Except that for every bit of scripture there are many interpretations. You might not think that "Jesus died for your sins", but many Christians do believe that, and it's that belief that the OP was about. It's that belief that I take exception to.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Christian cross a symbol representing Scapegoating?
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Except that for every bit of scripture there are many interpretations. You might not think that "Jesus died for your sins", but many Christians do believe that, and it's that belief that the OP was about. It's that belief that I take exception to.
You have two points here (perhaps three).
1) No scripture offered that Adam and Eve were born broken
2) Jesus did die for my sins... but that has nothing to do with the reality of what God created.
3) If you haven't sinned... please let me know and perhaps you might then have a point.
Grandliseur
Well-Known Member
That is not the term I object to in your post.
Rather, the following is:
That Jesus is our scapegoat and takes on our sins is actually what caused this scapegoat to be used originally. There is a sin offering in the Mosaic law using a goat depicting Jesus' sacrifice. This was the goat of Azazel. (Leviticus 16:20-22)
However, this comes with a scriptural explanation of how Jesus took upon himself our sins. When you then say that this is "morally bankrupt" this becomes highly offensive and anti-Christ. Again, you have the right to your beliefs, and Christians to theirs. When you take this stance, God and Christ themselves shall become your enemies. Good luck with that. Setting yourself up against the one who is powerful and knowledgeable enough to create this universe, all the suns, is a really really good idea.
I just don't want to stand next to you once the pain begins.
1 - The OP is not about scripture, it's about what many Christians believe.
3 - Since when does being critical of an idea require that the critic be without sin in general?
Now for your point #2...
My claim is that (since you said that you believe Jesus died for your sins), you are using Jesus as a scapegoat. You are "believing" that Jesus's sacrifice is allowing you to shift punishment from you to him. If that's not what you believe, then can you explain what the phrase "Jesus died for our sins" means to you?
That is not the term I object to in your post.
Rather, the following is:
That Jesus is our scapegoat and takes on our sins is actually what caused this scapegoat to be used originally. There is a sin offering in the Mosaic law using a goat depicting Jesus' sacrifice. This was the goat of Azazel. (Leviticus 16:20-22)
However, this comes with a scriptural explanation of how Jesus took upon himself our sins. When you then say that this is "morally bankrupt" this becomes highly offensive and anti-Christ. Again, you have the right to your beliefs, and Christians to theirs. When you take this stance, God and Christ themselves shall become your enemies. Good luck with that. Setting yourself up against the one who is powerful and knowledgeable enough to create this universe, all the suns, is a really really good idea.
I just don't want to stand next to you once the pain begins.
Well here in the debate forum I can say that I find this scapegoating idea to be offensive and of course you can say that you find my criticism offensive. Hooray, we're debating! (Seriously, I think debate is a good thing.)
As for being "anti-Christ", are you saying that if one doesn't agree with Christ 100% of the time, then one is "anti-Christ"? So if I agree with Jesus's teaching only 99% of the time I'm "anti-Christ"?
If so, that seems extremely dogmatic to me, and that gets us back to the idea that redemption is offered only when you give up your critical thinking skills. That seems like a cruel and capricious deal.
InChrist
Free4ever
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
It should be a common response from anyone who knows Jesus Christ as their God and Savior and understands the plain meaning of the scriptures. Not sure at all how you come to the conclusion that it is a knee-jerk canned response that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The Bible connects God's love to Jesus' willing payment for the sins of humanity on the cross, clearly and repeatedly.
Then, as a Christian, I believe you misrepresented the position. I know pastors from over 1 dozen denominations and none of them believe God created man broken. They all believe that God created man sinless and that is was a wilfull choice to be separated from God which is what made him broken.
Why can't I make sure we are on the same page?
As I mentioned before, the "scapegoat" comes from Jewish scriptures and, as a Christian, believe it was a type and shadow of the Messiah. (Yes, there are Jews who would disagree that it was a type and shadow but agree that there was a scapegoat).
