Biggest Problem of Christianity (Vicarious Redemption)

[Buddha Dharma]

God set up a system of laws. Law breaking must be punished or God would not be a just God.

Right, and as the OP stated- it isn't just to punish someone else for the crime. According to Christianity (typical orthodoxy): God has done so not once, but twice.

God has made Jesus take the sins of everyone allegedly, which I very much doubt. He has also, according to the usual theory of Christians: made all humankind take consequences for the sins of Adam.

Besides being unjust- this is in very contradiction to the Hebrew Bible, but I don't think that'll bother Christians very much. The Hebrew Bible is only useful in as far it agrees with the New Testament, right?

Christians could just admit they took sin and made it into something Jews never thought it was- with much more far-reaching, cosmological implications.

Sin has become a collective force under the Christian worldview, where under the Jewish one it was merely missing the mark. Sin has it's own reality within Christianity.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I see love as: teaching, example, learning, communication, expression, being one.

It's this kind of syrupy babble that leaves me all fuzzy headed when I read it. What exactly does all this mean? Explain it please. In plain English. I'm fuzzy headed.

 

[Faithofchristian]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

Seeing you have no idea or clue, Why Christ was given for the sin of the world.

You can criticize, but then criticism comes cheap. When you have nothing. Why was the reason for Christ to be given for the sin of the world.

By all means please do tell ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Right, and as the OP stated- it isn't just to punish someone else for the crime. According to Christianity (typical orthodoxy): God has done so not once, but twice.

God has made Jesus take the sins of everyone allegedly, which I very much doubt. He has also, according to the usual theory of Christians: made all humankind take consequences for the sins of Adam.

Besides being unjust- this is in very contradiction to the Hebrew Bible, but I don't think that'll bother Christians very much. The Hebrew Bible is only useful in as far it agrees with the New Testament, right?

Christians could just admit they took sin and made it into something Jews never thought it was- with much more far-reaching, cosmological implications.

Sin has become a collective force under the Christian worldview, where under the Jewish one it was merely missing the mark. Sin has it's own reality within Christianity.

You make statements, but have no clue or idea why Christ was given for the sin of the world.
You criticize, but don't give the reason as to why Christ gave his life, for the sin of the world.

Now do you have any idea or clue.of course you don't, otherwise you would haved given the reason. But you can criticize and have nothing to back up your criticism of why Christ gave his life, for the sin of the world.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Give me an example of how a negative action is the same as a positive one.

There was a man who bought a fine steed. All his neighbors came to congratulate him on his great fortune. He said that sometime that which seems like good fortune can be bad fortune. That night the horse broke free and ran away.

All the neighbors came to commiserate on his bad fortune. He said that sometimes that which seems like bad fortune can be good fortune. Two weeks later the horse returned with a herd of wild horses.

All the neighbors came to celebrate his good fortune. He replied that which seems like good fortune could be bad fortune. The next day his only son broke his leg breaking in the wild horses.

All the neighbors came to commiserate his bad fortune. He said that sometimes bad fortune could be good fortune. The next day officials from the Emperor came to consript all able bodied young men to fight a bloody war.

So, you see, sometimes that at which seems like bad fortune can be good fortune.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You make statements, but have no clue or idea why Christ was given for the sin of the world.

You have yet to convince me Christ was given for the sin of the world.

You criticize, but don't give the reason as to why Christ gave his life, for the sin of the world.

See previous statement. I criticize because this is indeed injustice, as the OP pointed out- if it's true.

Now do you have any idea or clue.of course you don't, otherwise you would haved given the reason.

Are you saying that if I don't agree with you, I can't talk about a subject? Or do you think this actually proves your position? By asking me if I understand it?

But you can criticize and have nothing to back up your criticism of why Christ gave his life, for the sin of the world.

I can criticize and do not have to back up my criticism by your standard.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's this kind of syrupy babble that leaves me all fuzzy headed when I read it. What exactly does all this mean? Explain it please. In plain English. I'm fuzzy headed.

Okay.... thats odd. You never heard of love expressed positively?


I see love as: teaching, example, learning, communication, expression, being one.

Teaching a child what he did wrong helps him understand why he is disciplined. He wont be left in the dark. Justice doesnt teach. It makes one a slave to living "correctly" ratber than a desire to live in a loving family.

Learning and wisdom are also key to love. When you love someone, you dont yell at him for his mistakes. There is no revenge in love . No needed justice. You build a relationship knowing each others boundries. Not punished. The consequences are not nustice, they are life (not surpy.). We punish ouselves by our actions. No outsider needed.

