There are so many of them that I would have no idea how to begin reconciling them. Each one introduces yet another barrier (the necessity of payment or punishment, the defeat of Satanic power, the return humanity to an Edenic state, the satisfaction of divine honour or wrath, the displacement of violent desire onto an alternative victim...) between God and humanity that exists only in our theologies. The moral influence theory - closest to my own position, except that I do not interpret Jesus' life as merely ethical in content - is not really an 'atonement theory' at all: Abelard's articulation of it was expressly against accounts of atonement that place a barrier on the divine side of the equation.
Of course, you can take these theories, de-theologize them, psychologize/anthropologize/politicize them into something more interesting to say about being human and how we seemingly find infinitely many ways of individually and collectively fucking up. But then, they are no longer atonement theories, at least in the sense of Jesus' crucifixion offering a way to overcome them.
I can see the argument, @Green as a Leaf, and I think I can understand why it appeals to some. But personally, I don’t find it convincing, at least in part because I question why we should think we understand what Jesus was saying better than those in the first generations of believers, who were closer to the source, as it were, and closer to the culture.
Yes, there is a certain extra-Temple approach we see, but it’s not presented as anti-Temple. If anything, Jesus’s “cleansing of the Temple” seems to me to be pro-Temple. The Pharisees, the scribes and the priests seem quick to call out what they see as violations of the Law on Jesus’s part, but if they accused him of ignoring obligations like sacrifices, we have no record of it. We do have record of John the Baptist calling Jesus “the Lamb of God,” and we have record of Jesus celebrating the Passover, which would have included sacrificing a lamb.
Beyond this historical argument, there is the simple theological question of what the crucifixion-as-atoning-sacrifice is actually supposed to have accomplished that was not possible without it.
As has been already said, there is a problem, at least in my view and I know the views of some others here, in linking “atonement” specifically to the crucifixion. The Incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus all are part of the event encompassed by “atonement.”
“In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself.” Not “in Christ’s death,” but “in Christ.” All of the Christ-event.
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
There’s a third place to stand, which is that Jesus saw himself as the temple. Which is actually at the heart of one of the accusations that got him crucified, a misremembering of his words “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Which John tells us, “he spoke of his own body,” and who was better placed to know that than one of the twelve?
There’s a third place to stand, which is that Jesus saw himself as the temple. Which is actually at the heart of one of the accusations that got him crucified, a misremembering of his words “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Which John tells us, “he spoke of his own body,” and who was better placed to know that than one of the twelve?
Excellent. Not only did he fulfil (all of) the law, was its object, he fulfilled its literal stone... rock, petra, lithos, (Daniel's meteorite anyone?) embodiment. He was Judaism transcendent.
I can see the argument, @Green as a Leaf, and I think I can understand why it appeals to some. But personally, I don’t find it convincing, at least in part because I question why we should think we understand what Jesus was saying better than those in the first generations of believers, who were closer to the source, as it were, and closer to the culture.
This is where we would really have to get into the historical critical weeds, I suppose. For starters, I don't think the New Testament contains very much at all from the first generation of believers, with the exception of parts of the Pauline epistles (which have been added to and edited far more than is usually recognised). And compared to the late 1st century through the late 2nd century compilers, editors, redactors of the documents as we now have them (all of whom were Greek-speaking elites), today we have quite a bit more historical info about the context than they did. That no doubt comes across as modern arrogance, but I think it's just correct. (Why does the New Testament not know of the Essenes, for example?)
Yes, there is a certain extra-Temple approach we see, but it’s not presented as anti-Temple. If anything, Jesus’s “cleansing of the Temple” seems to me to be pro-Temple. The Pharisees, the scribes and the priests seem quick to call out what they see as violations of the Law on Jesus’s part, but if they accused him of ignoring obligations like sacrifices, we have no record of it. We do have record of John the Baptist calling Jesus “the Lamb of God,” and we have record of Jesus celebrating the Passover, which would have included sacrificing a lamb.
