Biggest Problem of Christianity (Vicarious Redemption)

[Sunstone]

So, you impart your wisdom from comparative religious studies?

"Wisdom"? Comparative Religious Studies is not the study of wisdom.

 

[james bond]

"Wisdom"? Comparative Religious Studies is not the study of wisdom.

>>S: You should take some university courses in comparative religious studies. You'd be surprised how often students don't understand their own religion, don't know the facts, etc. Doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's a Hindu not understanding Hinduism or a Jew not understanding Judaism.

Partly, it seems to be a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees.<<

I'm confused. You said you want the religious to do comparative religious stuides in order to understand their own religion. How does comparative religious studies do this? I thought that is because you did so.

 

[Sunstone]

>>S: You should take some university courses in comparative religious studies. You'd be surprised how often students don't understand their own religion, don't know the facts, etc. Doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's a Hindu not understanding Hinduism or a Jew not understanding Judaism.

Partly, it seems to be a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees.<<

I'm confused. You said you want the religious to do comparative religious stuides in order to understand their own religion. How does comparative religious studies do this? I thought that is because you did so.

I distinguish between wisdom and knowledge. Comparative Religious Studies tries to impart knowledge of religions to students. It does not try to impart wisdom.

 

[james bond]

I distinguish between wisdom and knowledge. Comparative Religious Studies tries to impart knowledge of religions to students. It does not try to impart wisdom.

Wisdom is gained by experience. I'm not sure if going to college necessarily imparts that, so we're thinking along the same lines. However, you stated that the religious do not understand their own religion. One of the points of going to church is to learn one's religion and science is discussed today in Christian church since science and religion are intertwined. Comparative religious studies may help one who is trying to be a global citizen. It covers that which is beyond one's religion. If anything, I would like to see science as viewed through those religions. It does have interesting careers associated with it, not just solely as clergy. I would think it is rigorous as any other major.

 

[RedDragon94]

Reminds me of Jack Sparrow telling Davy Jones (sorry, CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow) that he fulfilled his debt by dying. Jones retorts that he came back, so he didn't.

Fiction vs. history. You can make the argument that his sacrifice was nothing but when he actually goes to hell and comes back that makes him victorious over hell and the grave. Idk, if Jesus hadn't then the theology has a hole there too. The difference here (in real life) is that the antagonist isn't making the rules.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's an absurd example. You're comparing actual, physical sacrifice for physical salvation, with physical sacrifice for spiritual salvation. Only we can save ourselves spiritually through repentance, something both Jesus and John the Baptist taught.

Not at all. I'm comparing the silly nature of skeptics who deny the atonement. You're not a skeptic, but a believer, however, I can see the atonement in sacrifice throughout both testaments. Adam and Eve had a sacrifice made and we do not see where they repented in the scriptures. Noah and Job and the patriarchs all made sacrifices.

We cannot save ourselves through repentance, although repentance leads to trusting Jesus to save us. Why do you believe Jesus died and rose? Paul says THAT saved sinners, among whom he was "chief".

 

[Ponder This]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

A man counts the coins given to the neighbor and notices there are too many coins. This does not makes sense. He should give the correct number of coins. This is why parables and deeper meanings escape the clever.

 

[Prestor John]

I believe you are going to get a whole bunch of different answers depending on people's own personal interpretation.

My personal take, which is one I believe to be the doctrine of scripture, is that God's does not punish anyone. He simply enforces eternal Law.

There are Laws throughout the Universe that are infinite and absolute. It is by operating according to these Laws that God has obtained power, authority and perfection.

Due to His perfection, caused by His constant observance of eternal Law, God cannot look upon sin (operating outside the Law) with the least degree of allowance.

Not only this, but because of the glory He has obtained, no unclean thing (sinful or dead) can abide His presence.

We are God's children and it is our eternal destiny and purpose to become like Him. Perfect.

However, one of the main attributes of God's perfection is that He has a Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In order for us to gain this Knowledge we must gain experience of both Good and Evil. Experience comes by having a time where we are free to act for ourselves.

We need Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to progress into eternity, but that knowledge isn't just lying in the street to be picked up! It needs to be lived. It needs to be pounded into us.

We need to know both Good and Evil in order to prize the one and reject the other.

Therein lies the rub. This inevitable exposure to Evil would cause us all to be deemed unclean, according to eternal Law, and we would be unable to abide God's presence.

Not only this, but the Eternal Law of Justice requires payment. An equivalent exchange. A punishment fit to meet the offense.

Therefore, according to perfect and eternal Law, it would be just for Mankind to not only be punished for whichever sin they committed, but to also be cast out of God's presence forever.

