Christians, change my mind: the more I think of substitutionary atonement, the less it makes sense.

[nPeace]

yes, I was indeed hinting towards your inevitable no-true scottsman.

It doesn't surprise me that you would create another fallacy. That apparently is a pattern of yours.
I would have hoped that after making the first logical fallacy - a false equivalence, you would have at least considered carefully what I said... maybe even make sure you were well informed about the subject, before you rolled into a weak man fallacy.

However, the belief that one is knowledgeable about any subject, indeed leads to a minefield of fallacies, which the believer himself falls into, over and over again.
Being informed in this era, is not as difficult as it was centuries ago... even for the most uninformed person - which I don't think you are... but none of us are knowledgeable about every subject. We can learn.

In this post, there are two sources linked, which I'm almost certain you would accept, which can inform you. I clipped a few excerpts, so they won't be missed.
To repeat... a Christian follows the teachings of Christ, not later first century teachings, contrary to Jesus' teachings. Those who call themselves Christians do that.

Think of it this way...
A "policeman" may turn up at your house, in full uniform, but in reality, he may not be a policeman. Those things do happen.
If a sheriff turns up at you door later, and informs you the guy was not a policeman, will you accuse him of creating a fallacy?
That would be ridiculously unreasonable, wouldn't it.

 

[Jos]

We're a motley crew, here in RF and in the world: Some of us are dogs, some of us are cats, and a lot of us are wildebeests. Watch out for the jackals among us.
Since you say that you were raised Christian, I'll lighten up on ya.

Ok, understood, thank you.

 

[Jos]

So only a non-conditional gift can be a gift? Are you able to prove thru life experiences and concepts that a gift is solely unconditional or that a conditional gift exists?

Any gift that has strings attached to it, isn't a gift IMO. A real gift would totally free with no conditions attached to it

Is there any gift that is not a product of something?

Idk, I don't think so

No blood sacrifice required?

That's what the Bible states in the OT or the Jewish Bible, also God invents the rules for salvation so He could literally save humanity using anything

Life for a Life is an unreasonable concept for you?

The way it's presented in Christianity is unreasonable to me

Another question I have for you is that if you love yourself whole heartedly and unconditionally?

No I don't and in fact I don't want to and have no interest in doing such a thing, it wouldn't be a good thing for me to do

 

[Jos]

1) You don't need to ask for forgiveness. But the point of that exercise is admitting you consider something a sin. "If you say you have no sins, you deceive yourself. But if you ask Jesus, he will forgive."

If I'm already forgiven and don't need to ask forgiveness, then the admitting if I consider something a sin would be kinda irrelevant, wouldn't it?

Jesus was born into humanity, and died. This makes him part of the human race, and thus connects his fate to that of other humans. Also, the key question is to ask what he did those three days.

OK but He's not imperfect or sinful like other humans thus not making him human at least from a spiritual point of view and also your answer for the question of what He did during the three days is your interpretation or opinion of what happened, especially given that other Christians believe that He was dead the whole time

The exact same way that this works.

Don't see how that's just

I'm not sure the person needs to be innocent though. I think this is something that fans of Jesus tacked on

The Bible suggests that as well

When you die, you don't cease to exist. It simply means the end of a mortal human body. As God does not have a mortal body this has no effect on God. As to why Jesus does not suffer...
Flipside
Flipside
Flipside
These are what Hell is probably like. However... if someone can shatter their illusion, there is actually nothing to worry about. The "punishment" can be overcome.

That's just your opinion or interpretation. Other Christians can and have argued differently and there's no foreseeable way for me to determine who's right.

5) Read #4. God doesn't punish us btw. Hell is self-inflicted. We humans live in a state of sin, that is to say we believe what Satan accuses us of. But Jesus has already forgiven us.

But I thought I was already perfectly forgiven? If I'm already perfectly forgiven then I shouldn't go to hell

God doesn't..." He doesn't punish us. Hear me out

He actually does punish Adam and Eve and He even says that He does

And how when you're in a lousy mood, food tends to be flavorless? Well, it's sort of like this but for their actions. Just as we say "This crepe sucks" when someone who makes it is an abuser, our decisions about having done a "bad" thing put us in torment. The solution to this torment is not denial (or any of the other stages of grief) but being truthful, and accepting grace.

Ok but I still don't see how that answers number 6.

7) Read #4 again. Also, read #5 and #6. Original Sin entails that we humans have to pay for a crime someone else did. It also entails that Jesus automatically is a sinner. When we say that Jesus is "without sin" what we mean is that Jesus, while human, looked at the world as neutral not good or evil

Sure seems like he looks at the world in terms of good and evil when you read scripture

He was able to overcome death because he understood it as an illusion.