No doubt my historical imagination is lacking, but I can't see why this would have given them reason to have Jesus killed. On your point about there being "no record" of Jesus being accused of failing to meet sacrificial obligations, we actually have countless examples: namely, every time Jesus is asked 'by what authority' he has to heal or forgive sins. These episodes have commonly been interpreted as a challenge to Jesus equating himself with God; many commentators however find it much more convincing to read this as Jesus equating himself with the Temple authorities' power to declare people clean/forgiven.
(And sorry but I do have to smile at how the Johannine author(s) put those words into John the Baptist's mouth - the Evangelist(s) had far greater historical imagination that I do.)
As has been already said, there is a problem, at least in my view and I know the views of some others here, in linking “atonement” specifically to the crucifixion. The Incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus all are part of the event encompassed by “atonement.”
“In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself.” Not “in Christ’s death,” but “in Christ.” All of the Christ-event.
Agree with much of this - particularly that we must interpret Jesus' life as a whole. (God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...no mention of any particular part of the Son's incarnate life, simply the pure gift of the Logos.)
But it is a point of historical fact that Christian atonement theories have traditionally been linked strongly to the crucifixion, and to a lesser extent the resurrection. This is no doubt because New Testament references to 'atonement' are almost always in connection with the Cross and utilise the sacrifice motif. We can of course expand the meaning of 'atonement' (following the usage of the English word rather than the Hebrew/Greek it has been used to translate) to the broader sense of 'reconciliation', though it seems to me that reconciliation belongs to quite a different metaphorical imaginary - in particularly, one that involves two parties working things out directly with each other rather than an intractable problem that can only be resolved by an intermediary third party who removes the problem by suffering it themselves.
The idea that God was reconciling the world to Godself through Christ also does not require seeing Jesus as a unique mediator. God seeks to work through all of us to reconcile the world to God. Jesus reveals what it means to be human in a broken world. So, no particular 'theory' of reconciliation is necessary - or at least, to offer one would be to offer an entire account of the ways God works through the created order, an attempt to say everything all at once.
There’s a third place to stand, which is that Jesus saw himself as the temple. Which is actually at the heart of one of the accusations that got him crucified, a misremembering of his words “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Which John tells us, “he spoke of his own body,” and who was better placed to know that than one of the twelve?
Certainly this view is there in the Gospel of John, and in Hebrews. In the Synoptics, Jesus positions himself more antagonistically as 'greater than the Temple'. Both can be read as anti-Temple standpoints, either replacing or competing with the Temple.
(I'm afraid I can't join you in your belief that the Gospel of John has much to do with one of Jesus' inner circle, nor that there is any reason to think Twelve had a better understanding of Jesus than anyone else.)
Yes, there is a certain extra-Temple approach we see, but it’s not presented as anti-Temple. If anything, Jesus’s “cleansing of the Temple” seems to me to be pro-Temple. The Pharisees, the scribes and the priests seem quick to call out what they see as violations of the Law on Jesus’s part, but if they accused him of ignoring obligations like sacrifices, we have no record of it. We do have record of John the Baptist calling Jesus “the Lamb of God,” and we have record of Jesus celebrating the Passover, which would have included sacrificing a lamb.
No doubt my historical imagination is lacking, but I can't see why this would have given them reason to have Jesus killed.
Why would that need to be the thing that hot him killed?
On your point about there being "no record" of Jesus being accused of failing to meet sacrificial obligations, we actually have countless examples: namely, every time Jesus is asked 'by what authority' he has to heal or forgive sins. These episodes have commonly been interpreted as a challenge to Jesus equating himself with God; many commentators however find it much more convincing to read this as Jesus equating himself with the Temple authorities' power to declare people clean/forgiven.
This doesn’t follow at all to me. In what way does criticizing Jesus for claiming to be God and forgiving sins suggest criticism for failing to meet sacrificial and ritual requirements?
