|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Moral Influence atonement theology
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At any rate - it is certainly true that people were burnt at the stake for espousing Reformed doctrines in general - which included justification by grace through faith, of course.
I'm not sure why mr cheesy is contesting that, unless he's applying it to justification by faith per se rather than a range of Reformed emphases which included that.
Because Mudfrog is saying something about this theory of the atonement and pointing as evidence to people who were burned for believing it.
But they weren't. Rubbish.
That's like saying Socialism somehow has credibility because Wat Tyler was executed leading the Peasant's revolt.
Of course, socialism as an idea was far more recent than Wat Tyler. The idea that he was somehow a socialist - or believed in the ideas that developed long after his death - is bogus.
You do indeed misunderstand my point but that's the fault of my phrasing.
I wrote:
quote:
The fact that doctrines such as PSA, pre-millennial tribulation and rapture and justification by faith only came into the forefront of the consciousness of many in the last 500 years does not mean that those churches who for 1500 years before that should control, denigrate or condemn the development of these 'new' ideas - and certainly not attack, criticise or burn at the stake those who put those ideas forward.
I lumped together the doctrines of PSA, rapture and Justification by Faith as 'new doctrines'.
It was the first two that I was thinking attracted attack and criticism; the burning at the stake, in my mind as I typed it, was referring to the Justification by faith.
I did say attack, criticise 'or', and not 'and', burning at the stake, which implied that not all reactions applied to all doctrines.
Just to clear that up.
I am fully aware that nobody was ever burnt at the stake for believing in PSA.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
None of them tell the whole truth and as we have said, they all fall down if pressed too hard - that's why they are theories
That they "all fall down" when "pressed hard" doesn't make them theories, rather it makes them "failed" theories or, at least, "seriously deficient" theories. I don't think theories can be "pressed too too hard." If they all fall down why do we seem to get so worked up about them?
I'm intrigued, Mudfrog, as to where you see PSA falling down.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All the sacrifices (including the scapegoat) seem to me to be substitutionary, for the sins of the people of Israel.
Again, I can't see how this is anything other than
satisfaction theory as opposed to substitution.
You have the advantage over me in terms of formal theological training, but my understanding is that the satisfaction theory of atonement is still a substitution theory, just different from ransom.
I'm not sure either about mousethief's distinction between "for" (identification) and "on behalf of" (substitution).
That's not mousethief's distinction unless I utterly misread it. If anything, mousethief's distinction is the other way round. The calf dies on behalf of the prodigal son, but it isn't substituted for the prodigal son.
You make a substitute when you swap something or someone out of a role and swap something or someone else into that same role. The father could be said to substitute the fatted calf for the slop the pigs were eating, because they both fill the same role (food); but not the fatted calf for the prodigal son because the role of food is not the prodigal son's role.
I always thought the fatted calf was killed as a celebration, not a sacrifice.
It was food not a ceremony!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure either about mousethief's distinction between "for" (identification) and "on behalf of" (substitution). "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." I can easily see elements of both identification and substitution in the scripture and the tradition.
If I made a dichotomy between those two phrases then I misspoke. "for" and "on behalf of" mean the same thing. Neither are substitutionary. When I buy a candy bar for my son, I'm not buying it instead of something else. The distinction is between "for" or "on behalf of" and "instead of" or "in place of." The latter two phrases are substitutional. The former two are not. Some of the PSA advocates see substitution every time they see the words "for" or "on behalf of" in Scripture. That's not what those words mean. If the Hebrew or Greek words being translated mean substitution, then the translator has failed in his or her job.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am always amused at the argument that says that the age of a doctrine somehow adds authority to it and f it's formulised recently then it's evidently not orthodox.
What I see here s a desire among the churches with traditions that were set in stone long before protestant evangelicalism to somehow assert their own self-importance.
St. Vincent of Lerins existed a full thousand years before the Protestants. It was he that created the threefold rule of thumb for judging theology, the first thumb of which is antiquity. (the other two being ubiquity and unanimity (or nearly so -- he was a pragmatist)). So, no. The idea that the emphasis on older doctrines is an attempt to squelch protestantism is fatuous. It's not all about you. Some knowledge of church history would stand many Protestants in much better stead.
quote:
It seems to me that Martin Luther, 500 years ago this year, who taught, against all church instruction, that 'the just shall live by faith', faced the same kind of criticism as those who believe in PSA do n here:
The idea that Martin Luther's 'the just shall live by faith' is against all church instruction shows once again a lack of knowledge of church history and theological history.
