Jesus on the Cross: The Immorality of Vicarious Redemption

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I picked Catholics as an example really, cos I was pretty sure they espouse the doctrine of original sin (and eternal damnation in hell-fire). But I guess I would count any group who believes those things.

Just to be clear then, you were referring to Roman Catholicism then ? ecause there are a large variety of "catholic" christians, including all those I listed above. Catholic merely refers to the acceptance of Episcopal (Bishops ) authority, and there are lots of kind of christian including several Protestant churches who accept Episcopal authority.

I'm not sure original sin IS in the Bible - quote me some passages and I'll see what I think.

Well I suppose this depends on how you read Genesis and what you think Original Sin is. Strictly speaking Original Sin is the carnal (bodily) knowledge which provoked Adam and Eve to suddenly view eachother's bodies as sexual after consuming the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, and which then provoked shame in them causing them to cover their nakedness. This sexualisation and the concurrent shame associated with it is clearly indicated to be the patrimony of man within Genesis and is singled out as the origin of all man's most carnal lusts and most base and selfish desires. From this Christianity developed the concept that almost all sins not directly provoked by demonic or indeed satanic agencies were the result of the very first Carnal self-awareness.

The logic of it is simple enough, and to some convincing, indeed when you consider that I was able to encapsulate it in a few sentences you can see how little elaboration from Biblical authority was actually necessary in order to formalise the theology of Original Sin. That's the whole reason it was so enduring and so useful to christianity, it was simple, it was easy to point it out in some of the most memorable portions of the Bible, and it made a simple kind of sense. Other concepts such as the Virgin birth and the immaculate conception took much longer to come up with and involved highly convoluted and only tangentially biblical reasonings.

The concept of the innate sinfulness of man was something Christians and indeed other sects influenced by Christainity seem to have taken up at a very early point, from a textual point of view almost from the very beginning, though as to what took place before reliable textual evidences can be found we know fairly little.

It's worth remembering also that there are documents and bodies of teachings attributed to Jesus or which claim to memorialise the teachings of Jesus, which are of an early date, but which do not constitute any part of traditional Christian conceptions of Jesus Christ, the Nag Hamadi text or the Dead Sea scrolls are just two examples and there are a number of others.

It is completely possible that a lost body of Jesus's teachings informed a large part of what the earliest churches ended up believing bu because of a 2000 year gap we now know little of what that corpus included. Certainly the apocrypha do not always paint the same picture of Christ as that painted in the New Testament, and we know for a fact that the apocrypha played a substantial role in developing christian theology at an early date, so what is and what is not biblical justified about Christian ideas regarding Original Sin is simply a matter of perspective. Which version of the bible one uses or which aspects of the entire culmulative body of teachings attributed to Jesus one wishes to include in the term "Biblical" makes an enormous difference.

Revelation mentions the sinful being cast into the Lake of Fire - it doesn't say they're going to burn in absolute agony forever. Jesus mentioned being afraid of he who can destroy your soul in hell fire - that doesnt sound like you're gna be burning forever. It does suggest tho, that unrepentant sinners, will be cast into a fiery lake, and killed.
The reward of the righteous is apparently eternal life...we dont have it already (according to the Bible), and we certainly wouldnt be given it to spend in hellfire forever. The Bible does mention hell-fire (obviously), but not that we're gonna be tormented forever.

Again this is a matter of how you understand what Revelation is saying, lately the Roman Catholic church has revised it's concept of Hell a bit, and many see it as a clarification which better describes what eternal damnation actually consists of.

To be brief the description now makes it clear that the punishment of Hell consists of the absence of the presence of God. God=eternal bliss and eternal love and forgiveness and happiness. To be eternally deprived of that is conceived of as the most potent and most intense form of torture the soul could possibly endure, infinitely worse than the medieval cartoon of demons shoving forks up people's butts.

Many theologians assert that this absence of the love and the presence of God was the first conception of eternal damnation resulting from non-repentance combined with the innate state of sinfullness of Original Sin.

This could be a long discussion, btw...

It might be and I apologise in advance for my really long posts :tongue:

 

[Axcess]

For the complete refutation of Christianity by Christopher Hitchens check out Why Christianity fails vid in You Tube . This version is shorter.

 

[Axcess]

A drunk atheist demigod tells me that the skygod doesn't exist and I'm to believe him? Why?

Who cares if this atheist is a drunk . He isn't better or worse than most religious people. Atleast he isn't a hypocrite about that . People that are atheist don't claim that atheism makes people behave better .

