|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Sin and salvation
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
So as not to derail the Good of religion thread I'm posting this here.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hope I don't sound terribly quaint by adding "Salvation" to the list of religious goods.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Doesn't the religious invention of sin kind of cancel that one out?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I ask with morbid curiousity, George, what you imagine religious people mean by "sin?"
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I can't because religious people have almost as many definitions of sin as there are religious people.
I can tell you the one I've heard the most from other Christians. It's that in Genesis Adam and Eve sinned, (this is either seen as literal or a metaphor for people not obeying god), this then causes a rift between people and god that somehow affects people today. So in order for humans to get back to god Jesus had to be sacrificed and take this sin onto himself, pay our debt so to speak.
No as I've already stated I realise this is not how all Christians define sin it's just the one I hear the most.
Seems unjust, and wrong headed to me to a: say people are guilty for something that someone did in pre history and b: use human? Human/god? sacrifice to solve any problem.
--snip--
Originally posted by Evensong
Shame that. Shit theology.
It's all those loud mouthed Evangelicals.
----------------------------------------------
So anyway if this is shit theology anyone care to enlighten me?
[ 02. December 2011, 09:04: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
And you choose to take Christians to task for the theology you are fully aware is the most simplistic because...? Oh, why do I ask questions I already know the answer to? There, I did it again!
At any rate, you are confusing Christian explanations for the origin of sin for what sin itself is. Those "loud mouthed evangelicals" may have a simplistic enough account for sin's origins, but they are not as simplistic as confusing the origin of a thing with the thing itself. Sin is maliciousness, selfishness, and all that, which I am sure you will not try to blame on Christianity or religion. (Well... pretty sure...) Its origins, in the Christian scheme of things, is disobedience to God.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Genesis 1-2, for me at least, is a more-or-less literary treatment of the felt anxiety in the separation of human beings from God. It's one answer to the "problem of evil," too, and only (to my mind) a partial response.
The "sacrifice" part is more complicated - although when you think about it, perhaps it's really not. It's actually not that rare for human beings to sacrifice themselves to save the lives of others; soldiers do it, and firemen and -women, and cops, and people who volunteer for all kinds of dangerous duty in the world. The Christ story, when looked at in these terms, simply elevates that concept to the cosmic level.
We do use "sacrifice" language in our liturgies, in fact, although lots of people agree that it's "shit theology." I don't think so, personally - and I think there's far more to it than usually gets taken account of.
[ 20. June 2011, 14:40: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
For what it's worth, I think sin and salvation are two of the most pernicious ideas still promoted by churches. They're part of the theological smoke-screen Christianity puts out to hide the lack of substance in its traditional explanations. Even those who recognise such problems mostly keep using the words to hang on to a passing appearance of orthodoxy. We'd make far more sense to far more people if we consigned them to history.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
For what it's worth, I think sin and salvation are two of the most pernicious ideas still promoted by churches. They're part of the theological smoke-screen Christianity puts out to hide the lack of substance in its traditional explanations. Even those who recognise such problems mostly keep using the words to hang on to a passing appearance of orthodoxy. We'd make far more sense to far more people if we consigned them to history.
Rhetorical God forbid people who use these words actually believe in them! It's all a pernicious smoke screen, you see. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Yeah, I have to disagree with Dave Marshall about this, too. Sin and salvation have never been "smoke screens"; they are at the very heart of the Christian religion - perhaps at the very heart of ALL religion (although I'm not very familiar in-depth with other religions, I admit).
I got 175 hits on BibleGateway searching for "salvation" - and 1200 searching on "sin".
These are very old ideas, and not something dreamed up recently as a coverup.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Rhetorical God forbid people who use these words actually believe in them!
See how effective the smoke is. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And you choose to take Christians to task for the theology you are fully aware is the most simplistic because...? Oh, why do I ask questions I already know the answer to? There, I did it again!
No I wasnt aware it's the most simplistic theollogy.
At any rate, you are confusing Christian explanations for the origin of sin for what sin itself is. Those "loud mouthed evangelicals" may have a simplistic enough account for sin's origins, but they are not as simplistic as confusing the origin of a thing with the thing itself.
