Am I a bad Christian, cause i think gods love conquers death instead of legal atonement?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 29
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
i posted this in the wrong forum, so i'm reposting. i need to try harder to be careful where i post, this is like the third or fourth time ive made that mistake in the years ive been here.



I think that instead of us having a legal relationship with God to appease God's wrath, we have a parent child relationship to magnify God's love. The relationship is like the prodigal son.

The bible does say that Jesus dying prevented God's wrath, but the distinction is that that don't imply appeasing God's wrath.

The bible said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. Literally, instead of saying we have a legal relationship with God then like is said in western Christianity, we no longer have a legal relationship with him.

There r verses that say Jesus became sin for us, and by his wounds we r healed. But these just mean that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice. Love wouldn't let Jesus die, Jesus conquered sin and death with his sacrifice. He could have engaged in the Christian doctrine of self defense, but he chose to offer himself instead. The Bible says the spirit that rose Jesus from the dead lives in us and will raise us from the dead. We are adopted children of God and brothers of Jesus when we believe in Jesus and try to do his will.

This is basically, christus Victor atonement instead of penal substitution. Christie Victor was the predominate view in the early church, the other was minority view. Penal substitution is also based in paganism, a blood sacrifice on a technicality, instead of a sacrifice of first fruit, an offering of ones gifts in sacrifice. The bible says god takes no pleasure in burnt offerings but prefers gifts of the heart. Of course, they usually talked in terms of ransom, I think, so me saying love conquers death as central might be heretical or not pure doctrine. My love conquers death ideas are present in all forms of atoenment historically, just not the critical part of the theories. it should be the critical part.

FishChaser
FishChaser's avatar
Debates: 61
Posts: 228
2
4
6
FishChaser's avatar
FishChaser
2
4
6
There are only 2 kinds of good Christians.

1: The ones who stop being Christians because they realize how shitty and stupid it is.

2: The ones who suffer and die.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,228
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
Why do you humanize this "God"? Is the christian God a human-like being? Don't you think this is a childish way to aproach the concept of "God"?

Grow up, man.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,313
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim


What is it with god and his BLOOD  lust  ?

How does this appease and satisfy him?


The bible said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. 

Where in the bible does it say this?
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
Colossians 2:13
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Stephen
It ain't so much that blood lust satisfies God. It's that sin and death, took down Jesus, as Jesus chose not to fight back, and divine love brought him back to life
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 4,226
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Why not both?
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,313
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Stephen wrote: What is it with god and his BLOOD  lust  ?

How does this appease and satisfy him?

It ain't so much that blood lust satisfies God.  It's that sin and death, took down Jesus, as Jesus chose not to fight back, and divine love brought him back to life.

It still doesn't explain why something or someone has to die in a  blood sacrifice.  Why not simply state and admit ones  wrong doing and your loving god forgive the wrong doer?

You didn't address this below 
n8nrgim wrote: The bible said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. 

Where in the bible does it say this?

n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Stephen
i wrote the colassions quote in the post before my last one. per the legal requirements being nailed to the cross. 
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[d] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[e]

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,223
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Zed Victor says.

That that none of what you presented in your opening gambit, actually makes any sense.

All irrelevant gobbledegook by modern standards.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 266
Posts: 7,369
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Every proof for God is considered incorrect and there is no proof you could possibly present to convince us, so even if you showed us God then we still wouldnt believe.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Mharman
i dont like penal substitution theory. i dont like the idea that we have a legal relationship with God. i dont like that the point is to satisfy God's wrath and blood lust. i dont like scapegoats. it's based in paganism and isn't biblical other than as a possible interpretation. so, i prefer 'christus victor' theory, with my focus on god's love conquering sin and death. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,313
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
 i dont like that the point is to satisfy God's wrath and blood lust. 

Having been beaten to near death, nailed to a cross and speared between the ribs, doesn't seem to have "washed away the sins of the world", does it?  So gods wrath wasn't satisfied by any means was it? Or was this waste of life only temporary?

And nothing you have posted so far goes anywhere near in explaining why any type of sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins was needed. Why couldn't your ever so loving  god simply say - from this day on all sins are forgiven?
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Stephen
at a certain point, it just boils down to some things are the way they are... just cause that's the way they are. we grow out of turmoil... could we grow without turmoil? maybe, i dunno. i know love that overcomes something is made to be refined. difficult people and situations help us grow. why is it that way? because free will and love require it, to be made pure. if you keep asking why, though, it boils down to 'that's just the way it is'. same way, when jesus chose not to fight back, he conquered sin and death. he was attacked by it, just like us ordinary humans are. he overcame struggle, just like us humans. God wanted jesus to be like us, and it's a certain poetic. and like the overcoming turmoil thing... if you keep asking why, the ultimate answer is 'that's just the way it is'. answers are given to you constantly... you just dont like the answers. the bible says God's ways are above our ways, and God's ways are foolishness to the world. that doesn't mean God's ways are wrong. 'let God be true though every man a liar". 
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@n8nrgim
i dont like penal substitution theory. i dont like the idea that we have a legal relationship with God. i dont like that the point is to satisfy God's wrath and blood lust. i dont like scapegoats. it's based in paganism and isn't biblical other than as a possible interpretation. so, i prefer 'christus victor' theory, with my focus on god's love conquering sin and death. 
I sympathize, but scapegoats are firmly biblical. And since God's covenant with the Israelites, his relationship with humanity was always fairly legal in nature. Sin itself is just violation of God's law. You can't really escape the legal element.

No matter what form of atonement theory you subscribe to -- penal substitution, recapitulation theory, ransom theory, satisfaction theory -- Christ is pretty much a scapegoat no matter what.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4

That link has some atonment theories. I think my love idea is in all of them, but mostly the recapitulation theory. I think most would focus on the obedience of Jesus, and that's fair, but I would just as much emphasize God love conquering sin and death
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
The recapitulation theory is part of the broader christus Victor theory, the dominant view of the early church
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
Jesus said greater love has nothing greater than this, to lay down his life for his friends. Jesus made one of these greatest sacrifices one can make... that's also central to a proper understanding of atonement
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,342
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
I think that instead of us having a legal relationship with God to appease God's wrath, we have a parent child relationship to magnify God's love. The relationship is like the prodigal son.
Have you ever considered that there are numerous ways of attempting to understand our relationship with God?

God's wrath tends to be the Western World's cultural fallback position. Other places focus on shame and honour and others on other things. I don't think that if one focuses on one - that means that it is wrong or that the others are incorrect either. 

I take the view that Jesus does atone for our sins. That's reasonably clear from Isaiah 53 that it was a substitutionary act. And that springs from the idea of the ScapeGoat in the first five books of Genesis.  There is also the notion of the ransom. I think they both go hand in hand. It is not that one is right and therefore the other must be wrong. 

God's wrath of course is something we need to deal with as Christians. God's love is real. But it is not unconditional. Nor is it to be assumed. I think that the better concept to consider is the holiness of God. God is holy. And I take the view that his holiness encapsulates all of the rest of his attributes. 


The bible does say that Jesus dying prevented God's wrath, but the distinction is that that don't imply appeasing God's wrath.
The Bible does say that God's wrath is real. Jesus' death on the cross doesn't stop God's wrath completely. It will still be applied to those who don't trust in Christ.  Judgment Day is still coming. And those who think that they can deal with God without Christ are in for a shock. 

The bible said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. Literally, instead of saying we have a legal relationship with God then like is said in western Christianity, we no longer have a legal relationship with him.
The Bible talks about a covenant relationship with humanity that was broken.  Colossians 2:14 Paul is talking to those who were once dead but are now Christians, having been made alive with Christ, when they were forgiven by God. This implies that they had sinned and needed forgiveness from God.  God set aside the record of their debt with its consequences when Jesus died on the cross.  In Christ, they died, and in Christ, they rose. This verse doesn't say we don't have a relationship with God, but rather the opposite. It says that now, in Christ, people can have a relationship. 

There r verses that say Jesus became sin for us, and by his wounds we r healed. But these just mean that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice. Love wouldn't let Jesus die, Jesus conquered sin and death with his sacrifice. He could have engaged in the Christian doctrine of self defense, but he chose to offer himself instead. The Bible says the spirit that rose Jesus from the dead lives in us and will raise us from the dead. We are adopted children of God and brothers of Jesus when we believe in Jesus and try to do his will.
Yes. Isaiah 53 amongst others. That passage describes how God took on human weakness. It asks us to consider the question of why would God become mortal. Humanity wants to live forever but God chose to give up mortality. Yes, I think love comes into it. But God also knew that humans couldn't atone for themselves. As that passage says, everyone else went astray. Hence, God has to intervene. Only he could do what was necessary. Jesus died but he couldn't stay dead because death couldn't hold him down. He was holy. Sinless. Perfect. Unlike the rest of humanity. 

This is basically, christus Victor atonement instead of penal substitution. Christie Victor was the predominate view in the early church, the other was minority view. Penal substitution is also based in paganism, a blood sacrifice on a technicality, instead of a sacrifice of first fruit, an offering of ones gifts in sacrifice. The bible says god takes no pleasure in burnt offerings but prefers gifts of the heart. Of course, they usually talked in terms of ransom, I think, so me saying love conquers death as central might be heretical or not pure doctrine. My love conquers death ideas are present in all forms of atoenment historically, just not the critical part of the theories. it should be the critical part.
Thanks for your thoughts.  Love is powerful there is no doubt. But what conquered death, was not love all by itself. It included very clearly the concept of holiness. God is holy. He is perfect and sinless. If Jesus had love but was not sinless, he would not have risen from the dead. Paul reiterated the prophets of old when he said the wages of sin is death.  Death comes for all men. And will keep you dead, if you have sinned. Christ didn't sin. Death couldn't hold him. And those who trust in Christ will rise with him on the last day.  That's the message of the Bible. 


n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
The Bible talks about a covenant relationship with humanity that was broken. Colossians 2:14 Paul is talking to those who were once dead but are now Christians, having been made alive with Christ, when they were forgiven by God. This implies that they had sinned and needed forgiveness from God. God set aside the record of their debt with its consequences when Jesus died on the cross. In Christ, they died, and in Christ, they rose. This verse doesn't say we don't have a relationship with God, but rather the opposite. It says that now, in Christ, people can have a relationship. 
Yea but do u agree that literally the bible says we no longer have a legal relationship with God? There's not a lot in the new testament about it, but that verse I quoted said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. Western Christianity hangs everything on that point, legal atonement, but it don't seem biblical so far as I can tell
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,313
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
n8nrgim wrote @ Tradesecret; Yea but do u agree that literally the bible says we no longer have a legal relationship with God? 

And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh. Genesis 6:3

Looks like god told us we are on our own.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,342
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
The Bible talks about a covenant relationship with humanity that was broken. Colossians 2:14 Paul is talking to those who were once dead but are now Christians, having been made alive with Christ, when they were forgiven by God. This implies that they had sinned and needed forgiveness from God. God set aside the record of their debt with its consequences when Jesus died on the cross. In Christ, they died, and in Christ, they rose. This verse doesn't say we don't have a relationship with God, but rather the opposite. It says that now, in Christ, people can have a relationship. 
Yea but do u agree that literally the bible says we no longer have a legal relationship with God? There's not a lot in the new testament about it, but that verse I quoted said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. Western Christianity hangs everything on that point, legal atonement, but it don't seem biblical so far as I can tell
Of course, we have a legal relationship with God. We have a covenantal relationship with him.  And if we are adopted into his family, that too is a legal relationship. As his children though, those of us in Christ, are not facing the judge as a judge in a criminal sense. Although we will be judged for our good works as Christians. 

I think the West does focus on the legal atonement. I also think it is correct. This doesn't make the other views incorrect. I think all three or four views are valid. Yet God has placed each of us where we are and he did so for a purpose.  The person who deals with the honour/shame system, still needs to trust that Jesus' death satisfies God's wrath. 
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Castin
I think it's possible to look at Jesus's death beyond scapegoats. A proper understanding of sacrifice is offering one's gifts, ones first fruit. Bloody sacrifices with the intent to substitute one's own sins is rooted in paganism.... bloody sacrifices with the intent of offering a gift is not pagan. Intent matters. As I said the bible says burnt offerings and such r not what matter, it's a heart matter. Yes Jesus death was substitution in that he defeated sin and death on our behalf and was a sacrifice of himself, the greatest act of love. 


Bloody sacrifices boil down to intent and proper understanding 
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
Googles ai intelligence says there's no consensus on if Jesus was a scapegoat. It depends on how u define scapegoats. Eastern Christians and the various theories of atonement of course allow for bloody sacrifice but the meaning varies by regions and by theories etc
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
So if u believe in penal substitution... do you think God punished Jesus on our behalf? I think it'd intuitively not sit right with a lot of Christians to say God punished Jesus. If you don't view it as punishing, how do you distinguish to say he wasn't punished but yet was our penal substitute? 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,342
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
So if u believe in penal substitution... do you think God punished Jesus on our behalf? I think it'd intuitively not sit right with a lot of Christians to say God punished Jesus. If you don't view it as punishing, how do you distinguish to say he wasn't punished but yet was our penal substitute? 
yes, I think God punished Jesus on our behalf.  