However, God loves His children and in His mercy desires a way for us to not only avoid punishment, but to return to His presence. However, He cannot operate outside of the Law.

Fortunately for us, the Lord Jesus Christ offered to be our Mediator with the Law. He offered to stand betwixt us and the eternal Law of Justice.

Is this just? How does this work?

If you imagine that the eternal Law of Justice as a creditor and the punishment as an accumulation of debt, Christ has offered to pay that debt on our behalf, therefore satisfying the demands of the eternal Law of Justice

However, now that Christ owns our debt, we look to Him as our creditor. He, therefore, could set the terms of our payment.

If we repent of our sins and rely on Him, He promises that we can avoid punishment, because He had already been punished.

If we decide not to repent of our sins, then we must suffer the punishment of those sins, just as He suffered.

However, if we repent or not, Christ has promised that we will all be forgiven eventually and also overcome death, through a Resurrection.

Therefore, being free of both sin and death, it would be possible for us to enter into God's presence.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I couldn't find the exact question you pose, but here's a Pew survey on how Americans view Jews and Christians. If there were conflicting messages (and I'm not saying there aren't) they are in the minority. Most see religious persons as positive people.

They also fill up prisons more than atheists. There are lots of villains who still have cheerleaders for them.

One of the points of going to church is to learn one's religion and science is discussed today in Christian church since science and religion are intertwined.

How many news stories do I have to sit through where some Christian claims something is against their religious beliefs, but if you go to Jesus' words, he never told them to act that way?

Fiction vs. history.

Fiction vs believed to be true fiction. Fixed.

You can make the argument that his sacrifice was nothing but when he actually goes to hell and comes back that makes him victorious over hell and the grave.

How? Hell still exists. Nothing changed. People still die. Nothing changed. Jesus' victory might as well be something a politician says. "Only 200,000 people died today instead of the 1 million that's normal. Yay, me!"

The difference here (in real life) is that the antagonist isn't making the rules.

Depends on whether God can be considered the antagonist.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not at all. I'm comparing the silly nature of skeptics who deny the atonement. You're not a skeptic, but a believer, however, I can see the atonement in sacrifice throughout both testaments. Adam and Eve had a sacrifice made and we do not see where they repented in the scriptures. Noah and Job and the patriarchs all made sacrifices.

You'd have a good argument if you weren't relying on a divine consistency instead the reasoned awareness of our inherent rights bestowed upon us in tandem with our full self-awareness--the parody of which emphasized the metaphor of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil eaten by said Adam and Eve.

We cannot save ourselves through repentance, although repentance leads to trusting Jesus to save us. Why do you believe Jesus died and rose? Paul says THAT saved sinners, among whom he was "chief".

Paul was an incognito wealthy Roman citizen by his Herodian heritage. He was the great deceiver of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Beast of Revelation--six-hundred, threescore and six (not 666) being Jewish gematria for Tarsus, Paul's hometown and the early Roman center of Mithraism. It was Paul who instituted the body and blood aspect of the Lord's Supper, which just happened to be the same rite of the same name under pagan Mithraism, which was an embarrassment to the early church fathers and why they changed it to the Eucharist and subsequently, to Communion and The Last Supper.

 

[Shiranui117]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

No. This is also a very late idea that was only created in the 1500's. Orthodox and Catholics don't believe this (AKA the vast majority of the world's Christians).

 

[RedDragon94]

How? Hell still exists. Nothing changed. People still die. Nothing changed. Jesus' victory might as well be something a politician says. "Only 200,000 people died today instead of the 1 million that's normal. Yay, me!"

Jesus didn't come to change the nature of reality.

Depends on whether God can be considered the antagonist.

So God is the enemy because of a few chapters in the Old Testament?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You'd have a good argument if you weren't relying on a divine consistency instead the reasoned awareness of our inherent rights bestowed upon us in tandem with our full self-awareness--the parody of which emphasized the metaphor of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil eaten by said Adam and Eve.



Paul was an incognito wealthy Roman citizen by his Herodian heritage. He was the great deceiver of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Beast of Revelation--six-hundred, threescore and six (not 666) being Jewish gematria for Tarsus, Paul's hometown and the early Roman center of Mithraism. It was Paul who instituted the body and blood aspect of the Lord's Supper, which just happened to be the same rite of the same name under pagan Mithraism, which was an embarrassment to the early church fathers and why they changed it to the Eucharist and subsequently, to Communion and The Last Supper.

I don't understand your first comment, perhaps you'd care to rephrase.

The second comment doesn't work for me as Jesus, not Paul, said, "Eat this . . . this is my body, drink this . . . my blood," and further, Paul never instituted Sabbath fellowship meals, rather, that's when the entire early church, Jews, would gather offerings for the poor and celebrate the risen Christ.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus didn't come to change the nature of reality.