Well I was responding to the meaning of sin as it corresponds with salvatiuon so thought the origins stuff was important.
Sin is maliciousness, selfishness, and all that. which I am sure you will not try to blame on Christianity or religion. (Well... pretty sure...) Its origins, in the Christian scheme of things, is disobedience to God.
Ok so can we simplify this to one statement - "Sin is disobedience to God"?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
These are very old ideas, and not something dreamed up recently as a coverup.
Not dreamed up as coverup, certainly. For most of history I imagine they were useful aids for people understanding themselves and their relationship to God. I think that time has passed, though. At least for most western twenty-first century mindsets.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
To call the idea of sin pernicious is bizarre. It seems to suggest that somewhere in the past, one group of people got so much power and dominance over everybody else that they were able to brainwash not only them, but everyone else, into believing that there's something called "sin", which in the real world (the one with fluffy bunnies and trees that hug you back) doesn't exist.
Crap. The fact is that the idea of "sin" has been around as long as the idea of "gods", and in fact the two are inseparable. Why? Because we're not gods, and sin is the way we describe the gap between being human and being divine. "Sin" is not an invention of Christian priestcraft, it's Human Psychology 101. Probably Neanderthal Psychology 101 too, for that matter.
Most of the people I deal with day to day - probably around 80% - aren't religious, and don't have a religious vocabulary. But nearly all of them are worried by the gut feeling that they're less than they might be. That gut feeling is what finds its articulation in the vocabulary of sin. The healing of the pain it causes comes not by telling people to grow up because there's no such thing, but by using the vocabulary of forgiveness and acceptance.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Superslug
Shipmate
# 7024
|
Posted
So Dave,
What would you say are the current issues facing humanity's self understanding and thier relationship with God. Or is it that now we have rejected the smoke screen of Sin there are no issues?
SS
--------------------
I was 'educated' in the UK in the 70s and early 80s. Therefore, please feel free to correct my grammar and punctuation. I need to know!
Posts: 464 | From: Hessle, East Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
See how effective the smoke is.
If you believe that "sin talk" is only used by dupes and liars, then you have no reason to engage this discussion. Take it to hell and let us fools and liars discuss with people silly enough to believe in our sincerity.
quote:
Well I was responding to the meaning of sin as it corresponds with salvatiuon so thought the origins stuff was important.... Ok so can we simplify this to one statement - "Sin is disobedience to God"?
It depends. One can simplify the concept of physics to "Things move around" without thereby concluding that is all there is to be said about physics, can't one?
Zach
[ 20. June 2011, 15:41: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]It depends. One can simplify the concept of physics to "Things move around" without thereby concluding that is all there is to be said about physics, can't one?
Zach
So sin means more than just disobedience to God?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Seems unjust, and wrong headed to me to a: say people are guilty for something that someone did in pre history and b: use human? Human/god? sacrifice to solve any problem.
Whether you believe the first couple of chapters of genesis or not makes no odds. Whether or not there was a 'first sinner' who has somehow implicated you, the truth is that you yourself have sinned; you have lied, cheated, hated, been immoral in word and deed, etc, etc.
The responsibility is squarely on your shoulders - you are responsible for your own thoughts, words and actions; and there is no way on God's earth that you can possibly say you have not sinned.
And I include me in that too - we have all sinned against each other and against God. And btw it's not those 'loud-mouthed evangelicals', it's the whole church, responding to the need of humankind that is actually offering forgiveness!
Without the Gospel, you would be left in your state of knowing you're a sinner and not knowing what to do about it! The Good News of the Gospel is that there is total forgiveness rather than condemnation.
And if, by any chance, you feel you want to debate the reality of sin in your life and try to tell me that you are not a sinner, I would gladly receive from you a signed photo of your nail-scarred hands.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
So sin means more than just disobedience to God?
That's what Christians say, but you cannot reject the reality of sin just because you reject Christianity.
