Jesus on the Cross: The Immorality of Vicarious Redemption

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

(Addressing Hiliare) 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.

Well, yes and no. It also calls itself the Roman Catholic Church in order to be clear to the larger world ... which is exactly the point that Hilaire, it seems to me, is making.

If Time had an article next week about the Vatican, neither of us would be surprised if the phrase 'Roman Catholic Church' were used.

You know as well as I do that the phrase 'Catholic Church,' by itself, would leave many wondering ... which Catholic church?

So what important point are you making?

(Addressing Hilaire) 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."

It is not invidious at all.
If he wishes to call it the Roman Catholic Church, he is using a form of name occasionally used by that church itself as well as the form that is most meaningful to most people.
I do not understand why you want to be difficult about this.

(Addressing Senor Rubirosa)And I am surprised that you would be so dense. See my reply to Hilaire.

I don't think you're being dense here.
But there other adjectives ...

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

A positively immoral doctrine that abolishes the concept of personal responsibility - on which all ethics and all morality must depend.

Personal responsibility is not abolished. Both John the Baptist and Jesus became famous in large part to their preaching of repentance -- that repentance must come before forgiveness is received. That is the epitome of personal responsiblity, not the abolition of it.

The New Testament is full of references to repenting, judging not lest you be judged, and forgiving others so that you may be forgiven. It's all about personal responsibility.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

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.

Read Song of Solomon in the Old Testament. VERY sex-positive.

 

[Channelwood]

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.

Hitchens says that the idea of god incarnate coming to earth as man in order to die and "redeem" you, to wash away your sins, is immoral.

It's not just immoral, it's a pretty lame-ass excuse for a redemption.

Beaten and tortured and then *being allowed* to die 24 hours later? Puh-leeze. Tens of thousands of people all around the world have to deal with end of life conditions that leave them in unbelievably excruciating pain for weeks and months and no access to pain medication. Suffocating on the cross? Try dying from starvation.

Jesus died on the cross for your sins? I prefer Julia Sweeney's take on it -- Jesus had a really bad weekend for your sins.

 

[_avg_]

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.

The Christian apologists (eg. C.S. Lewis) would argue that God WANTED us to eat from the tree of knowledge (cf. "complex good"), and I can hardly disagree within the context.

[Either which way, what implications does this have for the Garden, and/or Heaven, and/or God?]

BTW, 'the snake/serpent' = life; we are not truly alive until we've followed the snake/serpent and exited the Garden, entering the world of time/change. [The snake is not evil in that it's a servant of God; see also Slugworth in Charlie & The Chocolate Factory]

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Read Song of Solomon in the Old Testament. VERY sex-positive.

Unfortunately, even though the Song of Solomon is a beautiful work it has never been regarded by most Christian churches as informative for the purposes of forming doctrine.

However, Judaism which holds it in much higher regard, has a more common sense attitude towards sex.

 

[798686]

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.

Bingo! That's my understanding of it. :smile:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Bingo! That's my understanding of it. :smile:

Unfortunately mainstream Christianity has never shared that much more benign interpretation, if it had we (in the Christian influenced world) would have had a much more sexually well adjusted 2000 years or so :redface::wink:

 

[Jason]

This thread has quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source for the use of the term Catholic Church. I thought a protestant definition might balance things out.

However protestant churches have as a key document the Westminster Confession of Faith which defines catholic in these terms: "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." (XXV i) The same document makes it clear that the pope is not a member of the elect and therefore not a catholic. To call the church he heads "catholic" would be a nonsense - many protestants therefore call it "The Roman Church".

It seems to me that Roman Catholic Church is a nice compromise.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

Unfortunately mainstream Christianity has never shared that much more benign interpretation, if it had we (in the Christian influenced world) would have had a much more sexually well adjusted 2000 years or so :redface::wink:

I have to disagree with that. Mainstream Christianity considers disobedience to God to be the orginal sin.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

Unfortunately, even though the Song of Solomon is a beautiful work it has never been regarded by most Christian churches as informative for the purposes of forming doctrine.