I have no problem with one person laying his life down for another. Apparently you disagree and find it unhealthy but the thought of laying your life down for another person is commonly engrained in people and demonstrated in many ways.
Why do you find it wrong?
Can you explain this in your own words? without quoting any scripture?
Am I understanding you to mean that we weren't born broken until Eve ate that apple, but since then we've been born, each individual, broken?
This thread isn't about origins. It's about what some people believe in this modern age. Discussing origins can be very interesting, but it's a distraction in this thread.
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, there are at least two distinct situations being discussed here and IMO it's a mistake to conflate them.
Situation 1 - When a person lays down his life for his fellows, e.g. in battle. I have no issue with this sort of sacrifice.
Situation 2 - When a person unilaterally declares that another person is a sinner and that he'll lay down his life to assume the sinner's punishment. I have many issues with that situation:
First off, thanks for the offer Jesus, but no thanks, I don't like it.
Second, I find the idea that I was born broken to be extremely offensive, so I don't accept the very premise.
Third, I find the idea that one person can shoulder the punishment for another person to be morally wrong. E.g. should a convicted rich man be able to pay to have an innocent poor man do the rich man's jail time for him? I think not!
lol... it doesn't say apple, but yes.
OOPS! I did ask you if I sinned and got my hand spanked for it. Are you saying you are not broken?
Only for you. This is a debate forum and we can't pick and choose relevancy. In as much as God said there was a substitute back in Gen 3 and continued the narrative througout the OT including, but not limited to, the scapegoat... I find it VERY relative.
Good... because spiritually it is a battle.
No problem on my side. Jesus, like a doctor, comes for the sick. You have a free will and have every right to exercise it.
Perhaps we have a different definition of broken. A baby is not a sinner. People eventually sin and, in my definition, means that we are spiriutally broken. I never had to teach my children to lie, the did that on their own. I had to teach my children to tell the truth... does that equate that something MAY be broken?
That is your personal view that apparently the God of the Bible doesn't agree with. Maybe it's how you process it?
A son gets into payment that he couldn't afford and he is about to be sued for failure of payment... the dad steps in and pays the fine, the interest and the complete debt.
Sounds like a very normal happening.
Are you upset that Jesus wanted to pay the penalty of others? Laying his life down in the battle for human souls?
InChrist
Free4ever
Because God is eternal, pure, and holy His justice demands an eternal penalty for anything which falls short and violates His perfect standards. The scriptures call such actions sin. Finite human beings can never meet God's standards, simply because humans are not God, nor can a finite being pay an eternal penalty for sin. Yet, because God is Love as well as Just He came to live in human flesh, in the Person of Jesus Christ to be the representative for the human race and pay for the sins of humanity Himself demonstrating His love to all.
I guess it depends on your definition of "broken". Of course, as a card carrying human being I have made mistakes. So if making mistakes (e.g. lying) means I'm broken ny your definition, then of course I'm broken. But the best I can do is acknowledge my mistakes, make amends if possible, and strive to do better in the future. What makes no sense to me is to believe that unless I ask god for redemption, I'm doomed to hellfire. Again, that seems a cruel bargain, hardly enlightened.
Ok, please connect the dots from OT origins to believing that scapegoating is a good idea as we approach 2018.
Well here we have a major difference in definitions. Making mistakes is inevitable, it's what you do about them that makes the difference.
This is just a different example of the conflation I brought up earlier. But let's dig into your debt scenario a little deeper. I would say that if the debt paying father lets his son off with no repercussions, that father is behaving badly. The son should suffer some punishment for his mistake. In your example we might conclude that the legal repercussions are more severe than the mistake, but that doesn't mean the son should get off scot free.
Last edited:
Mumbo-jumbo it isn't. That you refuse to engage Christianity beyond your ideologically self-serving caricatures of it is a failure on your part. Your premise is a misrepresentation.
This is scapegoating.