 

[Northland]

A drunk atheist demigod tells me that the skygod doesn't exist and I'm to believe him? Why?

Who cares if this atheist is a drunk . He isn't better or worse than most religious people. Atleast he isn't a hypocrite about that . People that are atheist don't claim that atheism makes people behave better .

What I was getting at, is that, he- Hitchens- is not completely there. If he isn't fully involved, then what's to say the things said are anything other than meaningless (to him) drivel? It has nothing to do with his standing as a person, regarding being good or bad or better or worse than- it merely a statement that one does not grasp all the sayings of a drunkard as, er, um, uh...gospel truth. I would like to hear and read his thoughts when he is in a sober state. Until then, I can't even be guaranteed these are his true thoughts and not those of a man having a poke at all of the world while he is blotto.


Hell, if he's drunk, maybe he's not even an atheist, just a disillusioned lapsed Christian.

 

[Calboner]

Just to be clear then, you were referring to Roman Catholicism then ? ecause there are a large variety of "catholic" christians, including all those I listed above. Catholic merely refers to the acceptance of Episcopal (Bishops ) authority, and there are lots of kind of christian including several Protestant churches who accept Episcopal authority.

Joll's use of the term "Catholic" with a capital C is the usage of the Catholic Church; your addition of the term "Roman" is not. I used to follow that usage myself, thinking that it was just a matter of being properly specific. But at least some clerics within that confession do not see the matter that way at all. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says under the term "Roman Catholic":

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.

The article "Catholic" is rather long and involved, and I have not read all of it, but it is clear that the word is not defined in terms of episcopal authority.

 

[_avg_]

This is from a Christopher Hitchens debate, and it touches on themes I've felt since I was a teenager - dictatorship, control, autocracy - about the underlying, subliminal concepts inherent in Christianity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCDOrLPTvtY&NR=1

I read this sentence and was reminded of this old essay from the SecWeb (man that brings me back):

The Godly Art of Child Abuse

Interesting read if you've never seen it.

I've essentially sworn off religious debate so I won't really elaborate or comment except to say that I now understand much of Judeo-Christian mythology as very 'Joseph Campbell-ian' or 'Jung-ian psychological archetype' metaphor, which would at least partially explain some of it's appeal (as it were)...

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Joll's use of the term "Catholic" with a capital C is the usage of the Catholic Church; your addition of the term "Roman" is not. I used to follow that usage myself, thinking that it was just a matter of being properly specific. But at least some clerics within that confession do not see the matter that way at all. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says under the term "Roman Catholic":

The article "Catholic" is rather long and involved, and I have not read all of it, but it is clear that the word is not defined in terms of episcopal authority.

I'm reading the article now, primarily it seems to say that because the Roman Catholic Church simply refuses to accept that any other church has the right to use the term that it is erroneous for any other church to call itself such and that it is therefore unnecessary to refer to the Catholic Church of Rome as anything other than the Catholic Church.

It also does not address the fact that most of the eastern churches regard themselves as Catholic but in no way "Roman" and eals exclusively it seems with refutation of the OED definition of the word "Catholic".

I'm afraid this article is in no way undermines the usage of the ter "Roman Catholic", afterall it freely admits that in legal documents even the RC church uses the term. Just because the RC church claims sole ownership of the term "catholic" does not man it gets to keep it, inspite of the claims of all other christian sects to the term.

I think you ought to consider the source, the Catholic Encyclopedia is actually compiled by RC adherents and with RC funding.

 

[Jason]

Very many (Roman) Catholic church buildings in the UK call themselves "Roman Catholic", for example on their sign boards outside the churches. I'm aware of the view expressed in the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia (above) that the correct form is simply Catholic, but the (Roman) Catholic church is sending mixed messages on this.

Protestants believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church". While the term Anglo-Catholic certainly exists there is a real sense in which all protestant churches are catholic. The (Roman) Catholic church is indeed perceived by protestants as a species within the genus catholic, and the protestant churches would say that they are right in this and the (Roman) Catholic church doctrinally wrong.

More to the point I think very many Christians have issues with (Roman) Catholic church doctrine. The idea of using (Roman) Catholics as the archetype of Christians raises quite a few hackles. The protestant tradition stresses the primacy of scripture and rejects tradition - the "Westminster Confession" which many protestant churches accept actually condemns the pope as "that man of perdition". Alternatively some Christians (eg Quakers) stress the primacy of personal revelation.