"New" doctrines do not carry the weight of scripture -- what a strange idea.
quote:
Yes, we are discussing PSA but my point is this: Scripture clearly teaches it.
SAYS YOU. Hello? You're not getting the point here. Not everybody gets this from Scripture. Indeed more than half of all Christians do not believe it. Therefore, by the definitions of the words, Scripture DOES NOT CLEARLY TEACH IT.
quote:
We've heard how Mousethief is far too busy to answer questions about people being condemned already and the wrath lf of remaining on them
I could answer them. But it would be just my opinion. I don't know how the Church interprets them and am not quite sure how I'd go about finding out. There's the thing. They don't all that much matter. Not everybody gives the same importance to the same bits of Scripture. That's absolutely necessary because Scripture is not, pace your "clearly" claim, self-interpreting.
quote:
I would like to know how those verses do not contain a reference to penal substitution, and if they don't, then how do you interpret the phrases that we say do refer to penal substitution?
If I bear your bags at the airport, am I being punished? As for "for" I've already covered that. But really the last bit -- "upon him was the punishment that made us whole and by his bruises we are healed" -- here's a non PSA interpretation: dying on a cross is rather nasty. Punishing, even. Yet it's his death that saves us.
Gotta go to work. Will pick back up with Karl's "You know, I think we need to disentangle two things that have reared themselves on this thread."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting points again ...
@Martin60, I've got no particular axe to grind but I must admit it does set my teeth on edge when I see arguments such as, 'There's no evidence of any contention among the Church Fathers on this issue, so they must all have believed it and been in favour of it just like I am ...'
I've seen that argument applied to PSA and to a belief in the pre-tribulation rapture.
I'm not suggesting anyone here on this thread is doing it, but it's something I have come across before, both from Reformed Evangelicals and other conservative evangelicals.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the Fathers were all uniformly agreed on all points, although I've come across some of the more 'fundamentalist' Orthodox who give that impression.
But there can be a very Protestant tendency to redact one's own Calvinist or broadly evangelical beliefs back onto the Fathers (and into the NT? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) as though it's self-evident that they all believed exactly the same as they do - or at least did before something or other went badly wrong and the Church became all nasty and Catholic ...
I don't buy that at all.
So yes, you are using the wrong end of a Calvinist telescope that you don't belief in.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ha! It seems to me that you are playing!
You are missing the point.
I'm trying to say that just because a church in error will not recognise a new (to it) truth with foundations in Scripture, doesn't make it a wrong truth, an error, a heresy.
The RC church made Luther a heretic and burnt his followers at the stake because they put dogma, opinion and power before Scripture. Is anyone today seriously going to claim that Martin Luther was wrong about justification by faith?
Yes, they can do it but can they say that the Bible doesn't teach it?
Yes, we are discussing PSA but my point is this: Scripture clearly teaches it. And if that truth has been ignored for hundreds of years well, like the rejection of sola fidei, that's not the fault of those who now teach it!
But years of neglect does not make the discovery of that truth invalid; in fact, as with the reformation, it's a much-needed restoration of a truth that for too long was ignored.
I have to say that on this thread I have not seen a lot of Scriptural argument that credibly does against PSA - especially on those texts that those who teach PSA will highlight.
We've heard how Mousethief is far too busy to answer questions about people being condemned already and the wrath lf of remaining on them - so why don't you have a stab? What does the Gospel mean in tat context? What did Jesus actually mean in John 3 18 if unbelievers are not actually 'condemned already'?
And what about the phrase from verse 36, coming again from the lips of Jesus, 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.'?
And what about the verse, as interpreted by Christians (forget the Jews), from Isaiah 53?
It clearly states
quote:
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
NIV
quote:
4 Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.
NRSV
I would like to know how those verses do not contain a reference to penal substitution, and if they don't, then how do you interpret the phrases that we say do refer to penal substitution?
I don't think I'm missing the point at all, Mudfrog.
No, you weren't. That's because I was directing my comment at Mr Cheesy, whose name I should have mentioned at the top.
He said he wasn't playing -I commented that he was (because he was still replying to me)
Whilst I was writing my response to him you posted your next contribution and mine appeared subsequently. Had mine appeared 10 minutes earlier, the discussion would have flowed from one to another, and it would have been event that I was reply to him.
My apologies
[ 13. January 2017, 12:54: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No apologies needed, Mudfrog. I'd mistaken your reply to mr cheesy as one to myself, but it gave me an opportunity to think aloud (thinking allowed?) and frame some further thoughts ...
