Stingray24 wrote:
I don’t need a reward, but why refuse a free gift of that magnitude? Think of it this way.
I've been convicted of premeditated murder. There is nothing I can do on my own to save my life. The judge orders me to rise and I stand to my feet to accept my fate and I’m sentenced to death for my crimes. As he finishes reading, everyone turns with puzzled looks on their faces and whispers to one another upon seeing the judge’s son enter the room. Then the judge does something completely shocking. He offers his son to receive the lethal injection in my place. “All you must do is acknowledge that my son’s death is the only way you can escape death”, says the judge. His son looks my direction and then turns to address his father. “Father, isn’t there another way?” “No, my son. His crimes are too great. Only your willingness to die in his place can save him now”, replied the judge. The son holds his father’s gaze and then says, “Very well. I will take his punishment.” Then the judge turns to me and asks the question, “Do you accept?”
Heaven is not a reward, it’s the end result of salvation which is a gift of mercy and grace. By accepting Christ’s salvation we don’t go to Hell as we deserve . . . mercy. We will go to Heaven which we don’t deserve and could never earn on our own merits . . . grace. There is no scale of good and bad in relation to Heaven and Hell. Either we're perfect and able to enter God’s presence after we die or we’re imperfect and need salvation to enter Heaven. Since none of us are perfect, we all need salvation. Since it's freely offered to all, I don't see how it’s hypocritical.
You know - I don't see it that way - at all. You are being too literal and traditional (IMO) by accepting a (senseless) theological interpretation (Paul's New Covenant Theology and all Pauline-type rationalizations thereafter).
God does not need to atone for his very own creation. That is utterly senseless. We cannot create ourselves anymore than we can create this: evil. Evil is manifest in the world due to God. It is as necessary as any other opposite. Even a piece of paper has two sides (even though when blank they seem the same). You don’t turn over a piece of paper and it disappears; its opposing side is there; it is necessary. Positive exists as a unified polar opposite of that which is negative. There is unity in all pairs of opposites. This false Manichean dichotomy that Christianity has inherited in tradition has permeated all associated theologies.
Some fanciful supposition of a fall of grace (in Eden), and original sin, thus placing the blame and imperfection upon man is inherently a ridiculous idea. It is absurd to rail against existence and creation as it is. If good is - it is because its opposite is - evil. Man did not choose: evil, nor ignorance, nor an imperfect limited human mind. If God is - those are manifestations emanating from the creating source (God: if God is). Why would God need to sacrifice self to self to atone for what he created? It is absurd and unsophisticated theological sophistry.
I was taught the meaning of atonement in Christ, in a different way, as a young Catholic boy (I guess you could say my teacher-priests were a bit more liberal than you’re used to). (IMO) I still feel this is a better explanation (variation/**heresy) of the symbolic meaning contained in the message of the deed (as known by the story).
Atonement is the hope and desire of man to be unified with the source of his existence, which is unknown to him based upon the visible world set before his eyes. There is horror and bliss in existence. This is clearly apparent to the human-mind. All life is a bittersweet mixture of suffering and bliss. For man to become at-one (atone) with God (the infinite) is impossible, for man is limited (finite), he can not do this. God must do this. Christ is the symbol of the suffering god made manifest in the world to become at-one (atoned) with man. God partakes in the passion of the suffering that is life to become at-one with man - because this as a leap of grace is something man simply cannot do.
It is not a ticket to heaven based upon the praising of a name. It is not an idea (a meaning/a deed/an act of divine grace) that even belongs to Christians. It is a universal symbol beyond your scope (my scope) of understanding that renders all your (my; any) judgments moot. The revelation (or epiphany) of the atonement is that divine grace exists in the most modest of places, even that which you so shallowly judge as sin or sinful, that which you simply should not judge at all, the outsider, or heretic, believer, or non-believer, Muslim, Buddhist, or even an atheist. The scope (of the symbolic meaning) is not bound to your judgments and determinations. The symbol of Christ crucified upon a cross is a symbol of God partaking in the suffering that is life, dying like you “will surely die” has made the divine spark in you visible as a unified wholeness (if you’re looking for it). That inspires one to be NOT Christ; but to be Christ-like (not in heaven hereafter, but to find heaven: Eden in life now: as a wholeness: as unity; at-one; atoned with God now - thus a symbol of the living divine spark of the infinite; existing within you). Now go make it dance and let it live.
Anyways that’s more or less what I learned.
Here is a link that expresses slight variations of the theme [above], and criticisms of the basic Moral Theory:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone11.htmFrom above the link above... Here is one of my favorite criticism's of liberal ideas about atonement:
The Moral Theory is incompatible with that belief since it depends on personal effort.
This post is no biggie, it’s just another heresy.
**Heresy actually is a less obnoxious a word than you think. It originally was not associated with such righteous indignation; as it merely meant:
version (of the truth/way/interpretation/story/etc).
Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-25 14:32:53)