Song of Solomon is in the Christian canon. I don't think there is a hierarchy of books in the Bible. Therefore it is as valid as any other. Your statement that "ideally all good christians should strive not to enjoy sex of any kind" is not found in the Bible.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Song of Solomon is in the Christian canon. I don't think there is a hierarchy of books in the Bible. Therefore it is as valid as any other. Your statement that "ideally all good christians should strive not to enjoy sex of any kind" is not found in the Bible.

You're quite wrong I'm afraid, there most assuredly is a hierarchy of books, as you put it, in terms of how doctrine is informed. The Canonical Gospels and certain other books of the New Testament were seen as containing more doctrinally useful guidance than the rest of the bible, which isn't to say that other books should be ignored simply that the New Testament was generally seen as being more divinely inspired. Not all books of the Bible have been considered equal by Christian Theologians. I suggest you do a little more reading on the matter and you'll quite easily see that Christianity of various kinds has never made any secret of this.

It's not my statement BTW, its a position that even the most ardent Christian could not pretend had not been the position of Christianity throughout most of its history, whether or not it can be sited in the Bible is not relevant.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I have to disagree with that. Mainstream Christianity considers disobedience to God to be the orginal sin.

Well you're misinformed I'm afraid.

 

[_avg_]

Song of Solomon is in the Christian canon. I don't think there is a hierarchy of books in the Bible. Therefore it is as valid as any other. Your statement that "ideally all good christians should strive not to enjoy sex of any kind" is not found in the Bible.

I'm always a bit astonished by how little any given Christian knows about Christianity. (nothing personal)

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

You're quite wrong I'm afraid, there most assuredly is a hierarchy of books, as you put it, in terms of how doctrine is informed. The Canonical Gospels and certain other books of the New Testament were seen as containing more doctrinally useful guidance than the rest of the bible, which isn't to say that other books should be ignored simply that the New Testament was generally seen as being more divinely inspired. Not all books of the Bible have been considered equal by Christian Theologians. I suggest you do a little more reading on the matter and you'll quite easily see that Christianity of various kinds has never made any secret of this.

It's not my statement BTW, its a position that even the most ardent Christian could not pretend had not been the position of Christianity throughout most of its history, whether or not it can be sited in the Bible is not relevant.

I look forward to receiving the list of the books of the Bible numbered from 1 to 66 so I'll know exactly which book trumps which. Thanks for the help.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I look forward to receiving the list of the books of the Bible numbered from 1 to 66 so I'll know exactly which book trumps which. Thanks for the help.

Seriously go and ask a priest. Why would I make it up ?

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

Well you're misinformed I'm afraid.

Fortunately we have you to let us know what is right and what is wrong.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

Seriously go and ask a priest. Why would I make it up ?

Not being Catholic, Roman or otherwise, I don't receive religious instruction from priests.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

It's not my statement BTW, its a position that even the most ardent Christian could not pretend had not been the position of Christianity throughout most of its history, whether or not it can be sited in the Bible is not relevant.

If the Bible has been misinterpreted as being anti-sex (and it most assuredly has) it definitely does make a difference what the orignal text says.

Christianity did not exhibit an anti-sex bias until St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 1200's. That pretty much prevailed through Victorian times. In the 20th century certain various branches of Christianity came to consider sex a gift from God and celebrate it as such. Hopefully progress will continue to be made, but the legacy of Aquinas is broad and deep.

Anyone would be hard pressed to find support for Aquinas' positions in the Bible.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Not being Catholic, Roman or otherwise, I don't receive religious instruction from priests.

I was using the term more generally but you can act the typical protestant or non-confromist snob regarding the term if you wish.

Go and talk to your pastor, preacher, elder, vicar, rector, whatever.