Communication. When you have love you have no need to insult. Your faith should teach how to see lessons in the speech of others not faults. Without communication say with loved ones, how are you expressing your love?

Expression. If you are a child of christ expression should be on your tongue and body language? Is god's love surpy? Tbats how you define it.

Being one. For you body of christ. For me all humans and earth and self. No one is excluded.

Love is not about seperations.
No faults
No death
No justice rather than self consequence

If you know know no love, how are you christian.....a person for that matter? Who are you if not man?

 

[pearl]

The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place.

The thinking was that Jesus was offered to 'redeem', to buy back, to pay the ransom. But there's a catch. It was a God who was offended, only one of equal stature could offer the ransom. In this model of the Incarnation Jesus was an afterthought, offered as a scapegoat for man's sin against God. There is another model, maybe prior to, that Jesus was first thought and the reason for the Incarnation was God's desire to be in solidarity with man, the purpose of creation was Incarnation.
Would the Son of God have become incarnate if humanity had not sinned? Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) answered in the negative, viewing the Incarnation as a remedy for sin. Franciscan John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), disagreed with Thomas's emphasis on sin. Duns Scotus proclaimed and defended the primacy of the Incarnation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Okay.... thats odd. You never heard of love expressed positively?


I see love as: teaching, example, learning, communication, expression, being one.

Teaching a child what he did wrong helps him understand why he is disciplined. He wont be left in the dark. Justice doesnt teach. It makes one a slave to living "correctly" ratber than a desire to live in a loving family.

Learning and wisdom are also key to love. When you love someone, you dont yell at him for his mistakes. There is no revenge in love . No needed justice. You build a relationship knowing each others boundries. Not punished. The consequences are not nustice, they are life (not surpy.). We punish ouselves by our actions. No outsider needed.

Communication. When you have love you have no need to insult. Your faith should teach how to see lessons in the speech of others not faults. Without communication say with loved ones, how are you expressing your love?

Expression. If you are a child of christ expression should be on your tongue and body language? Is god's love surpy? Tbats how you define it.

Being one. For you body of christ. For me all humans and earth and self. No one is excluded.

Love is not about seperations.
No faults
No death
No justice rather than self consequence

If you know know no love, how are you christian.....a person for that matter? Who are you if not man?

Good luck with all that. The world around me is radically different.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There was a man who bought a fine steed. All his neighbors came to congratulate him on his great fortune. He said that sometime that which seems like good fortune can be bad fortune. That night the horse broke free and ran away.

All the neighbors came to commiserate on his bad fortune. He said that sometimes that which seems like bad fortune can be good fortune. Two weeks later the horse returned with a herd of wild horses.

All the neighbors came to celebrate his good fortune. He replied that which seems like good fortune could be bad fortune. The next day his only son broke his leg breaking in the wild horses.

All the neighbors came to commiserate his bad fortune. He said that sometimes bad fortune could be good fortune. The next day officials from the Emperor came to consript all able bodied young men to fight a bloody war.

So, you see, sometimes that at which seems like bad fortune can be good fortune.

Nice. Sounds buddhistic. What "seems" like? This is going off one's perspective of what is bad or good not the event itself. On that note and story good and bad or morality and truth does not exist apart from a person.....

So your belief in gods justice is the same as him being pure love. They are one. You csnt call god just. He is love. I cant call god love. He is just.

If you believe the opposite of what I say, what about my "perspective"" of god being love is the same as god bring justice.

By facts not differing perspectives as in your story.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good luck with all that. The world around me is radically different.

You see all negative?

I live the view I posted. I learned that communication, knowledge expression etc does in real present life makes me see things in the light. Unless you were raised in the dark, how do you find light?

What is light to you when you define it as darkness?

Are you following for god only because he is just?

 

[Katzpur]

OP: I was tempted to respond, but I'm wondering why you are even asking the question. You have clearly stated, "I know what you're all going to say and it's stupid." Since I'm no masochist, I see no reason to encourage you to insult me further. If your question had been posed in a real, "I'd like to be able to understand this" tone, I'd have been happy to discuss it with you. I hope everybody else has fun hearing you tell them they're stupid. I guess some people are into that.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You have yet to convince me Christ was given for the sin of the world.



See previous statement. I criticize because this is indeed injustice, as the OP pointed out- if it's true.