Whether that's been helpful to anyone other than myself, I don't know.
Perhaps it's me who should be apologising.
I'll bob back later, but before I do, here's a thought/question triggered by one of your earlier posts ...
Does it necessarily follow that not believing in PSA means that we don't see the need for a Saviour or become as it were, soft on sin, soft on the consequences of sin?
The Orthodox don't share a belief in PSA but in the Liturgy the priest acknowledges his own and the people's sins - and asks God to have mercy upon sinners, 'of whom I am chief.'
Whatever disagreements Protestants may have with the Orthodox, I don't see any indication that they don't see the need for a Saviour nor for the remission of sins.
As for liberal Protestants, well, that might be another matter ...
But among the posters here it seems to me that most do acknowledge the efficacy and idea of sacrifice and atonement - it's just that they do so in a different kind of way.
But hey ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
mousethief
Oh I see. There may be some pond differences coming in here. "On behalf of my friend, I'd like to express his appreciation". "Instead of my friend saying it, I'd like to express his appreciation".
In colloquial parlance, those are pretty identical statements. Why do we speak on behalf of a friend, or instead of a friend? Normally because they can't. but would like to. So we stand in for them. We substitute.
Or so it seems to me. There is a linguistic distinction, I suppose, but there is also overlap.
I'd see the problem with the word substitute if it was inextricably weddded to penal, but it isn't. I heard Timothy Ware talk about atonement a few years ago and make the point, from an Orthodox understanding, that the concept of substitution could indeed be supported by scripture, though it had its limitations and its dangers. Christus Victor was, he thought, a more comprehensive model for the atonement.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Mudfrog, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of anyone having been burnt at the stake either for believing in the Rapture or not doing - though personally, I regard the Rapture as untenable.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mudfrog, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of anyone having been burnt at the stake either for believing in the Rapture or not doing - though personally, I regard the Rapture as untenable.
I believe I already covered that misunderstanding.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
For the moment I'd like to ask, what are the biblical arguments for (a) the Aaronic sacrifices being substitutionary, and (b) hell being separation from God?
Probably proper to Keryg, but I'll take a swing at it.
a) Leviticus 16 (The Day of Atonement). All the sacrifices (including the scapegoat) seem to me to be substitutionary, for the sins of the people of Israel.
Again, I can't see how this is anything other than
satisfaction theory as opposed to substitution.
You have the advantage over me in terms of formal theological training, but my understanding is that the satisfaction theory of atonement is still a substitution theory, just different from ransom.
The distinction between substitution and satisfaction is more subtle, yes. Both are "God-ward" theories-- i.e. seeing the force or impact of the atonement as directed towards God, to appease God's wrath or satisfy God's justice. If you think of them as "theories" then, the difference is minimal. But if you think of them as metaphors they are using very different imagery-- law court vs. Temple sacrifice. The fact that we have both is relevant in this context where posters are trying to weigh how many passages support each of the metaphors in order to build a strong case for PSA, when in fact at least 1/2 of the verses cited utilize the Temple imagery rather than the law court imagery.
Ransom, otoh, is quite different. Like Christus victor it is a "Satan-ward" theory, seeing the force or impact of the atonement as directed towards Satan to either release humanity from spiritual oppression or to defeat the power of sin and death.
Again, the reason why these distinctions are important is simply to demonstrate/reinforce the rich layers of biblical imagery surrounding the atonement, which should guard against treating PSA or any other metaphor in strictly transactional terms.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
cliffdweller
Thanks, that's helpful. I suppose the language has collected baggage on the way. I don't like propitiation concepts, but I don't see substitution as implying propitiation. Certainly not as a common use colloquial term.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Bit of a recap, as at the moment I'm not getting to my computer too often....
As I see it we have all pretty much agreed that 'moral influence' doesn't really explain Jesus' death. Even with Resurrection added, a death with no other purpose/achievement than 'having moral influence' is something of an empty gesture. The death needs to either achieve some concrete purpose - which can then have moral influence in various ways - or it needs to somehow very strongly make a moral point that makes the death worthwhile.
As an example of achievement, albeit fictional, there was Mrs Watson 'taking a bullet' for Sherlock the other night (also a pretty clear example of 'substitution' though not necessarily in the PSA sense). As an example of making a point, being put to death by a tyrant rather than approve of the tyranny. But the death needs to have some such point in order to have moral influence - just putting yourself in the way of death voluntarily doesn't do it and can even be just silly.