They criticized him for not observing the Sabbath, to which his answer was that he was keeping the Sabbath. They criticized him for failing to observe ritual washing of hands, which wasn’t explicitly in the law. Why not sacrifices if that was an issue?
But it is a point of historical fact that Christian atonement theories have traditionally been linked strongly to the crucifixion, and to a lesser extent the resurrection.
It is a point of historical fact that some Christian atonement theories have linked primarily to the crucifixion.
I’d be grateful for a citation if you have it for Julian being asked if she were satisfied—because i just finished reading her, and can’t recall it.
It is the beginning of Chapter 12 of the Short Text or Chapter 22 of the Long Text.
"Then our good Lord Jesus Christ spoke, asking, 'Are you well pleased that I suffered for you?' I said, "Yes, my good Lord, thank you. Yes, my good Lord, blessed may you be!' Then Jesus, our kind Lord, said, "If you are pleased I am pleased. It is a joy, a delight and an endless happiness to me that I ever endured suffering for you, and if I could suffer more, I would suffer more.'"
Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love translated by Elizabeth Spearing, Penguin Classics 1998.
In an old translation that I wrote down years ago but didn't make a note of exactly where it was from it goes like this:
'Then said our good Lord Jesus Christ: Art thou well pleased that I suffered for thee? I said: Yea, good Lord, I thank Thee; Yea, good Lord, blessed mayst Thou be. Then said Jesus, our kind Lord: If thou art pleased, I am pleased: it is a joy, a bliss, an endless satisfying to me that ever suffered I Passion for thee; and if I might suffer more, I would suffer more."
Thank you for the citation and the quotes! This is so lovely.
I'm not entirely sure that it proves the point that Julian, at least, thought the Passion unnecessary. Clearly she thinks (he thinks?) Jesus goes above and beyond, and would do so purely for love's sake. And it doesn't rule OUT her thinking that there's no other value to it. So I guess we'll just have to leave it here?
But it's so nice to have this come up again--I think I may be due for a re-reading already.
There are many atonement theories, and that's not a bad thing IMHO--I mean, it's a feature, not a bug, to have a variety of models that help us think about it. If one isn't helpful to me, another one might be.
What we don't have is an over-arching explanation of how Christ's work does what it does (and I'm phrasing it that vaguely because when I was hunting for descriptions of WHAT it does, I realized most of the phrases committed me to a particular model or another.) We don't have a definitive statement from God/Christ that just spells it all out in words of one syllable or less--and if we had that, we wouldn't be hunting for theories, I suppose.
But it's not surprising to me, anyway, that we don't have an explanation. It's like that for a lot of things in this world.
We get told the "What"--that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," and also passages like "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ... I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father" (John 10:10-11, 14-18).
So evidently Jesus thinks this is necessary. He doesn't phrase it as an "if"--if an an enemy attacks, I'll lay down my life to protect the flock. He says he's already received the charge to do so. And you could probably build an atonement theory just out of this passage if you wanted...
I don't, particularly. If I'm teaching, I'll grab the atonement model that seems most likely to meet the needs of that particular passage and audience. But a model is not the thing itself, anymore than those gumdrop toothpick models kids make of atoms in school are the real thing. They are a way to get our heads around it. If they don't work for someone, it's okay to drop them.
As I’ve either said in this thread or the other thread we had on a similar subject, it reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Many grains of truth in the various perspectives, but no one perspective that’s complete and fully accurate. The reality is bigger than that.
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
As I’ve either said in this thread or the other thread we had on a similar subject, it reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Many grains of truth in the various perspectives, but no one perspective that’s complete and fully accurate. The reality is bigger than that.
Agreed. Each one could be true as well—sacrifice and scapegoat and ransom and more, all in one event/Person.
As well, though that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it, as Lewis put it, “The command was ‘take, eat,’ not ‘take, understand.’” We’re meant to engage with Christ, not just with one theory or another about Him.