Look at it this way. When I was a child I used to hit my brother, quite out of the blue, for absolutely no reason but sheer malicious glee in hurting him. That what I used to do was wrong and that I was responsible for that is, I hope, beyond doubt for you. The reality of sin, a particular sin here, is indubitable, because it only takes one particular sin to exist for the reality of sin itself to become beyond doubt.
The Christian hypothesis that this sin sprang from a hatred of myself and my brother and ultimately for God is dubitable.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
If we can't talk of sin and salvation (no matter how abused you think those terms may have been)then we have created a profound disconnect with Xtian tradition (not to mention scripture).
There is also a massive gap between this idea and reality, the concept of sin is about moral wrongdoing and I, for one, have no other viable way of describing much of what goes on in the world or even in my own heart.
The stories we tell, whether highbrow or lowbrow are full of ideas of redemption and sacrifice so it's certainly still a culturally resonant theme (and a money spinner for Hollywood and the like).
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I think it is just plain wrong to say that the OP is using a simplistic version of the christian teaching of sin and salvation. He doesn't tie it to any literal acceptance of Genesis, which is accepted as a metaphor, nor to any narrow view on how it is that Christ's sacrifice atones.
I would say it certainly covers the view of 90% of western christians who would self-identify as believers as opposed to just church goers. I accept that the eastern take on this is not really the same, but we are still not familiar with eastern christianity.
I agree with the Anglican Mascall who said that original sin is the most self-evident but hardest to explain doctrine of the faith. How anyone can say it is a non-problem defeats me.
But I am less comfortable with the idea of an atoning sacrifice. I keep intending to read Rene Girard for a more modern understanding of it, but he's not exactly a page turner. I rather sympathise with the Muslim critique that christianity failed to eradicate older ideas of expiatory sacrifce, and rather prefer their teaching that the only pre-requisite for a relationship with God is a genuine desire to enter that relationship on God's terms.
I also question whether acceptance should be the over-riding motif. It soon turns into the idea that ones actual behaviour is irrelevant to your relationship with God, which strikes me as plain nonsense. Obviously there is a valid point. It's a rehab unit which accepts all. But that acceptance does not affect the rehab.
It is of course a gross distortion to say that evangelicals teach that you are saved no matter what you do. Some teach this, but their probably just after your money.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
When I was a child I used to hit my brother, quite out of the blue, for absolutely no reason but sheer malicious glee in hurting him. That what I used to do was wrong and that I was responsible for that is, I hope, beyond doubt for you. The reality of sin, a particular sin here, is indubitable
So "sin" is just doing things that are wrong?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So "sin" is just doing things that are wrong?
I would add "while knowing it is wrong and doing it anyway," but I suppose it looks like a good enough definition.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
the only pre-requisite for a relationship with God is a genuine desire to enter that relationship on God's terms.
What if they include dealing with sin - if sin estranges then some form of atonement is necessary to reconcile.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
if sin estranges then some form of atonement is necessary to reconcile.
Why?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Most of the people I deal with day to day - probably around 80% - aren't religious, and don't have a religious vocabulary. But nearly all of them are worried by the gut feeling that they're less than they might be. That gut feeling is what finds its articulation in the vocabulary of sin. The healing of the pain it causes comes not by telling people to grow up because there's no such thing, but by using the vocabulary of forgiveness and acceptance.
Which is all very well. Trouble is, though, in spite of this vaunted "forgiveness" and "acceptance", you're still going to pop your clogs, though, aren't you? Whoops - wait a minute - that'll be where the idea of "salvation" comes in.
I think it's naive to think that the concept of "sin" hasn't occasionally been used for social control from time to time. It's only comparatively recently that the church and the state have separated to such an extent that a thing the church might call a "sin", and a thing the state might call a "crime", are not necessarily one and the same thing.
Having said that, it's always been impossible to legislate compulsory heroics. You can threaten to kill people for failing to comply with the law - but you can't threaten to kill people for refusing to risk their lives on the battlefield. Well - you can - but it won't help much. So I suspect this is part of the reason why Paul said that you cannot be saved by legal compliance alone.
Back to the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Seems unjust, and wrong headed to me to a: say people are guilty for something that someone did in pre history and b: use human? Human/god? sacrifice to solve any problem.