So in effect we've ended up discussing what is that other achievement of Jesus' death, or that point he makes, as a result of which the death can - very likely 'among other things' - bring moral influence to bear on us; or from another perspective, can we identify the problem(s) that Jesus' death was meant to solve?
And my on thinking is both
1) that God may have proverbially killed a lot of birds with one stone - that there are several different (but not wholly separate) things achieved, and
2) that at least some of what is achieved is somewhat outside our everyday experience and is presented to us in Scripture by examples from the everyday experience in terms of "It is something like this...", and sometimes "It is VERY like this...." And we can get a fair and useful idea of what the main thing is by combining all those "like this" things - and trying to identify the ones 'most like', and being a bit careful about some of the more superficial details of the metaphors.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
cliffdweller
Thanks, that's helpful. I suppose the language has collected baggage on the way. I don't like propitiation concepts, but I don't see substitution as implying propitiation. Certainly not as a common use colloquial term.
Certainly it's gathered baggage among my evangelical circles.
The notion of "propitiation" is where Lamb's distinction between the two senses in which something can be done or given "for" someone is relevant I think. The sacrifice can be given "for" us and can be something that is doing for us what we can't do for ourselves, without it being done in our place. Which again, frames God's basic disposition towards fallen humanity differently-- a stance of grief as opposed to wrath.
It's helpful, too, to think about the different groups of people the different images would speak to. For the first Christians-- Jews-- the Temple imagery of satisfaction theory would obviously resonate. As the gospel expanded beyond that group to various other cultures things like the law court imagery of substitution might make more sense. It has been suggested that the slave block imagery of ransom theory would resonate with poor and marginalized people, including obviously, slaves.
We see this same dynamic throughout the subsequent centuries of Christian witness. Apparently, there was something about the law court imagery that resonated for some of the Reformers (although Luther has a strongly Christus victor image in some of his writings) and evangelicals. Today the "Satan-ward" images of ransom and Christus victor seem to resonate more, particularly with younger Christians.
That's not some acquiescence to "culture"-- it's the way metaphors are intended to work. Drawing on what is familiar, what resonates, to help explain/ comprehend the unfamiliar and transcendent.
[ 13. January 2017, 15:50: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think most of us here feel that the Moral Influence model has some legs, it's just that it doesn't have the momentum to take us all the way around the track. It needs a combination of the other theories to take us further.
Meanwhile, on some of the other issues here, I've heard Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware a few times and always with profit. For my money, he is one of those Orthodox who is very clear on his own Church's teaching without being in any way arsey towards anyone else - although I've heard that in private he can be more critical ...
Some of the Orthodox regard him as dangerously liberal and far too 'Western' but that's the Orthodox for you. You can't be Hyperdox enough for some of them ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
No one has mentioned one big flaw in PSA:
PSA doesn't make people stop sinning.
That's my suspicion when I hear hymns about PSA where Jesus "paid it all", and he completed the price. However, PSA doesn't make anyone, anyone magically perfect and sinless.
In the model, it might make God no longer angry at us for our sin, but what if the fundamental issue isn't God's wrath, but about the harm that sin does to creation?
Where does PSA address that?
[ 13. January 2017, 19:09: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And to the more Catholic brethren here who would criticise 'new' doctrines even though they carry the weight of Scripture, I would suggest they look to the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (only declared in 1950) and the Immaculate Conception (declared as far back as 1854).
the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are peripheral whereas atonement is central
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Isn't that where sanctification comes in? It's the other side of the coin to justification - which is what atonement is about. It's all part of the process to a holy life..
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And to the more Catholic brethren here who would criticise 'new' doctrines even though they carry the weight of Scripture, I would suggest they look to the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (only declared in 1950) and the Immaculate Conception (declared as far back as 1854).
the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are peripheral whereas atonement is central
Yes, but my point was about consistency.
We either allow new or re-emphasised truths (as long as they are based on Scripture and don't deny the creeds) or we don't.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
PSA doesn't make people stop sinning
No theory of anything does that. If you want to stop sinning that's the first step,wanting to. God won't deliver us from our friends.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...
And my on thinking is both
1) that God may have proverbially killed a lot of birds with one stone - that there are several different (but not wholly separate) things achieved, and
2) that at least some of what is achieved is somewhat outside our everyday experience and is presented to us in Scripture by examples from the everyday experience in terms of "It is something like this...", and sometimes "It is VERY like this...." And we can get a fair and useful idea of what the main thing is by combining all those "like this" things - and trying to identify the ones 'most like', and being a bit careful about some of the more superficial details of the metaphors.
That would be how I see it.
I'm not sure (2) is always so. Paul in Romans* doesn't use 'like' a lot, but it's always short, he also never says it the same way twice and always has to follow with a 'That doesn't mean ...'. So it's at least somewhere between (1) and (2).
*To use a block that is by the same person in the same(ish) mind, so it's not disagreements.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
PSA doesn't make people stop sinning.
Excellent point.
The purpose of the Advent was to put humanity back on the right track. Or so said Jesus. So the explanation needs to be how that happened.
It would also be helpful to explain why we don't see impressive results to this point.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And to the more Catholic brethren here who would criticise 'new' doctrines even though they carry the weight of Scripture, I would suggest they look to the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (only declared in 1950) and the Immaculate Conception (declared as far back as 1854).
the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are peripheral whereas atonement is central
Yes, but my point was about consistency.
We either allow new or re-emphasised truths (as long as they are based on Scripture and don't deny the creeds) or we don't.
I'm not sure what is meant by "the more Catholic brethren." Are there any Catholics among the prominent posters on this thread? Certainly the Orthodox have no truck with either of those dogmas, or indeed with creating new dogmas at all. We've had 7 councils, dammit. That should be enough dogma for anyone's needs. Kindly don't lump us in with any "more Catholic brethren."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But nobody here has argued that the sacrifice was pointless, I certainly have not. I see Jesus' life, death and resurrection as the centre if the faith.
Unless Christ's sacrifice on humanity's behalf contained elements of representation and punishment, then it was most certainly pointless.
The only remaining ways of explaining it are in terms of some sort of crude cosmic sadism/masochism, or by hiding in meaningless sentimentality or mystical waffle.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The only remaining ways of explaining it are in terms of some sort of crude cosmic sadism/masochism, or by hiding in meaningless sentimentality or mystical waffle.
I'm curious as to what you think this adds to the discussion.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
If we go to the early layers of Christian tradition, I think the Cross was the first major crisis point of the apostolic movement, how did the early Christians deal with the fact that their founder was crucified on the Cross.
Bear in mind, before Christianity, there is no evidence in my study that the Jews believed that the Messiah would die a cruel death, even for the sins of the world. Isaiah 53 refers to the suffering servant but to my knowledge before the advent of Christianity, the suffering servant was not equated to the Messiah, (in all probability, it might have indeed originally referred to Israel or the Prophet who was persecuted for proclaiming a message against the dominant forces in Israel).
But the historical fact remains that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. Indeed it might be the strongest evidence that Jesus existed because there is no conceivable reason why any completely fictional messiah would be written to suffer a dreadful death as crucifixion.
Peter's speech in Acts (Acts 2) may point to the earliest tradition that sees crucifixion as a violent response by the powers to be to the coming Messiah and the Resurrection as God's ultimate response of validation and exaltation, the atonement story being the story of Jesus as the ultimate Martyr. Paul in his writings, sees the Cross as the stumbling block (1 Corinthians). He didn't see the Cross as a response to an angry God, but rather a part of the divine plan from the beginning as if God saw that the response of humanity to the coming of his Son will involve violent attack and resistance. The Cross then is God accepting that violence without responding in kind.
The risen Christ didn't punish Pontius Pilate or the Roman soldiers for murdering him.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
God is a unjust monster
FWIW, I agree that eternal punishment is the most cogent argument against Christianity, and I hold on to the faith by my fingernails ("rancid with doubt", in Philip Yancey's words) not because I have an answer to it, but despite the fact that I don't.
quote:
THAT is why I reject [PSA]
Belief in eternal punishment is not inseparable from belief in PSA.
My wife, for example, believes in PsA and annihilationism as did, more relevantly to this context, the late John Stott.
quote:
Carry on in this vein and I'll reply in the Hot Place.
If calling me names in Hell makes you feel better, then go for your life.
Knock yourself out.
Go nuts.
I really don't care.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
St. Vincent of Lerins existed a full thousand years before the Protestants.
I would have thought that members of the Orthodox and RC churches would have more sense than to invoke the Vincentian Canon ("Quod ubique..."), since in either case it involves sawing off the branch they are sitting on.
That is because their rival monolithic ecclesiastical putative repository of authoritative tradition, as well as Christians who are members of neither church, can always turn it back on them, over the issues on which they differ - such as the papacy.
Some knowledge of church history would stand some believers, of whatever tradition, in much better stead.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
For God's sake K.C., in the bowels of Christ, they are ALL just stories we made up. Let go. Take flight. What fear keeps you conservative?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Anglican_Brat. YES.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
St. Vincent of Lerins existed a full thousand years before the Protestants.
I would have thought that members of the Orthodox and RC churches would have more sense than to invoke the Vincentian Canon ("Quod ubique..."), since in either case it involves sawing off the branch they are sitting on.
You appear to have missed the point of why I referred to Vinny in your rush to excoriate our ancient asses. I'll be happy to discuss the former. I'm not interested in descending to the level of the latter.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But nobody here has argued that the sacrifice was pointless, I certainly have not. I see Jesus' life, death and resurrection as the centre if the faith.
Unless Christ's sacrifice on humanity's behalf contained elements of representation and punishment, then it was most certainly pointless.
The only remaining ways of explaining it are in terms of some sort of crude cosmic sadism/masochism, or by hiding in meaningless sentimentality or mystical waffle.
AH! It's not just mere fear driven conservatism. It's disbelief.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Unless Christ's sacrifice on humanity's behalf contained elements of representation and punishment, then it was most certainly pointless.
The only remaining ways of explaining it are in terms of some sort of crude cosmic sadism/masochism, or by hiding in meaningless sentimentality or mystical waffle.
I think a better way of explaining it is as a battle in which Christ appeared to be defeated but was actually the victor. He overcame "the world" or "the power of darkness."
The sacrifice is the most common kind of all - the same kind of sacrifice made by people all over the world for the sake of some worthy cause.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What intrigues me is that despite PSA being obvious in the texts, it didn't break the surface for one and a half thousand years. Which makes me think that if you'd have asked any of the church fathers and doctors for the first thousand years and more about it, they'd have said 'Well, YEAH, duh! And?'.
Catholicism had the politics,the thought police and the literacy.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Unless Christ's sacrifice on humanity's behalf contained elements of representation and punishment, then it was most certainly pointless.
The only remaining ways of explaining it are in terms of some sort of crude cosmic sadism/masochism, or by hiding in meaningless sentimentality or mystical waffle.
Really? A ransom paid to release someone from bondage does not contain any element of representation and punishment, but I sure wouldn't call it pointless-- especially as the one who is set free. An act that in some cosmic way defeats the power of sin an death does not contain any element of representation and punishment, but again, as someone subject to both sin & death, I find it far from pointless. Nor do I see how either theory leads to meaningless sentimentality or mystical waffle.
If you're going to try that one here, you're going to have to do a much better job of demonstrating why that is so.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
*tangent alert*
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
]St. Vincent of Lerins existed a full thousand years before the Protestants. It was he that created the threefold rule of thumb for judging theology, the first thumb of which is antiquity. (the other two being ubiquity and unanimity (or nearly so -- he was a pragmatist)).
St. Vincent had three thumbs!?! That's amazing! The best us Wesleyans can come up with is a lousy boring old quadrilateral. Jealous.
*end tangent*
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What intrigues me is that despite PSA being obvious in the texts, it didn't break the surface for one and a half thousand years. Which makes me think that if you'd have asked any of the church fathers and doctors for the first thousand years and more about it, they'd have said 'Well, YEAH, duh! And?'.
Catholicism had the politics,the thought police and the literacy.
So you're saying that they knew about PSA but hushed it up. What's your evidence?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
And why the hush up?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mousethief
So you're saying that they knew about PSA but hushed it up.
Nope,
[ 14. January 2017, 05:04: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So St Vincent of Lerins was a Protestant then, was he, Kaplan?
What was he if he wasn't Catholic/Orthodox, the two terms being coterminous before the Schism.
That doesn't mean that absolutely everything was uniform from Day One.
I don't think the RCs or the Orthodox are claiming that either. As MT has said, Vinny was a pragmatist.
I think it behoves all of us to learn more church history. You included.
An Orthodox priest once observed to me that 'Catholicity' might better be defined as 'Towards Catholicity' as it is a state that is in progress, a process of it 'being achieved' if you like.
It hasn't actually fully 'arrived'.
If that is the case then it might, I suspect be seen as some kind of 'Semper Reformanda' in reverse ... 'Semper Work in Progress' or 'Semper striving towards greater Catholicity'.
What doesn't help, I'd suggest, is when either side calls 'Yah Boo! Sucks!' and insists on caricaturing the other's position ...
'You Catholics ... The Pope tells you want to believe ...'
'You Orthodox, you haven't had an original thought since ...' (well, actually ...)
'You Protestants, all you do is proof-text ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course the RCs didn't know about PSA or knew about it and hushed it up.
PSA in its current form is effectively a Reformation development that draws on earlier RC theology derived from Augustine and Anselm and mediated through Aquinas and others.
Anselm wouldn't have understood PSA in the way that conrempory Protestant evangelicals do, but Anselm's teaching on the atonement fed into the subsequent development of Western theology around the issue and Reformed and later evangelical emphases derived from that.
It isn't that the RCs ignored the Bible, simply that they didn't interpret it in the way the Reformers and later evangelicals did.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Unless Christ's sacrifice on humanity's behalf contained elements of representation and punishment, then it was most certainly pointless.
The only remaining ways of explaining it are in terms of some sort of crude cosmic sadism/masochism, or by hiding in meaningless sentimentality or mystical waffle.
I'll agree in passing that Anselm's original theory is one in which Jesus represents humanity but is not substituted for humanity (because Jesus is human). It is little better from the point of view of modern conceptions of justice, but is less internally incoherent.
The main point is that it is better to have a theory that is upfront about its 'mystical waffle', that one that hides the 'mystical waffle' under a bubble of conceptual rigour that pops when you touch it. And PSA is the latter case. The requirement that God cannot just show mercy is when you look at it 'mystical waffle'; the claim that Jesus' death satisfies the demands of justice is if not false then 'mystical waffle'.
As 'mystical waffle' is inevitable, it is better to foreground it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
One thought: it occurs to be that part of the emotional power of penal substitutionary expressions and metaphors is the recognition that what happens is not just.
The Isaiah passage, all we like sheep have gone astray, we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all, loses much of its poignancy if we react by thinking that this is perfectly acceptable from the point of view of justice.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
"art thou well apaid? Then I am well apaid."
That is the approach which makes sense to me. It's probably moral influence on speed: it places the desire for reconciliation with a creator whose love for his creation is not limited by that creation's indifference, or their obsessive tendency to reject themselves as the creator's primary gift to them, and expression of that love.
This recreation of relationship fits perfectly into the flow of incarnation/crucifixion/death and tomb/resurrection/ascension. The ascension then becomes the end of a seamless process, rather than any part distorting the perception of the whole.
It also has the huge advantage of not requiring the trinity to be a place of self-recrimination and repugnance. I cannot express how close PSA came to killing my faith because of the angry, self-hating deity it requires if the unity of the trinity is simultaneously taken seriously.
I think this will be the extent of my contribution to this thread, so apologies to those who wish to defend PSA as dogmatically necessary. I just wanted to make people aware of what it can do, and of the alternative understandings that are available.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
One thought: it occurs to be that part of the emotional power of penal substitutionary expressions and metaphors is the recognition that what happens is not just.
The Isaiah passage, all we like sheep have gone astray, we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all, loses much of its poignancy if we react by thinking that this is perfectly acceptable from the point of view of justice.
Is getting what you don't deserve (negatively) justice? Is getting what you don't deserve (positively) justice? Is not getting what you do deserve (positively or negatively) justice?
I think the only way one can say any of these cases is truly justice is when one subverts the whole definition of justice.
Which is a tad problematic if one's base position is that God is Just - and assert that there is some independent measure if justice that the deity conforms to.
Either God is just, in which case any of the above is not just. Or God is the definition and author if justice. Can't be both.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This recreation of relationship fits perfectly into the flow of incarnation/crucifixion/death and tomb/resurrection/ascension. The ascension then becomes the end of a seamless process, rather than any part distorting the perception of the whole.
I'm not really following. Are you saying that the life, death and resurrection of Christ is a part of the whole project of saving mankind? Or something else? I apologise for not really following.
quote:
I think this will be the extent of my contribution to this thread, so apologies to those who wish to defend PSA as dogmatically necessary. I just wanted to make people aware of what it can do, and of the alternative understandings that are available.
Prob just me, but I'd like to have a bit more detail of how your explanation fits all the pieces. Thanks.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I think this will be the extent of my contribution to this thread, so apologies to those who wish to defend PSA as dogmatically necessary. I just wanted to make people aware of what it can do, and of the alternative understandings that are available.
Prob just me, but I'd like to have a bit more detail of how your explanation fits all the pieces. Thanks.