That God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ(2 Cor 5.19) is probably accepted by most of us who contribute to this discussion, but the devil, no pun intended, is in the detail. This has been the history of Christianity, and has occupied the minds and the pens of many great minds over two millennia. I've never believed that anyone's salvation depends on understanding it, but much more on trust.
The sacrificial motif goes back as far as the NT and was very much part of the culture in which Jesus lived. Indeed it remained so until the Jews were forced to reinvent their religion in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple, but it was never univocal even in Scripture. "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs or of goats." (Isaiah 1.11) I desire mercy not sacrifice ( Hosea 6.6) has already been mentioned.
There is evidence, in the gospels, already cited on this thread that Jesus wasn't totally committed to the sacrificial system. He certainly believed in the Temple as a house of prayer and knew that God was in some way uniquely present there, but had utter disdain for the corrupt priestly caste who ran it.
The death of Jesus was certainly sacrificial, "not my will but your will " to the Father, but I still see it more as the model of self sacrificial love all people are called to, and which he told us to follow, than a replacement for bulls, lambs, and goats.
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
He did. As did his mother with less clarity. As a Christian steeped in the OT text, I did.
Why, oh why did Lamb Chopped have to mention pork chops?! 😂😭. I really want a couple of them right now! However, it's 11:15 p.m. here in Seattle and too late for me to take a bus to a grocery store.
Also, I'm not supposed to be eating very much meat for the next week.
For God so loved The5thMary that She caused The5thMary to completely forget about juicy, tender, Old Bay Seasoning and garlic powdered pork chops...
Maybe the physical system of sacrifice didn't come to end as such, but was transformed into a metaphysical system. In place of ongoing physical mediation of sacrifices by a human priesthood, there is a single Great High Priest. Death having been conquered, it now possible for His followers themselves to become living sacrifices, participating in ongoing sacrificial acts.
Thanks to all contributors for adding to what I'm finding a fascinating and thought-provoking thread.
Just a few thoughts ...
Ok, ok, I'm a convert to Orthodoxy so I'm predisposed to say this and please forgive me for I mean no harm ...
But so much of the very interesting musings about different 'models' and how we can mix and match and swap them around or apply whichever one 'suits' and how Jesus must have been some kind of Marxist revolutionary because we like Marxist revolutionaries and think they're cool ... 😎 sounds so very 'Western' to me now.
Ok. I'm going all Orthodox on you ... 😉
It's certainly the case that the crucifixion and Passion is at the heart of things - but always, always, always in the Eastern Christian traditions (I'm taking a punt and assuming this applies to the 'Oriental Orthodox' as well as Eastern Orthodox) the cross is linked to the Resurrection.
I've spoken about 'maximalism' before now. This is what I mean.
It's the whole thing. Not filleted chunks. We've had a salivating post from Seattle about a desire for pork chops at 11.15pm with no buses running.
Let's turn that on its head abd in way that may sound offensive given OT dietary laws ... but why salivate over late night convenience food? Why not look at the whole pig, the whole animal?
Sure, it'd be far more difficult to obtain a live pig, slaughter it, prepare and cook it, of course, whether we are in Seattle, Swansea or Seoul.
But let's use the pork chops as an analogy for a moment. Yes, they are juicy and tasty but there's a whole 'hinterland' and complex web of relationships, commerce and exchange that gets them onto your folk.
I've just been to Madagascar. There are no fastfood outlets anywhere on the island. You order ahead or you wait.
You become more aware of the process.
Like all analogies this only takes us so far.
But my point is that we need a holistic approach. The whole of the 'Christ Event' as both @Nick Tamen, myself and others are arguing, whatever other differences there might be in our theologies.
The NT doesn't mention the Essenes. No. But there are lots of other things it doesn't mention either.
And yes, the NT was shaped, edited and developed/curated by The ChurchTM as it evolved from the initial 'Jesus movement' within 1st century Judaism.
But if we ditch all that- and I'm not saying we shouldn't question or interrogate it - what do we have left? Jesus the Hippy? Jesus the Marxist revolutionary? Jesus the anachronistic Western liberal projected back in our own image into a 1st century context?
Heck, toxic German Nationalism projected a kind of Aryan Christ back into the pages of the NT.
The death of Jesus was certainly sacrificial, "not my will but your will " to the Father, but I still see it more as the model of self sacrificial love all people are called to, and which he told us to follow, than a replacement for bulls, lambs, and goats.
I think that the concept of self sacrifice is dangerous if it is taken to mean destruction or negation of the self rather than sharing of the self. The root of the English word 'sacrifice' is I believe to make sacred, not to unmake, and I think that's a much more helpful model for understanding it.
This is where Julian of Norwich gets to, possibly in parallel with Duns Scotus. I forget the timing, to be honest, but I have a feeling they are not that far apart. She does it by attributing the wrath which triggers the whole process not to God but to humanity. Christ asks Julian if she is satisfied by his death and ongoing suffering - "he was three days dried", and various other references to ongoing suffering. And if she is satisfied, then so is he. Christ suffers with and for us, but not in an atonement-like way. Purely in a way of "well, if that's the only way I can show them what love is and how it works, then I will, because the suffering isn't the end of the story - the resurrection and restored relationship are."
I don't find that for me that's a helpful way to think about how love works - that looks to me like an abusive relationship. (Penal substitution is also an abusive relationship.) One of the differences between love and similar concepts like compassion is that love doesn't need anyone to suffer to be love. There will be love in heaven, but no compassion in heaven, because there will be nothing to feel compassion for.
Julian's statement that she is satisfied by Christ's death makes her look sadistic unless Christ is suffering for a purpose other than satisfying her.
The general problem with atonement theories that rely on human psychology is that human psychology is pretty varied, and people react in different ways. I don't think Jesus died only for that subset of humanity that finds the Abelardian atonement helpful as a way to understand it.
The death of Jesus was certainly sacrificial, "not my will but your will " to the Father, but I still see it more as the model of self sacrificial love all people are called to, and which he told us to follow, than a replacement for bulls, lambs, and goats.
I think that the concept of self sacrifice is dangerous if it is taken to mean destruction or negation of the self rather than sharing of the self. The root of the English word 'sacrifice' is I believe to make sacred, not to unmake, and I think that's a much more helpful model for understanding it.
Yes, sacrifice and sacred come from the same root. The Hebrew word for sacrifice, korban, comes from a root meaning “to bring near,” and carries a sense of “offer,” at least as I understand it.
There is evidence, in the gospels, already cited on this thread that Jesus wasn't totally committed to the sacrificial system. He certainly believed in the Temple as a house of prayer and knew that God was in some way uniquely present there, but had utter disdain for the corrupt priestly caste who ran it.
This is part of what’s hanging me up here—I’m not seeing evidence in the gospels that Jesus wasn’t totally committed to the sacrificial system. I’m seeing mostly a lack of evidence one way or the other, with the possible exception of observing Passover, which required a sacrifice. Disdain for the corrupt priestly caste who ran the sacrificial system doesn’t, to my mind, indicate in any way lack of commitment to the system itself. In fact, it can indicate the exact opposite—disdain for those who have debased and failed to fully appreciate the sacrificial system and its role. I think that’s what’s going on in the cleansing of the Temple, and I think that’s what’s going on in the Hosea passage cited.
The death of Jesus was certainly sacrificial, "not my will but your will" to the Father, but I still see it more as the model of self sacrificial love all people are called to, and which he told us to follow, than a replacement for bulls, lambs, and goats.
I pull back a little at “replacement” for bulls, lambs and goats. Rather, I’d say something more like what the sacrifices of bulls, lambs and goats were pointing to or foreshadowing in some way.
And at the risk of sounding like @Gamma Gamaliel (there are worse things I could do ), I think “self-sacrifice” vs. “bulls, lambs and goats” is a false dichotomy. It’s “both/and,” not “either/or.”