You need to think of it more as a civil punishment rather than a criminal one. 

The wages of sin is death.  Death is the appropriate punishment for people when they sin.  And if they can't afford to pay for it, then someone else can stand in and take it for them. Think of it like a fine for breaking the law. The fine must be paid or you end up going to prison. But someone else can pay for it. 

Isaiah 53 specifically says God punished Jesus for our sins.  He paid the price we could not pay and live. 

The fact that he was innocent meant that he would stay dead. He knew death could not hold him down. He knew he would live again. But we couldn't pay for someone else because we were not perfect and if we paid for ourselves, then we would die and that would be it. Jesus paid for those who trust in him. He paid their debt and now they have been set free. 

Either Jesus pays for our debt or we pay for it ourselves.  If Jesus pays for it then our debt is paid and we live. If We pay for it ourselves, then well, we do. But we don't live.  

Jesus was willing to do this for his Father and for his people.  IT's a civil debt as opposed to a criminal one. That's why it is acceptable for someone else to pay for it. 
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@n8nrgim
I think it's possible to look at Jesus's death beyond scapegoats. A proper understanding of sacrifice is offering one's gifts, ones first fruit. Bloody sacrifices with the intent to substitute one's own sins is rooted in paganism.... bloody sacrifices with the intent of offering a gift is not pagan. Intent matters. As I said the bible says burnt offerings and such r not what matter, it's a heart matter. Yes Jesus death was substitution in that he defeated sin and death on our behalf and was a sacrifice of himself, the greatest act of love. 


Bloody sacrifices boil down to intent and proper understanding 
Mate, I think you're trying to disavow elements of your religion you don't like as "pagan".

You said scapegoats are pagan, but they are quite biblical.

    Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.
You say bloody sacrifices for sin are pagan, but Leviticus has some provisions for sacrificing animals for atonement. The groundwork is there.

    If anyone of the ordinary people among you sins unintentionally in doing any one of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done and incurs guilt, when the sin that you have committed is made known to you, you shall bring a female goat without blemish as your offering, for the sin that you have committed. You shall lay your hand on the head of the purification offering; the purification offering shall be slaughtered at the place of the burnt offering. The priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and he shall pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all its fat, as the fat is removed from the sacrifice of well-being, and the priest shall turn it into smoke on the altar for a pleasing odor to the Lord. Thus the priest shall make atonement on your behalf, and you shall be forgiven.
You think penal substitution is pagan -- yet Christians have always taken inspiration from Isaiah to get there.

    Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all [...] It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.
Again, I understand your perspective, but your interpretation and penal substitution are equally valid. Attempting to say that penal substitution is more rooted in "paganism" just seems like reverting to the old standby of calling a competing Christianity "unchristian" -- which Christians have been doing for thousands of years. It's not rooted in paganism, it's rooted in the Bible.
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Castin
u do have a good point, that it's certainly plausible biblically and historically to argue penal substitution. but it's fair for me to criticize other christians and state why i think my theories are better. as i said, penal substitution is rooted in paganism, and it wasn't very established until st anslem wrote about a thousand years after jesus. i would also point out, that the old testament passages you point to, could just basically say a scapegoat or jesus bearing our sins, is when he deafeats our sin and death, he bore the sins of the world on him, even in my theory. i admit there's a certain 'pure logic' to penal substitution, i just dont think with my spiritual eyes that it's what God intends. i realize a lot of the other atonemnt theories are hard to rationalize as right, but recapitulation seems pretty solid as a christus victor model. i understand my love conquers death point isn't very established within christianity as a central tenant of atonement, but it's always been part of every theory of atonemnt. if st anslem can break ground a thousand years after jesus, there's no reason i can't break ground two thosuand years after jesus. i think a skeptic would argue the jesus atonemnt thing just doesn't make sense, and all us christains trying to come to terms with it and being scattershot with it, just shows we're 'rationalize' something that dont make sense. but i prefer thinking with spirtual eyes and biblically... and as i said, it's fair for me to say why i think my or our version of  atonement is better. this is a debate website, after all.