 

[Calboner]

I think you ought to consider the source, the Catholic Encyclopedia is actually compiled by RC adherents and with RC funding.

I cited something called "The Catholic Encyclopedia" to show what the Catholic view is of the use of the term "Catholic"; and now you are telling me that I need to "consider the source"?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I cited something called "The Catholic Encyclopedia" to show what the Catholic view is of the use of the term "Catholic"; and now you are telling me that I need to "consider the source"?

Yes but it's not a Catholic Encyclopedia, it's in fact a Roman Catholic Encyclopedia which makes a pretty thin argument for why the Church of Rome should get exclusive rights to the use of the term "Catholic". RC chauvinism is hardly a new thing, in point of fact it's the origin of the Great Schism which seperated the Roman church from that in Constantinople.

The fact of the matter is that a variety of Christian sects regard themselves as Catholic also, based on their acceptance of episcopal authority, and a claim to universality.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I cited something called "The Catholic Encyclopedia" to show what the Catholic view is of the use of the term "Catholic"; and now you are telling me that I need to "consider the source"?

The (Roman) Catholics might put it that way, but the rest of the world would put it this way:

I cited something called "The Catholic Encyclopedia" to show what the Roman Catholic view is of the use of the term "Catholic"; and now you are telling me that I need to "consider the source"?

Yup, and why wouldn't he?
I can't tell if you're serious.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Hmmm. hmmm. a) if Jesus had to die on the cross for all to have the potential of salvation, it was premeditated murder. b) then Judas was the most important of them all. c) the political leanings that dwell on this information lead me to believe it was added after the death of Joshua ben Joseph. d) there were many reports of ritual crucifiying in the era, from 100 BC to 100 AD. I believe there was a central one that fit requirements. That was what was handed down. The rest might be called "crucifiction".

 

[798686]

Well I suppose this depends on how you read Genesis and what you think Original Sin is. Strictly speaking Original Sin is the carnal (bodily) knowledge which provoked Adam and Eve to suddenly view eachother's bodies as sexual after consuming the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, and which then provoked shame in them causing them to cover their nakedness.

I think Catholicism's (sorry - just meant those under the Pope, basically) view of the apple representing sexual awareness, is kind of a misinterpretation of Genesis. The trees of life and knowledge of good and evil seem to represent a choice between doing it God's way - they way you're instructed, or choosing to judge for ourselves (hence good and evil).

By choosing Good/Evil they were cut off from direct contact with God (much as your description of hell, I guess...). But to suggest they were cut off and became sinful because they had sex is a bit ridiculous (I'm not saying that's your view, Hilaire) - there would be no way to reproduce without sex, and I thought they were meant to go forth and multiply? Also, sex was obviously created (if you agree with creation theory) to be enjoyable - so classing it as a sin would be a bit daft.

 

[Jason]

The medieval church mad a distinction between sex and lust. Sex to reproduce was fine; carnal thoughts not related to reproduction were not. There was even a teaching that Adam had voluntary erections (before the fall) and that it is post-fall involuntary erections that are sinful.

Many Christians would see the OT as a book which describes a process by which a people become aware of God. The Genesis story shows that there is something wrong in mankind's relationship with God. Christ is a way to start putting that relationship right.

 

[798686]

Hmm I guess. I just don't agree with the view that sex was the original sin...it seems stupid (unless I'm getting it wrong?).

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I think Catholicism's (sorry - just meant those under the Pope, basically) view of the apple representing sexual awareness, is kind of a misinterpretation of Genesis. The trees of life and knowledge of good and evil seem to represent a choice between doing it God's way - they way you're instructed, or choosing to judge for ourselves (hence good and evil).

By choosing Good/Evil they were cut off from direct contact with God (much as your description of hell, I guess...). But to suggest they were cut off and became sinful because they had sex is a bit ridiculous (I'm not saying that's your view, Hilaire) - there would be no way to reproduce without sex, and I thought they were meant to go forth and multiply? Also, sex was obviously created (if you agree with creation theory) to be enjoyable - so classing it as a sin would be a bit daft.

Well until the reformation that view of the Fall of man was a pretty universal Christian (not Roman Catholic) interpretation, inspite of heresies and minor sects. God is still present in the world btw, according to this view of the fall, but unlike the pure state of the man/god relationship before the fall, man cannot be in the presence of god in the way he used to be. Hence Michelangelo's depiction of Adam and God nearly touching fingertips before the fall, and then why god had to appear as a burning bush or a pillar of fire e.t.c. after the fall, and God is still seen as omnipresent in the world despite our inability to communicate directly with him. Hell would be the total and complete deprivation of god as opposed to the current semi-detached state of affairs.