So he's useless. Problems need fixing and Jesus just doesn't seem all that into it. I think we can do better.

So God is the enemy because of a few chapters in the Old Testament?

And the New. At least God kinda apologized after the Flood in the OT. In the NT, He relishes killing everyone else off in the loophole of not using water to do it but various other methods instead.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't understand your first comment, perhaps you'd care to rephrase.

Our inherent rights, and honoring the rights of others, morality, is a result of our full self-awareness. Genesis got this right with the beautiful allegory of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, which followed, or actually happened together with, becoming self-aware...of their nakedness.

The second comment doesn't work for me as Jesus, not Paul, said, "Eat this . . . this is my body, drink this . . . my blood," and further, Paul never instituted Sabbath fellowship meals, rather, that's when the entire early church, Jews, would gather offerings for the poor and celebrate the risen Christ.

Actually it was Paul saying that Jesus had told him that in a vision--which exposes the fact that it hadn't been there all along. If it had, why would Jesus need to tell him? Because Paul wanted to "Romanize" the quasi-cannibalistic rite with its mithraic equivalent, also using the mithraic name for it, the aforementioned embarrassment, the "Lord's Supper". And that fits with the fact that the Didache makes no such equivalence, and the further fact that such an equivalence would be blasphemy for the Jews to this day.

 

[RedDragon94]

So he's useless. Problems need fixing and Jesus just doesn't seem all that into it. I think we can do better.

What I meant was Jesus didn't come to change everything about reality.

And the New. At least God kinda apologized after the Flood in the OT. In the NT, He relishes killing everyone else off in the loophole of not using water to do it but various other methods instead.

I think you're the enemy of humanity, because whoever chooses to go against their creator and teaches others to do so very simply leaves the creator no choice but to condemn. It's mutiny.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think you're the enemy of humanity, because whoever chooses to go against their creator and teaches others to do so very simply leaves the creator no choice but to condemn. It's mutiny.

Or maybe this creator could, you know, shut up, listen and reflect as to why its creations are so unhappy with it and try to recify their grievances. We didn't ask to come into existence and be subject to this entity and its whims.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Our inherent rights, and honoring the rights of others, morality, is a result of our full self-awareness. Genesis got this right with the beautiful allegory of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, which followed, or actually happened together with, becoming self-aware...of their nakedness.



Actually it was Paul saying that Jesus had told him that in a vision--which exposes the fact that it hadn't been there all along. If it had, why would Jesus need to tell him? Because Paul wanted to "Romanize" the quasi-cannibalistic rite with its mithraic equivalent, also using the mithraic name for it, the aforementioned embarrassment, the "Lord's Supper". And that fits with the fact that the Didache makes no such equivalence, and the further fact that such an equivalence would be blasphemy for the Jews to this day.

Thanks for the clarification. Are you saying you have textual or contemporaneous evidence that Paul was a false teacher?

Paul was also describing what to do during a Sabbath meal--early on the first day of the week, believers would eat together and handle money. They could talk about Jesus weekly and not just on a seder occasion.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The vision of Jesus to Paul in Corinthians should be sufficient textual evidence alone. And though it's not as obvious or definitely relate-able, Tarsus being the number of the Beast of Revelation definitely fits.
I don't really object to the issues raised in the last paragraph. But it's Paul's wholesale makeover of a religion which was relatively harmless, to one where morality is relative or even outright irrelevant. Re:
"But didn’t he earn his right to heaven by all the good things he did? No, for being saved is a gift; if a person could earn it by being good, then it wouldn’t be free—but it is! It is given to those who do not work for it. For God declares sinners to be good in his sight if they have faith in Christ to save them from God’s wrath." --- Romans 4:4

That's pure evil. As I've said, both Jesus and John the Baptist taught salvation through repentance. It was Paul who came up with this mystical, pagan salvation through faith that we are saved by Jesus' blood. No person or animal can die as a substitute for our repentance.

 

[74x12]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

When God sees our sins then He cannot forget them. But when we repent He remembers the blood of Christ(So the price He paid) then He is able to forget our sins. In other words the blood of Christ reminds God of our value because we literally cost the blood of Christ. So He forgives us because of this cost.

If Christ had just died for no reason then His blood would only bring judgment on the world. But because He died with purpose(our redemption) therefore it makes us of great value in God's eyes and allows Him to forgive us.

Essentially, true love in God's view is actions rather than words. So the love of God is expressed in this one deed of Christ. Therefore remembering His love in this moment(when He died for us) then He forgives us from a bases of love.

There are other reasons why but this one is one I find really explanatory in the light of the questions you've raised.