Are you saying that if I don't agree with you, I can't talk about a subject? Or do you think this actually proves your position? By asking me if I understand it?



I can criticize and do not have to back up my criticism by your standard.

Look by the law of God, blood had to be given as an atonement for sin.

Where in the old testament, blood of goats and lambs were given for the atonement for sin, once a year.
Where the blood of Christ Jesus was given once, for all time.
If the blood of Christ Jesus was not given, then by the law of God, we all would be sentance to death.
But Christ Jesus freely gave his blood in our place for the atonement of sin.for breaking the law of God's.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Look by the law of God, blood had to be given as an atonement for sin.

No I don't think so. In fact, Jews don't agree with you. The Hebrew Bible doesn't agree with you. Kindly point out to me where sacrifice comes into the following passages:

2 Chronicles 7:14
Isaiah 1:18

Where in the old testament, blood of goats and lambs were given for the atonement for sin, once a year.

The law says the sacrifice was done yearly, which is not the same as intent. I've encountered the view among Jews that the sacrifices only atoned for unintentional sin. Not intentional.

Leviticus 4:27-28

Where the blood of Christ Jesus was given once, for all time.

One problem. The god of the Jews doesn't accept human sacrifice. The alleged sacrifice of Jesus also wasn't done in the prescribed ceremonial manner, even if the Jewish god did.

If the blood of Christ Jesus was not given, then by the law of God, we all would be sentance to death.

You might be. I'm not subject to any god's wrath or baser impulses by the protective power of the Buddha's Dharma. He comes from the Unconstructed.

I appeal to a Way higher than any spiritual being that may act in malice.

Whatever riches there may be here or in the heavens- that excellent treasure is not equal unto the Realized One. This treasure is in the Buddha. By virtue of this truth, may there be safety!- traditional Buddhist prayer against malevolence, including wrathful deities and spirits

A wrathful deity might grind a practitioner's body to powder and still they wouldn't lose a whit of Buddha merit accumulated, or the free merits of the Bodhisattvas, or the great seal of Vairocana Buddha that protects against lesser births.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Oh, He could break them but then He would not be righteous. If He were not righteous He would not be fit to judge man.

So, no-- he cannot break them then.

NOT all-powerful.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Always interesting when non-Christians try to pick apart things they do not understand.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Always interesting when non-Christians try to pick apart things they do not understand.

I imagine Jews might say the same about their scriptures

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Except all scripture was passed down to future believers including Christians.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Except all scripture was passed down to future believers including Christians.

I guess that means anyone believing automatically interprets it correctly, does it?

 

[Faithofchristian]

No I don't think so. In fact, Jews don't agree with you. The Hebrew Bible doesn't agree with you. Kindly point out to me where sacrifice comes into the following passages:

2 Chronicles 7:14
Isaiah 1:18



The law says the sacrifice was done yearly, which is not the same as intent. I've encountered the view among Jews that the sacrifices only atoned for unintentional sin. Not intentional.

Leviticus 4:27-28



One problem. The god of the Jews doesn't accept human sacrifice. The alleged sacrifice of Jesus also wasn't done in the prescribed ceremonial manner, even if the Jewish god did.



You might be. I'm not subject to any god's wrath or baser impulses by the protective power of the Buddha's Dharma. He comes from the Unconstructed.

I appeal to a Way higher than any spiritual being that may act in malice.

Whatever riches there may be here or in the heavens- that excellent treasure is not equal unto the Realized One. This treasure is in the Buddha. By virtue of this truth, may there be safety!- traditional Buddhist prayer against malevolence, including wrathful deities and spirits

A wrathful deity might grind a practitioner's body to powder and still they wouldn't lose a whit of Buddha merit accumulated, or the free merits of the Bodhisattvas, or the great seal of Vairocana Buddha that protects against lesser births.

You do as alot of people do, .you bring one verse and go about trying to build a whole mountain off of it.

If had you back up to Beginning of Isaiah Chapter 1, you would had found out that God was displeased with Israel. About their Sacrifices of goats and lambs.
Which lead God to say to Israel in Verse 18, "Come now, let's is reason together.

Why is it that instead of backing up to the beginning of the Chapter and see what the subject and Article is about. No instead, pick out one verse and try to build a whole mountain off of it.

If you had, You would had seen the subject is about Israel's sacrifices of goats and lambs, Bullock's. That God was displeased with. All because Israel was doing them, but Leaving out the true meaning of the Sacrifices.