Your second point is a very rough aproximation of the jewish view of the Fall of man, but as daft as it seems the notion that all sex was inherently sinful because of the taint of the knowledge of lust and shame remains the mainstream view of most Christian theology. Sex was not created to be enjoyable (according to Christian theology) it was lust which brought about enjoyment of sex, and ideally all good christians should strive not to enjoy sex of any kind. This leads to monasticism and celibacy et al.

Go forth and multiply was an imperative but not one which it was believed anyone was expected to enjoy fulfilling.


It is daft, but I'm not saying Christian theology makes any common sense, just that it follows its own simple if insane sounding logic is all :wink::biggrin1:

 

[798686]

God is still present in the world btw, according to this view of the fall, but unlike the pure state of the man/god relationship before the fall man cannot be in the presence of god in the way he used to be.

That kinda seems more along the lines of what Genesis seems to be saying, I guess. :tongue: Cheers for the replies, btw.

 

[Calboner]

Yes but it's not a Catholic Encyclopedia, it's in fact a Roman Catholic Encyclopedia which makes a pretty thin argument for why the Church of Rome should get exclusive rights to the use of the term "Catholic". RC chauvinism is hardly a new thing, in point of fact it's the origin of the Great Schism which seperated the Roman church from that in Constantinople.

The fact of the matter is that a variety of Christian sects regard themselves as Catholic also, based on their acceptance of episcopal authority, and a claim to universality.

I don't defend the right of the institution in question to a monopoly on the term "Catholic" (with a capital C); if some other institution wants to use that term in its name, that is its prerogative, as far as I am concerned. I do defend the authority of the institution in question about what its name is. It calls itself the Catholic Church, and I cited a publication with some measure of Catholic ecclesiastical authority to establish that point. For you to insist on calling it the "Roman Catholic Church" is as invidious as the practice of Republicans in the US of referring to the Democratic Party as "the Democrat Party."

So far as your argument has any merit, it concerns only the adjective "catholic." I am not talking about that adjective; I am talking about the name of a certain institution. The name preferred by that institution is "the Catholic Church," not "the Roman Catholic Church." It is not up to you to decide on its name, and to argue that the adjective "catholic" applies to other institutions is simply irrelevant.

The (Roman) Catholics might put it that way, but the rest of the world would put it this way:

I cited something called "The Catholic Encyclopedia" to show what the Roman Catholic view is of the use of the term "Catholic"; and now you are telling me that I need to "consider the source"?

Yup, and why wouldn't he?
I can't tell if you're serious.

And I am surprised that you would be so dense. See my reply to Hilaire.

 

[nubian]

Hmm I guess. I just don't agree with the view that sex was the original sin...it seems stupid (unless I'm getting it wrong?).

It wasn't. By eating from the tree, Adam and Eve disobeyed God, which is a definition of sin. They listened to Satan, who told them they could be like God.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I don't defend the right of the institution in question to a monopoly on the term "Catholic" (with a capital C); if some other institution wants to use that term in its name, that is its prerogative, as far as I am concerned. I do defend the authority of the institution in question about what its name is. It calls itself the Catholic Church, and I cited a publication with some measure of Catholic ecclesiastical authority to establish that point. For you to insist on calling it the "Roman Catholic Church" is as invidious as the practice of Republicans in the US of referring to the Democratic Party as "the Democrat Party."

So far as your argument has any merit, it concerns only the adjective "catholic." I am not talking about that adjective; I am talking about the name of a certain institution. The name preferred by that institution is "the Catholic Church," not "the Roman Catholic Church." It is not up to you to decide on its name, and to argue that the adjective "catholic" applies to other institutions is simply irrelevant.

And I am surprised that you would be so dense. See my reply to Hilaire.

I am pointing out that an online organ of radical RC chauvinism isn't necessarily the best place to garner definitive information regarding what the RC church is happy to call itself. More broadly I am pointing out that the word Catholic is used with a capital C by a variety of other Christian sects and that for anyone who is not a practicising Roman Catholic making the distinction is of vital importance to useful discussion regarding Catholic forms of Christianity.

The fact that the Roman Catholic church "condescends" to allow itself be called the Roman Catholic church ( and in Legal contexts to boot) is enough justification for me to do exactly as it condescends for me to do. :wink: