the concept of atonement, except in a fairly universal karmic sense. What I do to hurt others deliberately will come back on me in some way, at some time, and I will by such lessons (and less painful ones as well) become a better person as I continue my journey.
Last edited:
elmarna
Well-Known Member
if you are understandung that you are acountable for your actions that no one is responsible for what you do -then you are not likely worried about the concept.
God gave you a brain if you use it wisely then this question may never have to be asked.
THIS IS MY OPINION & I AM STICKING TO IT!
God gave you a brain if you use it wisely then this question may never have to be asked.
THIS IS MY OPINION & I AM STICKING TO IT!
rockstarwife628
Member
I like looking at the word in the context of at-one-ment. I don't believe in THE Atonement, as in Jesus washing away our sins, but I believe that following his teachings can help us to grow closer to God - to be "at one" with Him in terms of growing closer to His nature (love, compassion, etc), and in relationship.
Then again, I don't look at the human race as fallen or corrupted with "Original Sin", I don't believe in hell, or that God is up there keeping track of our wrongs, waiting for us to "repent" and reconcile. I look at Him, and our relationship with Him, a lot differently....
I'm quite the heretic, I guess - or, at least, that's what I've been told
Then again, I don't look at the human race as fallen or corrupted with "Original Sin", I don't believe in hell, or that God is up there keeping track of our wrongs, waiting for us to "repent" and reconcile. I look at Him, and our relationship with Him, a lot differently....
I'm quite the heretic, I guess - or, at least, that's what I've been told
Athanasius won out over Arius (during Council of Nicea)---it was a political thing.
Arius had a very different view of atonement--and of Jesus. Arius would certainly have called himself a Christian. Also having the masses on a guilt trip (which includes fear) helps empires/governments to have the upper hand---control.
Good book to read: When Jesus became Christ. (on amazon)
Arius had a very different view of atonement--and of Jesus. Arius would certainly have called himself a Christian. Also having the masses on a guilt trip (which includes fear) helps empires/governments to have the upper hand---control.
Good book to read: When Jesus became Christ. (on amazon)
lunamoth
Will to love
Basically, that Jesus died as a result of an attempt to reform his own tradition. The issue gets all into this complicated language re: the "substance" of Jesus as related to God. Athanasius said, same substance. Arius didn't see it that way. Constantine wanted one emperor, one empire, and hoped one religion might makes things work for the failing Roman Empire. So Athanasius won out.
Read the book, When Jesus became God. It is stunning. The bishops that were waylaid on the way to the Councils so they couldn't vote. The killings, the intrique. It's just stunning. Should be a movie. People need to know this stuff. It is kept from us.
Read the book, When Jesus became God. It is stunning. The bishops that were waylaid on the way to the Councils so they couldn't vote. The killings, the intrique. It's just stunning. Should be a movie. People need to know this stuff. It is kept from us.
lunamoth
Will to love
Did the book describe Arius' view of atonement? Can you summarize it here?
Many Sages One Truth
Active Member
Opinion of a former Christian- the atonement had always been a point of my faith I had found it hard to take seriously, even as a little child. Now in my adulthood I find the whole idea of it as most explain it to me, to be a horrid doctrine.
You can agree to pay off someone's debt for them if they owe one, but what would we think of someone murdered and someone else was forced to take the penalty for murder? Is this justice?
You can agree to pay off someone's debt for them if they owe one, but what would we think of someone murdered and someone else was forced to take the penalty for murder? Is this justice?
lunamoth
Will to love
Atonement, at-one-ment, as UV and rockstarwife have each said, seems to me to be the central point of faith.
I don't really like the substiutionary atonement theory, but, here is another way to look at that idea. Suppose someone murdered a wife, or child, and the remaining family forgave the murderer? Wouldn't that be like absorbing the 'cost' of the sin (even if the murderer still went to jail)?
lunamoth,
Yes, the book goes into detail about the views of both Arius and Athanasius and their followers.
The controversy revolved around the nature of Jesus in relationship to God. Gets into all this convoluted language (which exists today---just read the Nicene Creed.) Arius and his followers said that if Jesus was the son of God that indicates that Jesus came from God, was not the SAME as God (just as my brother is NOT the SAME as my father. Yes, comes from my father---um...AND mother--quite equally, not one above the other at all.) The Athanasians and followers said that Jesus and God were of the exact same "substance" as each other in every way. They were the SAME. Arius and followers said that made no sense. The whole struggle was how to make this religion, Christianity, monotheistic, really. So, they, I think, forced a round peg into a square hole (or is it a square peg into a round hole?)
Yes, the book goes into detail about the views of both Arius and Athanasius and their followers.
The controversy revolved around the nature of Jesus in relationship to God. Gets into all this convoluted language (which exists today---just read the Nicene Creed.) Arius and his followers said that if Jesus was the son of God that indicates that Jesus came from God, was not the SAME as God (just as my brother is NOT the SAME as my father. Yes, comes from my father---um...AND mother--quite equally, not one above the other at all.) The Athanasians and followers said that Jesus and God were of the exact same "substance" as each other in every way. They were the SAME. Arius and followers said that made no sense. The whole struggle was how to make this religion, Christianity, monotheistic, really. So, they, I think, forced a round peg into a square hole (or is it a square peg into a round hole?)
lunamoth
Will to love
Thank you for the added explanation, Clare, but I still do not see how Arius viewed atonement. Was that described in the book?
Last edited:
Also of interest is that Abelard (around 1100 AD) and a religious teacher of great renown in France, had a different view of the atonement theory also. He had great arguments for this and his story (and that of his great love, Heloise--smart smart woman) is an incredibly sad and haunting story. Check it out. In that debate, Bernard of Clairvaux excommunicated Peter Abelard, the brilliant theologian and philosopher.
Bernard of Clairvaux launched the Second Crusade. (I don't think that crusade would ever have occurred if Peter Abelard had won the debate against Bernard. By the time of that debate, Abelard was ill, but went anyway, and did his best. Bernard had appealed to Rome behind Abelard's back and when Abelard appealed to Rome, Rome had already "taken sides."
Bernard of Clairvaux launched the Second Crusade. (I don't think that crusade would ever have occurred if Peter Abelard had won the debate against Bernard. By the time of that debate, Abelard was ill, but went anyway, and did his best. Bernard had appealed to Rome behind Abelard's back and when Abelard appealed to Rome, Rome had already "taken sides."
lunamoth,
Yes, it is described in the book. It is a book anyone interested in religious studies should read.
Arius and his followers tended to see Jesus as showing the way to God---as pointing to God---as not be as the "same substance" AS God. Did Arius see Jesus as "God's son"---yes, but what does that mean to us? David was seen as "son of God." It was common religious language of the day.
Arius and his followers were treated horribly by the Council in Nicea and they tended to stay in Constantinople and the region, forming the Eastern Church. So Arius focused on Jesus as an example of how we are all to live---that we hold responsibility for our own sins and righting our wrongs (the moral theory of atonement as opposed to the substitutionary view of the atonement). Why was Jesus killed? I suppose Arius would say that Jesus ran into problems with the Roman government as it wanted no threat to the empire. Many Jews had caused uprisings against the Romans and had been smacked down---yes, even crucified. Many of them.
Yes, it is described in the book. It is a book anyone interested in religious studies should read.
Arius and his followers tended to see Jesus as showing the way to God---as pointing to God---as not be as the "same substance" AS God. Did Arius see Jesus as "God's son"---yes, but what does that mean to us? David was seen as "son of God." It was common religious language of the day.
Arius and his followers were treated horribly by the Council in Nicea and they tended to stay in Constantinople and the region, forming the Eastern Church. So Arius focused on Jesus as an example of how we are all to live---that we hold responsibility for our own sins and righting our wrongs (the moral theory of atonement as opposed to the substitutionary view of the atonement). Why was Jesus killed? I suppose Arius would say that Jesus ran into problems with the Roman government as it wanted no threat to the empire. Many Jews had caused uprisings against the Romans and had been smacked down---yes, even crucified. Many of them.
lunamoth
Will to love
Thank you, Clare. That is interesting to know.
Levite
Higher and Higher
Atonement, in Judaism, is a process that one goes through in order to fully repent from transgressions.
The primary part of this process is called teshuvah (literally, "returning" or "turning back," but more idomatically, "repentance"). If the transgression in question is something between oneself and another person (I lied to Reuven, or I stole five dollars from Reuven, or scratched his car and ran, etc.), then I must first admit what I have done to the aggrieved party (in this case, Reuven), apologize sincerely to him, and make what amends I can (promise never to do what I did again, return the money I stole, pay for his car to be fixed, etc.). Then, I must do my own inner work to ensure that I will do my very best never to repeat such behavior again.
If the transgression was something that involved secular society (for example, I beat someone, or raped someone, or stole a lot of their money) then I also have to face the consequences of my actions under the law of the land as part of my teshuvah; as well as paying the medical/psychiatric bills of the person I beat or raped, or repaying all the money I stole. And I would have to commit to whatever personal work needed to be done (anger management classes, rehab, therapy, spiritual counseling, etc.) in order to ensure I not repeat such behavior again.
If the transgression was something that involved Jewish society (for example, I committed apostasy, or taught heresy, or induced other Jews to break the commandments) then I would also have to formally abjure, recant, and take responsibility for what I had done before a Bet Din (rabbinical court).
If the transgression is between oneself and God (I ate something non-kosher, or worked on the Sabbath, or wore a forbidden admixture of wool and linen, etc.) then I would simply have to express regret to God, and promise to try not to repeat such behavior in the future.
And in all cases, the final step would be to formally confess my transgressions and ask God's forgiveness on Yom Kippur, the annual Day of Atonement.
We believe that anyone who follows those processes is forgiven their transgressions. That is atonement.