I agree. But I don't think that makes the concepts of sin and salvation irrelevant. Just means that the theology is a bit skew-whiff, that's all.
It seems to me that the first inescapable reality is that we're all mortal. We all die. And there's a limit to the extent that our death is predictable - although it's not so unpredictable as to make us think that we probably won't die at all.
Any theology that fails to take this into account can immediately be put onto the "also-ran" pile. This cuts out a lot of the crap that gets dressed up as Christian theology. There's still some crap left over, but it makes it a bit easier to dig out the gems.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
if sin estranges then some form of atonement is necessary to reconcile.
Why?
That's what atonement means! You can't be at one with someone until you have reconciled whatever it is that separates you.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]Whether you believe the first couple of chapters of genesis or not makes no odds. Whether or not there was a 'first sinner' who has somehow implicated you, the truth is that you yourself have sinned; you have lied, cheated, hated, been immoral in word and deed, etc, etc.
Yes I have lied. Sometimes lying was the right thing to do and sometimes it wasn't. I can't think of a cheating example but I've certainly hated. Again sometimes that hate was justified and sometimes not. The being immoral is up for debate. It depends what you see a immoral behaviour.
So the thing is I'm more than willing to admit I have done things that I knew were not the right thing to do. But as far as I can see doing something you know is wrong is not exactly the same thing as sin. That's what I'm after I guess. What is sin and what makes it different than just doing wrong things?
The responsibility is squarely on your shoulders - you are responsible for your own thoughts, words and actions; and there is no way on God's earth that you can possibly say you have not sinned.
Agree totally with being responsible for my actions. But to say I have sinned I'd first have to understand what sin is.
And if, by any chance, you feel you want to debate the reality of sin in your life and try to tell me that you are not a sinner, I would gladly receive from you a signed photo of your nail-scarred hands.
Huh?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That's what atonement means! You can't be at one with someone until you have reconciled whatever it is that separates you.
Indeed, that is the whole dilemma Christianity tries to solve. Being in a relationship with God is impossible without humanity being set aright. The Cross made it possible for humanity to be in the right relationship, which we call the "state of grace."
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So "sin" is just doing things that are wrong?
I would add "while knowing it is wrong and doing it anyway," but I suppose it looks like a good enough definition.
The "while knowing it's wrong" bit gives one heck of an "out" to sociopaths!
But if sin is just "doing bad things" then what's salvation about? And what is it from?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Huh?
Could it be that Spigot is not so much as questioning the reality of sin as denying that he's sinned?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
That's what atonement means! You can't be at one with someone until you have reconciled whatever it is that separates you.
Indeed, that is the whole dilemma Christianity tries to solve. Being in a relationship with God is impossible without humanity being set aright. The Cross made it possible for humanity to be in the right relationship, which we call the "state of grace."
Zach
"Son, you've done something wrong".
"Sorry dad".
"Now I want to forgive you...".
"Great".
"But I can't".
"Oh".
"You need to atone".
"Ok. Well I can.....".
"So your brother is going to be tortured and killed. Then I can forgive you".
"....................what!".
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
The "while knowing it's wrong" bit gives one heck of an "out" to sociopaths!
But if sin is just "doing bad things" then what's salvation about? And what is it from?
Salvation is about a person becoming what he or she ought to be, and Christianity offers a very high possibility for this-- the image and likeness of God. Of course, the much derided concept of original sin comes up here, because escaping sin is not a mere matter of "not sinning." We have our habits and proclivities after all, and what we ought to be is so much more than not acting. Christianity does, after declaring this highest possibility of a human person, hold up a way that we can actually hope for this possibility.
No doubt we will be derided for getting peoples' hopes up for this.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Huh?
Could it be that Spigot is not so much as questioning the reality of sin as denying that he's sinned?
Zach
I didn't understand how not having nail scarred hands would prove I'm a sinner.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
"Son, you've done something wrong".
"Sorry dad".
"Now I want to forgive you...".
"Great".
"But I can't".
"Oh".
"You need to atone".
"Ok. Well I can.....".
"So your brother is going to be tortured and killed. Then I can forgive you".
"....................what!".
It's another major area of debate in Christianity-- the atonement. Many Christians do not accept this interpretation- that Christ has to suffer so we could be set aright. What we all agree, however, is that this sacrifice does put us aright with God.
I rather think the Cross is itself salvation, something to be strived for, rather than the bitter pill that is a cure.
Of course, the debate in evolution about whether it goes forward steadily or in equilibriums and fits doesn't mean evolution isn't true, so it's no use pointing to disagreement in any component of the Christian hypothesis to try to disprove the hypothesis itself.
quote:
I didn't understand how not having nail scarred hands would prove I'm a sinner.
He was saying only Jesus was sinless.
Zach
[ 20. June 2011, 16:50: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
"Son, you've done something wrong".
"Sorry dad".
"Now I want to forgive you...".
"Great".
"But I can't".
"Oh".
"You need to atone".
"Ok. Well I can.....".
"So your brother is going to be tortured and killed. Then I can forgive you".
"....................what!".
Strawman alert !!!
Seriously, forgiveness involves an absorption of the cost of wrongdoing. Whether that cost is financial, emotional, spiritual, reputational or whatever.
The various pictures of Atonement that Xtian theology uses to explain what Jesus did to make salvation possible - try to show us how God was in Christ absorbing the real cost of our real moral bankruptcy.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
That's what atonement means! You can't be at one with someone until you have reconciled whatever it is that separates you.
Indeed, that is the whole dilemma Christianity tries to solve. Being in a relationship with God is impossible without humanity being set aright. The Cross made it possible for humanity to be in the right relationship, which we call the "state of grace."
I for one found that I didn't really "get it" about sin and atonement until I flicked through Greek tragedies.
The idea of making a sacrifice to atone for sins can be found in both the Old Testament and in Greek tragedies. However, in the Old Testament, that sacrifice usually only takes the form of animals. The idea that a warrior who gives his life on the battlefield can also be thought of as a "sacrifice" is made much more explicit in the Greek tragedies - and I found that it wasn't until I grasped that idea that I started to understand why Christians might have thought that the sacrifice of Jesus was superior to Levitical sacrifice.
A related idea is that you can atone for your sins with heroic deeds. Hence the tradition of Heracles, who is said to have been tricked by Hera into slaying his family - but who "atoned" for those "sins" by performing twelve labours for king Eurystheus.
But hey - perhaps I still haven't quite "got it" about sin and atonement. But these days, if anyone thinks that they've "got it" in a way that I haven't, but they fail to explain why in a way that I understand, then I tend to suspect them of intellectual elitism.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I for one found that I didn't really "get it" about sin and atonement until I flicked through Greek tragedies.
The idea of making a sacrifice to atone for sins can be found in both the Old Testament and in Greek tragedies. However, in the Old Testament, that sacrifice usually only takes the form of animals. The idea that a warrior who gives his life on the battlefield can also be thought of as a "sacrifice" is made much more explicit in the Greek tragedies - and I found that it wasn't until I grasped that idea that I started to understand why Christians might have thought that the sacrifice of Jesus was superior to Levitical sacrifice.
A related idea is that you can atone for your sins with heroic deeds. Hence the tradition of Heracles, who is said to have been tricked by Hera into slaying his family - but who "atoned" for those "sins" by performing twelve labours for king Eurystheus.
But hey - perhaps I still haven't quite "got it" about sin and atonement. But these days, if anyone thinks that they've "got it" in a way that I haven't, but they fail to explain why in a way that I understand, then I tend to suspect them of intellectual elitism.
Rene Girard (who was already mentioned up thread) has a very interesting take on this.
The fact is, God never needed our sacrifices. We needed them! We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it. Girard points out that in Greek tragedies, the victim almost always really deserved to be destroyed. People imagine in their myths that the gods actually want blood as much as they do.
What the Bible does is quite the opposite. The bible never says the victim deserves its fate, and over and over it actually identifies with the victim. The Cross is God's mighty act to diffuse the "single victim mechanism" once and for all.
Zach
[ 20. June 2011, 17:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I didn't understand how not having nail scarred hands would prove I'm a sinner.
In many Christian traditions, people aren't acknowledged to be saints until after they're dead. And even then, it gets frowned on if they're called a saint too quickly after they've died.
Whilst you're alive, no-one can know what you might be plotting and scheming. You may have led a perfectly blameless life so far - but until you're dead, and until sufficient time has passed to allow the dust to settle so as to ensure there are no skeletons in the closet (other than your own, of course), then no-one can say with any certainty that you aren't a sinner and that you are a saint.
I realise that some Protestants see it differently - but then again, even Harold Camping and Fred Phelps would be regarded as a saint by some of them.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
We do? Really?
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The fact is, God never needed our sacrifices. We needed them! We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
Do you know, it's funny you mention that - because it makes me think of the things the Daily Mail say about crime and punishment.
They always seem to want someone to hang for the slightest, um, slight. They don't seem to care whether we catch the right guy or not.
And then, when miscarriages of justice happen, as they inevitably do, guess what? Yep! The Daily Mail want someone to hang for that too. And so the cycle continues.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Girard points out that in Greek tragedies, the victim almost always really deserved to be destroyed.
The key word there being "almost". An obvious exception would be Agamemnon's daugher Iphigenia. She was without sin. When the victim is without sin, then their sacrificial death makes them into heroes and/or deities. So Iphigenia ascends to the heavens.
Bit like Jesus. Except for the gender perhaps. And possibly also the question of whether or not she ever actually existed.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What the Bible does is quite the opposite. The bible never says the victim deserves its fate, and over and over it actually identifies with the victim. The Cross is God's mighty act to diffuse the "single victim mechanism" once and for all.
Which is great. Trouble is, it doesn't appear to have worked. Well, not if the Daily Mail is anything to go by, anyway.
Still, it's a nice idea, all the same.
But we're in danger of going off on a tangent. I think there's a distinction to be made between whether or not someone believes that atonement actually works when they do understand it, and whether or not they can even get their heads round the concept of "atonement" in the first place.
Unless I've misread the OP, the problem seems to be more the latter rather than the former.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
So ive just looked back over the last few posts. Can I assume for the time being that Sin is being defined as "Knowingly doing something wrong"?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
We do? Really?
It's what Girard argues. The possibility of doing otherwise, he insists, is the product of Christian influence. Even then it's still with us. "These immigrants are taking our jobs." "The Jewish bankers are responsible for the sorry state of the nation." "Those Arabs are terrorists out to get us." Projecting our ills onto faceless outsiders is so easily done we hardly notice it.
Take away from Girard what you will. I rather like his explanation of the sacrifice mechanism, but I personally don't make it the whole theme of history and the Bible like he does.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So ive just looked back over the last few posts. Can I assume for the time being that Sin is being defined as "Knowingly doing something wrong"?
Certainly on the "doing something wrong" part, but I find myself going back and forth on the "Knowingly" part. Certainly it is worse to sin knowingly, but isn't one still culpable on some level even if he doesn't know it's wrong? There is still just as much suffering for the victim whether the sinner knows or not. Kierkegaard, whom I cite so very often, wrote that real sin means to sin knowingly, but those who do not know still sin because they fail to consider the nature of their actions while yet being able to.
This is what I mean by simplicity of expression not entailing simplicity of the concepts expressed!
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
I heard a sermon where the priest said that sin is that which damages our relationships (with God and with others).
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
We do? Really?
It's what Girard argues. The possibility of doing otherwise, he insists, is the product of Christian influence. Even then it's still with us. "These immigrants are taking our jobs." "The Jewish bankers are responsible for the sorry state of the nation." "Those Arabs are terrorists out to get us." Projecting our ills onto faceless outsiders is so easily done we hardly notice it.
Take away from Girard what you will. I rather like his explanation of the sacrifice mechanism, but I personally don't make it the whole theme of history and the Bible like he does.
If Girard says we're naturally vengeful and we want blood and guts, I think he's is right on the money - although I'd suspect that the ability of Christianity to break away from that may perhaps have been over-egged.
However, like you, I don't think it's the whole story of the Bible either.
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So ive just looked back over the last few posts. Can I assume for the time being that Sin is being defined as "Knowingly doing something wrong"?
If you will permit me to admit the Heraclean "heroic deeds" model of atonement for a moment, then I think we can see why there's a problem with limiting "sin" just to that which you do "knowingly".
Unless I'm relying on modern versions that have read more into it than was actually there in the original, I think it's a big point of the Heracles story that he did not know what he was doing at the moment he did it. Hera made him think his wife Megara and their children were monsters, that had previously slaughtered his livestock. So he slaughtered the monsters. As you do. It's only when he found the dead corpses of Megara and the kids that he realised he'd screwed up.
And that's the reason he put himself into the service of Eurystheus in the first place. However, his successful performance in those deeds had the effect of elevating Heracles to hero status, in spite of his former sins, and much to the annoyance of Eurystheus as well, who was hoping to be able to get one over on Heracles, and humiliate him. There was a regal succession dispute going on between Eurystheus and Heracles, you see - and if the heroics of Heracles had the effect of making Eurystheus look cowardly (which they did), then Eurystheus would not have been a happy bunny.
The point here is not the model of atonement - heroic deeds, sacrifice, martyrdom, or whatever - it's that sin isn't necessarily something you only do unknowingly. Sin can be anything that you might be ashamed of, regardless of whether or not it was actually your fault.
Indeed, in this looser definition of "sin", sin could even mean flunking your exams when your parents have given you lots of support. Sin can mean gambling away your inheritance, even if those "gambles" seemed like "sensible investment decisions" at the time.
So I think the story of the prodigal son is very relevant. The prodigal son is not recorded as having done anything that actually flouted any formalised laws or morals - but he still behaved in a shameful way all the same, and he still needed forgiveness.
Which might perhaps be part of the reason why St Paul thought that focussing purely on laws to determine what is, and isn't, a sin, is to miss the point.
Then again, maybe not.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
We do? Really?
Yes. Scapegoating comes very, very naturally to human beings; somebody always has to take the fall for what goes wrong.
I mean, just take a look at human history; it's really not that hard to see this. Minority groups in particular make excellent scapegoats, and always have.
"First they came for the ____________," etc.
[ 20. June 2011, 18:27: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
If Girard says we're naturally vengeful and we want blood and guts, I think he's is right on the money - although I'd suspect that the ability of Christianity to break away from that may perhaps have been over-egged.
But this is directly from Jesus' own teachings: Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you. His lived-out example was forgiveness from the cross.
Girard says this this is what makes Christianity different, in fact: that the whole scapegoating game is thrown into disrepute because the victim was clearly innocent.
(There's actually a problem with his theory, in that he says that scapegoating is the means by which communities resolve disputes - that all the various factions' hatred is directed at this one scapegoat, and that this is how reconciliation is effected and peace restored. Which implies that when the game is shown to be a fraud and no longer workable, resentments have no place to get shunted off to. Thus, peace between people becomes impossible and simmering resentment is all around! I think his most recent book addresses this problem, in fact - and says that Christianity will effect its own demise because of this! Or something like that.
But perhaps not. Perhaps forgiveness of enemies actually does dissipate the resentment. I've been wanting to read more about this, too....)
[ 20. June 2011, 18:42: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So ive just looked back over the last few posts. Can I assume for the time being that Sin is being defined as "Knowingly doing something wrong"?
Certainly on the "doing something wrong" part, but I find myself going back and forth on the "Knowingly" part. Certainly it is worse to sin knowingly, but isn't one still culpable on some level even if he doesn't know it's wrong?
Forget Kierkegaard. Unsure about something? Snoop around in the Orthodox liturgy until you find something about; you may be looking a while, but you'll find it eventually.
Oh. Here is it: quote:
Wherefore I pray thee, have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance; and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of thine immaculate Mysteries.
here at the OCA website
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I was sitting on the street car thinking about how salvation makes sin possible.