So death isn't real? And also he didn't seem to believe that given a reading of the text

Finally, substitutionary atonement is not the only theory of Jesus's death.

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

Thanks for sharing, I'll give it a read

 

[Jos]

Please help me with the difference.

One is an act of volition and the other isn't.

Of course. Did you think people were looking for a man who would come and say, "Messiah is here." So they can say, "Yeah."?

Ignore this question. I don't wanna derail the thread.

That's a different topic.If you really would like to know though, there are a number of threads where faith is discussed. I can find them for you if you like, but PM me if you want, so we don't derail the thread.

Yeah leave it for another time

The point is though, you mistakenly thought the scriptures were saying of Jesus, 'have faith that I am the Messiah.' That's not the case.
However, if you don't know what something is, why talk about it as though you do? That's clearly leading to a misrepresentation. Isn't it?

Like I said above, ignore it, I don't wanna derail the thread

So for example, the perfect bed should be able to fly into space, and land on Mars, and I should be able to sleep in it comfortably... without dying.
I really hope in this case, you don't have that kind of mistaken view of what perfection is.

It depends on what one's goals are. Perfection seems to correlate to goals and wishes

Did you note that perfection is relative to the individual who's purpose was met?
Perfect does not mean what meets all requirements of just anyone.
The only perfection that is complete in the absolute sense, evidently, is what we don't know about, unless we can trust what we are taught in the most ancient text about God.
Any other perfection is relative - having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be

Wouldn't that mean that God's idea of perfection is subjective and not objective? Just a matter of his opinion?

Good. You have done the correct thing here, in asking a question. I'm hoping the question is not in the form of a statement, as in rhetorical.

So what's the answer to the question?

Ultimate? Do you mean based on what is required, as in the definition for perfect in the relative sense?
Yes, the sacrifice was what was needed. It was a propitiatory sacrifice (Hebrews 2:17), and corresponding ransom(1 Timothy 2:6). It fitted the requirement, and was the the best it could possibly be. It could not be improved on, It was exactly right - perfect. Ultimate in this context, yes.

According to the Bible, God is perfect in the absolute - perfect in all his ways - in love, mercy, forgiveness... yes. (Deuteronomy 32:4 ; Psalm 145:17)

But isn't perfection subjective? Making the sacrifice subjectively perfect?

The fact is, according to the scriptures, Jesus was sinless, hence perfect, and he was human... and since human

What does imperfect mean then? Cause from I what I glean from the scriptures everyone is physically and spiritually imperfect yet Jesus only seems to be human physically and not spiritually since He's supposedly spiritually perfect. Thus if He's spiritually perfect and humans are spiritually imperfect then He could never be fully human.

Jesus' sacrificial death, allows mankind to come into a relationship with God - to be reconciled to him (conditional), and to have their sins forgiven (conditional). Paul does not disagree with this.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point since I see perfection as a different thing

He should leave things as they are and allow humanity to perish", is justice.

Because we were already facing the punishment that we got from getting kicked out of the garden.

So why do you think it would be morally right and fair that God "leave things as they are and allow humanity to perish as a just punishment for sins"?

Because we were already facing the punishment for sinning in the garden with God cursing the earth and stuff

Who decided what is human, and which text book says, "imperfections are what makes humans humans"?

Let's just agree to disagree on this point

 

[Jos]

Mary was the immaculate conception. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of that?

She's human which means she's spiritually imperfect and thus Jesus would have to he spiritually imperfect, no way around that.

 

[Jos]

The reason he was a worthy sacrifice is not because he was not a son of Adam but because he was.

Well that means that He's spiritually imperfect and flawed and can't be a worthy sacrifice. You can't be a son of Adam and be sinless

 

[sooda]

She's human which means she's spiritually imperfect and thus Jesus would have to he spiritually imperfect, no way around that.

She was free of original sin..

The Immaculate Conception refers to the condition that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin from the very moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne.

 

[Jos]

No one must ask forgiveness. Person who understands he has done wrongly, want to ask forgiveness, because he regrets and is sorry. If you ask forgiveness because you are forced, it is worth nothing.

Exactly

In this case I think it would be good to look what Bible actually says. According to the Bible, reason why Jesus died was this:

Ok but it doesn't answer the question of how three days equals to eternity.

I think that is wrong understanding of what the Bible tells. Forgiveness was possible before Jesus died. That is why his death was not required for that. Jesus used his life for us, to teach us and was killed because of that. That is why it can be said he sacrificed his life for us. But it is like in the case of soldier who sacrifices his life for his country.

Well why did God change from the old way of atonement to something new if the old way was OK? Also I don't think it's a perfect sacrifice since He was only dead for three days and not an eternity

I think that is also something that is not really form the Bible.

Can you at least try to answer the question?

 

[Iymus]

Any gift that has strings attached to it, isn't a gift IMO. A real gift would totally free with no conditions attached to it

Able to list a few examples?

 

[nPeace]

One is an act of volition and the other isn't.

That's not helping. It's quite vague.

Ignore this question. I don't wanna derail the thread.


Yeah leave it for another time


Like I said above, ignore it, I don't wanna derail the thread


It depends on what one's goals are. Perfection seems to correlate to goals and wishes

Whose goals and wishes... the designer or the observer? That's relative perfection, as explained.

Wouldn't that mean that God's idea of perfection is subjective and not objective? Just a matter of his opinion?

God's idea of perfection?
It's the general understanding of relative perfection.
Perfection in the absolute sense cannot be attributed to anything but the first cause, and like I said, we would not know that, unless we trust the oldest book about the first cause - God.
Is relative perfection an opinion? I wouldn't call God's will, an opinion, but you can have your opinion on that.
As the one who set the standard of good, it is more than an opinion... imo.

So what's the answer to the question?

I wrote the answer, just below your question.

But isn't perfection subjective? Making the sacrifice subjectively perfect?

I am sure I explained that.
What is a requirement? What is a desire? What is good?
These are all associated with a subject?
The artist. The cutler. God. All of them are subjects setting the requirements, having the desire, and considering the product good.
(Genesis 1:31) God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good. Good to whom? God.
God was the one requesting the sacrifice. From the beginning we knew this.

What does imperfect mean then? Cause from I what I glean from the scriptures everyone is physically and spiritually imperfect yet Jesus only seems to be human physically and not spiritually since He's supposedly spiritually perfect. Thus if He's spiritually perfect and humans are spiritually imperfect then He could never be fully human.

Imperfection is simply not meeting the requirements. Similar to sin, which is missing the mark of God's righteous standards.
To illustrate.
Imagine that you could hit the bull's eye on a darts board every time. Now imagine me, hitting anywhere other than the bull's eye.
I'm the imperfect one, Do you need to guess who is perfect?
When God created the first human pair, they were perfect in two ways - Physically, and connected to God in a spiritual way. They just needed to grow.
When they sinned, they missed the mark of perfection, in a spiritual way, by rejecting God's standards of right. They rejected his thinking, Thus their thinking would be fleshly - not hitting the mark of a spiritual man.
The became imperfect - blemished - in a physical way, by the physical defects due to their sin - sickness and death would follow.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point since I see perfection as a different thing

What are we disagreeing on? I'm not sure there is anything to disagree on, since you can't just make up your own definition, like pulling a number out of a hat.
Give me the definition of perfection that is not just Jos' idea, and we can then have something to disagree on.
Or, are we agreeing to disagree on the fact that Jos hasn't been using any factual information to define perfection, So that does not allow for soundness nor evidence, which isn't demonstrating reason.

Because we were already facing the punishment that we got from getting kicked out of the garden.

Being kicked out the garden was not the punishment for disobeying the command. Being kicked out the garden was a consequence, due to the land lord's interest in preventing further rebellious behavior. Read Genesis 3:22-24.

Because we were already facing the punishment for sinning in the garden with God cursing the earth and stuff

How did you get from God allowing humanity to perish, to God cursing the earth and stuff?
The question is, why do you think it would be morally right and fair that God "leave things as they are and allow humanity to perish as a just punishment for sins"?

I would say, as the Bible says, God loved the world so much, that he did not want man to perish without having a chance at life, since it was through Adam, and not them, that they were perishing.
I think that's more than fair, and just. John 3:16 ; Romans 5:12
If you disagree, please explain why.

Let's just agree to disagree on this point

What are we disagreeing about... that Jos prefers to make up ideas about something that he prefers to believe, rather than present facts, and be reasonable, in discussing the subject?
You're happy with that, Jos?
That would be very disappointing. to me I am seeing a different person. What ever happened to reasoning Jos?
I hope you have not allowed the peer pressure of Atheists and skeptics to drive you toward an unreasonable position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It doesn't surprise me that you would create another fallacy. That apparently is a pattern of yours.
I would have hoped that after making the first logical fallacy - a false equivalence, you would have at least considered carefully what I said... maybe even make sure you were well informed about the subject, before you rolled into a weak man fallacy.

However, the belief that one is knowledgeable about any subject, indeed leads to a minefield of fallacies, which the believer himself falls into, over and over again.
Being informed in this era, is not as difficult as it was centuries ago... even for the most uninformed person - which I don't think you are... but none of us are knowledgeable about every subject. We can learn.

In this post, there are two sources linked, which I'm almost certain you would accept, which can inform you. I clipped a few excerpts, so they won't be missed.
To repeat... a Christian follows the teachings of Christ, not later first century teachings, contrary to Jesus' teachings. Those who call themselves Christians do that.

Think of it this way...
A "policeman" may turn up at your house, in full uniform, but in reality, he may not be a policeman. Those things do happen.
If a sheriff turns up at you door later, and informs you the guy was not a policeman, will you accuse him of creating a fallacy?
That would be ridiculously unreasonable, wouldn't it.

Those that call themselves Christians are Christians. Just because many do not follow your doctrine is irrelevant.

 

[exchemist]

She was free of original sin..

The Immaculate Conception refers to the condition that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin from the very moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, Saint Anne.

As I understand it, since the Reformation, this doctrine has only been retained by the Catholic church. It was adopted progressively by the Church, after a lot of dispute, during the Middle Ages and was finally given the stamp of approval by the pope only in the c.19th. The Orthodox and most Protestant churches do not share it.

Indeed, to many of us today it seems rather technical, complicated and unnecessary.

 

[exchemist]

Those that call themselves Christians are Christians. Just because many do not follow your doctrine is irrelevant.

Pace Private Eye, we seem to have an ongoing No-True-Scotsman situation with regard to this one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pace Private Eye, we seem to have an ongoing No-True-Scotsman situation with regard to this one.

I am not surprised. After reading that last post, I am also uncertain there is an understanding of logical fallacy. Or at least what No-True-Scotsman means.

 

[exchemist]

I am not surprised. After reading that last post, I am also uncertain there is an understanding of logical fallacy. Or at least what No-True-Scotsman means.

Oh I am taking it to mean the term Christian seems to be being redefined, in the course of an argument, to exclude those that do not share the exact doctrinal views of the speaker. Am I misusing it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh I am taking it to mean the term Christian seems to be being redefined, in the course of an argument, to exclude those that do not share the exact doctrinal views of the speaker. Am I misusing it?

Sorry. I see that I did not word that well. I meant the last post of @nPeace. Which is also inaccurate, since the post of his that I responded to was not his last.

Yes, I agree with your assessment. It is my understanding that all religions not Jehovah's Witness are not Christian according to their doctrine. Including the roughly 2.3 billion other Christians on Earth that are not JW's

 

[exchemist]

Sorry. I see that I did not word that well. I meant the last post of @nPeace. Which is also inaccurate, since the post of his that I responded to was not his last.

Yes, I agree with your assessment. It is my understanding that all religions not Jehovah's Witness are not Christian according to their doctrine. Including the roughly 2.3 billion other Christians on Earth that are not JW's

OK thanks for clarifying .

Yes, this is the kind of ghastly exclusivism I deplore in some religious sects. So War'n'Peace is a JW. I didn't know, but it explains a lot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK thanks for clarifying .

Yes, this is the kind of ghastly exclusivism I deplore in some religious sects. So War'n'Peace is a JW. I didn't know, but it explains a lot.

Yeah, I am not a fan either. It is prominent among fundamentalist Christians, but I suppose it is not exclusive to them. No pun intended.

Yes, he is one of four JW's on here that I know about. So far, I have managed to get on his ignore list and that of @Deeje. I thought about seeing if I could go four for four, but I haven't really had any reason to discuss anything with...I can't recall the exact name...and I get along with Hockey Cowboy, so I will let it go with that.

I hadn't realized until just recently how much the arrogant flaunting of that exclusivity offended me, but maybe I just finally reached my tolerance limit.

 

[sooda]

As I understand it, since the Reformation, this doctrine has only been retained by the Catholic church. It was adopted progressively by the Church, after a lot of dispute, during the Middle Ages and was finally given the stamp of approval by the pope only in the c.19th. The Orthodox and most Protestant churches do not share it.

Indeed, to many of us today it seems rather technical, complicated and unnecessary.

Its definitely not a Protestant thing... For the longest time I thought Jesus was the Immaculate Conception.