Scapegoating is to unjustly assign blame upon a person or group in order to detract it away from others. It's the avoidance of responsibility.
What happened at the crucifixion was more akin to paying off another's debt. Can you not imagine a scenario where out of good will a rich man pays off the debt of a poor man? Is the poor man scapegoating the rich one? (Under your absurd "argument", he is) Likewise, Jesus as both God and man was the only person capable of redeeming humanity. And He did so not because we merited it, but out of an act of divine love.
Far from avoiding responsibility, I would go so far as to state that post-Christ man is even more accountable for sin than man pre-Christ. Now when we sin, we not only spit on God's face (as it were), we also spit on our own unmerited redemption. If Christ were a scapegoat, that is to say, if Christ took our blame upon Himself, then it would be the opposite. There would be no answering for any sin.
Last edited:
I don't know, maybe there are some out there who do what your are suggesting. But anyone who is doing this is not really a Christian, they are just pretending. So you have to keep that in mind.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
The "Scapegoat" Atonement is quite new in Christian history, and perhaps that's why it's symbolized so readily in the cross. This theory didn't come about until the late 16th century. Prior, in chronological order, there were:
Ransom Theory: Jesus as the happy exchange (with Satan) - Mark 10:45
Recapitulation Theory: Jesus as teacher of true knowledge - Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD)
Satisfaction Theory: Jesus as God’s satisfaction - Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109)
Moral Theory: Jesus as moral example and influence - by Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
Penal-Substitution Theory: Jesus as the victorious champion and liberator - by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory
Governmental Theory: Jesus as the final scapegoat - formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)
Personally, I find Recapitulation and/or Moral Theory more in tune with Jesus' message/teaching.
Ransom Theory: Jesus as the happy exchange (with Satan) - Mark 10:45
Recapitulation Theory: Jesus as teacher of true knowledge - Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD)
Satisfaction Theory: Jesus as God’s satisfaction - Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109)
Moral Theory: Jesus as moral example and influence - by Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
Penal-Substitution Theory: Jesus as the victorious champion and liberator - by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory
Governmental Theory: Jesus as the final scapegoat - formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)
Personally, I find Recapitulation and/or Moral Theory more in tune with Jesus' message/teaching.
Last edited:
You're misquoting me, and you're conflating. I've addressed this conflation several times already in this thread.
You do as is typical of atheists on the internet. You set up a Christianity of your own imagining, tear it down and then pat yourself on the back about how rational you think you are. You've addressed nothing. Your OP doesn't even qualify as an argument, it's mere assertion.
Last edited:
That's an appalling view of God ─ a loveless nitpicking sadistic brute. Would you throw your dog into the fire because it dug up your lawn even though the dog understood your disapproval? And when it had burnt to death, bring it back to life and burn it to death again, and again, and again and again and again and so on into infinity? What view of justice is served by such wanton, gratuitous and obsessive spite?
InChrist
Free4ever
Your inaccurate view may be appalling, but the reality of God's eternal love is certainly not. I would not throw my dog into fire as in you weird, skewed analogy. Humans beings are not dogs and no where in the scriptures is it indicated that sinners are burnt to death, or brought back to life to burn again and again. So you are creating some kind of story out of your own imagination to attack as appalling and I agree you story is appalling.
According to the scriptures, humans are made in the image of God, created to be in relationship with God forever. God is in the process of perfecting, purifying, and refining any willing human beings to live eternally in His love, joy, and beauty. Justice and love requires that sin and its damaging effects be removed from the perfect eternal realm God has in planned. That is His goal and purpose.
Notice that I'm addressing ideas, and you've resorted to name calling. Despite that, let's carry on..
I have made ONE assertion about Christianity in this thread. I have not "set up Christianity" as you say, I've questioned one aspect of the faith. If I've got it wrong, then explain it to me in your own words. The idea of a scapegoat is that one person's punishment can be handed off to another being. How is the phrase "Jesus died for our sins" not an example of one person's punishment being handed off to another being?