It's not mine, it comes from Julian of Norwich, and the main reason for my hesitancy is trying to do justice to this without the whole of the Revelations, or Rowan Williams's lecture in Norwich Cathedral in May 2014. However, I'll have a go (the answer to your first question is "yes", by the way). Actually, starts from Julian's confident assertion that there is no wrath in God. She is led to locate all the wrath, all the rejection, in us, in our rejection of ourselves as unloveable, denatured, sinful objects. The parable of the Master and Servant in Chapter 51 is her longest exploration of this. The whole process of Christ's incarnation then becomes a declaration of love on God's part, at increasing volume until the ascension becomes the deafening proclamation resonating throughout time and space. Just as well the tabernacles were not built - they would have exploded. Julian also hears Christ saying "if I could have done more, I would have done more" in the sixth showing, which changed my understanding of crucifixion fundamentally, placing God's love of his creation definitively above the crucifixion in the order of priority.
For those whose theology must be exclusively biblical, this will be anathema, I know. Personally, I can trace the outlines of this in the gospel accounts - I needed to in the process of digesting Julian's words. It is also there in the epistles.
This isn't a fully worked reply, and I do apologise for this, but a fully worked reply would take an exceptionally long time, and I do need to do things in daylight. However, I will at least consider returning later, and hope that this makes some degree of sense.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Dafyd;
quote:
The requirement that God cannot just show mercy
That is the flaw in 'PSA'; the idea that in effect God is so stupid he has put himself into a bind whereby he can't show mercy to law-breaking humanity without killing someone to satisfy an abstract sense of honour or some such. Of course God can show mercy.
But what if the law-breaking has real consequences which have to be dealt with by someone? Ezekiel says "The soul that sins shall die". If this is just an arbitrary statement that God will kill the sinner, then God can also 'just show mercy'. But if this means there is something inherent in the situation that brings death upon the sinner, unless something is done on the sinner's behalf that he can't do for himself, then whatever that thing is will need to be done, not as an arbitrary penalty but as a very real necessity. (and yes, I'm not ignoring the context in Ezekiel where a major point is that God isn't going to penalise one human for the sins of another).
This is where the imagery of 'debt' comes in. If you break somebody's window, you should, in justice, be the person who pays for the new window. Anyone denying that is simply not taking the situation seriously. And the point is that if there is a real broken window that needs replacement, then there is a real cost that has to fall on someone.
In that kind of situation there is no 'mere forgiving' (the phrase is usually 'just forgiving', as in Dafyd's phrase 'just show mercy'; but I'm trying to avoid confusion between two uses of the word 'just'); forgiveness/mercy is going to be costly to the forgiver.
And there is of course also an issue about reconciliation, the nature of the relationship between God and the sinner. In effect, meaningful reconciliation requires the sinner to recognise his sin, accept that he owes a debt, accept that he truly needs mercy; and he has to put that very much into practice by repentance. And a complacent attitude of "God has to forgive; that's his job" or similar is not repentance but treating God with arrogant scorn. In achieving reconciliation that's really going to work.... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But what if the law-breaking has real consequences which have to be dealt with by someone? Ezekiel says "The soul that sins shall die". If this is just an arbitrary statement that God will kill the sinner, then God can also 'just show mercy'. But if this means there is something inherent in the situation that brings death upon the sinner, unless something is done on the sinner's behalf that he can't do for himself, then whatever that thing is will need to be done, not as an arbitrary penalty but as a very real necessity.
This may be true, but if so the consequences, as something inherent in the situation, are no longer usefully described as 'punishment', and the action to deal with them is not substitution. Punishment I take to be a sanction imposed by an authority as opposed to an inherent consequence which happens whether or not any authority wills it.
You're now describing not PSA but rather a variety of what Kaplan Corday perjoratively described as 'mystical waffle'.
Which is what I was saying in my post.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And there is of course also an issue about reconciliation, the nature of the relationship between God and the sinner. In effect, meaningful reconciliation requires the sinner to recognise his sin, accept that he owes a debt, accept that he truly needs mercy; and he has to put that very much into practice by repentance. And a complacent attitude of "God has to forgive; that's his job" or similar is not repentance but treating God with arrogant scorn. In achieving reconciliation that's really going to work....
No. You are still talking in terms of transactions - satirising my position by suggesting that God must do something because it is his job description.
I said nothing of the kind and doubt anyone here is suggesting any such thing.
God is merciful and forgives the penitent not because he has to but because he wants to. It isn't his job, it is his nature.
And frankly, I refuse to believe in a deity you can order around. God does what he wants, but it turns out that he just wants to be merciful.
[ 14. January 2017, 12:04: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