We can admit that humanity is wicked all we like, but there is no sin if we can't point to another way we could be. We can shrug our shoulders and say "It's all unforunate, but there's nothing to be done about it." Then Jesus comes along and says "It is the way things are, but not the way they have to be." Jesus gives us a choice! And only when acts are freely chosen is it possible for them to be real sins, instead of simply unfortunate choices.
Of course, being able to choose is what makes us human, isn't it? We are not mere creatures of circumstance and instinct. Jesus makes real humanity possible in giving us a choice.
So it must be true, that in giving us the possibility of being another way than we are, Jesus makes sin and damnation possible. Since we have a choice, we can shoulder blame for that choice. No wonder we crucified Him! Before He came, it was impossible for us to be guilty because it was impossible for us to be any other way. So we got rid of him, in an attempt to get rid of the possibility- without salvation damnation cannot be a worry.
God, as terrible as he is good, refused to let us dispense of the possibility of salvation. He raised Christ up from the dead anyway, forcing on us the possibility of sin or redemption.
Is the offer of being human worth the risk of damnation?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
If Girard says we're naturally vengeful and we want blood and guts, I think he's is right on the money - although I'd suspect that the ability of Christianity to break away from that may perhaps have been over-egged.
But this is directly from Jesus' own teachings: Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you. His lived-out example was forgiveness from the cross.
Girard says this this is what makes Christianity different, in fact: that the whole scapegoating game is thrown into disrepute because the victim was clearly innocent.
Different, yes - but unique, no. I'm still not seeing how the story of the innocence of Jesus, in this regard, is any different to that of Iphigenia in Aulis.
I'm also sceptical of the idea that Christianity is able to claim that this difference makes it somehow culturally superior to other religions. Why? Because, rather ironically, the idea that Jesus was scapegoated for something that he was innocent of, does not appear to have stopped Christian culture from scapegoating Jews for killing Jesus.
For example, the idea wasn't formally retracted from Roman Catholic doctrine until the 1960's. Still, better late than never I suppose.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There's actually a problem with his theory, in that he says that scapegoating is the means by which communities resolve disputes - that all the various factions' hatred is directed at this one scapegoat, and that this is how reconciliation is effected and peace restored.
I don't doubt that death can sometimes reconcile warring communities. But sometimes, it can have the opposite effect.
Especially if the scapegoat is only recognised as an innocent victim by those on one side of the dispute - but not by those on the other.
Which, come to think of it, appears to be what has happened to Jesus. Christians think he was innocent - but Jews, funnily enough, don't. To the extent that Talmudic writings refer to him at all (which isn't very much, which shouldn't surprise us, seeing as it's probably not in Rabbinic tradition's interest to confer Herostratic fame on Jesus), there seems to be the idea that Jesus was guilty of idolatry.
That doesn't mean that Talmudic writings assert that Jesus deserved to die in the way he did, though. But squeaky-clean he wasn't.
Bear in mind that in Rabbinic tradition, there are only three sins that are regarded as so serious that it's better to sacrifice yourself rather than commit them, if you are given that choice; and idolatry is one of them. The other two are murder and rape. So the fact that there's evidence that Rabbinic tradition once pinned an idolatry charge on Jesus shows that he's really not in their good books. You can't just brush that aside by saying "idolatry, shmidolatry, it's not that big a deal".
Let's face it. Does anyone here honestly believe that the death of Jesus has healed the rift between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism? From where I'm standing, it looks to me more like it was a cause of that rift.
However, I think that when an innocent death is widely acknowledged on both sides of a dispute (and not just one of them), then it does lead to reconciliation - so, in that regard, I think Girard is right. It's just that Jesus is perhaps not the best example of that.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Different, yes - but unique, no. I'm still not seeing how the story of the innocence of Jesus, in this regard, is any different to that of Iphigenia in Aulis.
Easy. The narrative of that story approves of the act. "It was very unfortunate, but circumstances made it necessary."
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
I think on the whole. All things considered. I will distance myself from a barbarous act of cruel violence and stay content with judging my own actions.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
That is precisely Jesus' directions, Spigot. And what, may I ask, will be the criteria for judgement of your own actions?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