I’m not sure where the word “satisfied “ is coming from with respect to Julian. Both quotes use the words “well pleased” which is a lot less “atonement-sounding” than “satisfied.”
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
He did. As did his mother with less clarity. As a Christian steeped in the OT text, I did.
Oh, you mean you believed it in the past. “To me” [back then] “Christ fulfilled all sacrifice.” 👍
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
He did. As did his mother with less clarity. As a Christian steeped in the OT text, I did.
Oh, you mean you believed it in the past. “To me” [back then] “Christ fulfilled all sacrifice.” 👍
Yes, sorry. Now I grant, in my good will, that a huge part of his huge genius, was that he believed it. And made sure it happened.
This is part of what’s hanging me up here—I’m not seeing evidence in the gospels that Jesus wasn’t totally committed to the sacrificial system. I’m seeing mostly a lack of evidence one way or the other, with the possible exception of observing Passover, which required a sacrifice. Disdain for the corrupt priestly caste who ran the sacrificial system doesn’t, to my mind, indicate in any way lack of commitment to the system itself. In fact, it can indicate the exact opposite—disdain for those who have debased and failed to fully appreciate the sacrificial system and its role. I think that’s what’s going on in the cleansing of the Temple, and I think that’s what’s going on in the Hosea passage cited.
A system more in need of fundamental reform than abolition.
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
He did. As did his mother with less clarity. As a Christian steeped in the OT text, I did.
Oh, you mean you believed it in the past. “To me” [back then] “Christ fulfilled all sacrifice.” 👍
Yes, sorry. Now I grant, in my good will, that a huge part of his huge genius, was that he believed it. And made sure it happened.
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
He did. As did his mother with less clarity. As a Christian steeped in the OT text, I did.
Oh, you mean you believed it in the past. “To me” [back then] “Christ fulfilled all sacrifice.” 👍
Yes, sorry. Now I grant, in my good will, that a huge part of his huge genius, was that he believed it. And made sure it happened.
Yes, he did and does!
None was necessary. As it doesn't demonstrate Love. Nothing does.
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
He did. As did his mother with less clarity. As a Christian steeped in the OT text, I did.
Oh, you mean you believed it in the past. “To me” [back then] “Christ fulfilled all sacrifice.” 👍
Yes, sorry. Now I grant, in my good will, that a huge part of his huge genius, was that he believed it. And made sure it happened.
Yes, he did and does!
None was necessary. As it doesn't demonstrate Love. Nothing does.
Well, my little group gets on with trying. As do many others.
If you’d been there today, you’d have seen a pretty heart-wrenching example in the middle of Bible study.
I do love these people.
It demonstrates love, just fine; nothing unnatural. It naturally needs a natural story of the unnatural to coalesce around. You'll be delighted to know my son experienced that yesterday. I.e. interpreted as Love.
Fascinating @Green as a Leaf and @Nick Tamen. To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice. But had a soft spot for his father's house. To become an open, free house. No wonder its Mafia killed him. He was such a radical, inclusive, Marxist, transcendent Jew!
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
He did. As did his mother with less clarity. As a Christian steeped in the OT text, I did.
Oh, you mean you believed it in the past. “To me” [back then] “Christ fulfilled all sacrifice.” 👍
Yes, sorry. Now I grant, in my good will, that a huge part of his huge genius, was that he believed it. And made sure it happened.
Yes, he did and does!
None was necessary. As it doesn't demonstrate Love. Nothing does.
In your view, yes. Welcome back, by the way.
Absolutely @ChastMastr. I see plenty of love, here and in my family and church work, but no Love. Nothing whatsoever beyond love. Love is all we need. Not liberal fundamentalist theology trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, in love, trying to justify what cannot be justified, in love. And thanks. That's the penultimate return. Just one more to go.
I see plenty of love, here and in my family and church work, but no Love. Nothing whatsoever beyond love. Love is all we need. Not liberal fundamentalist theology trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, in love, trying to justify what cannot be justified, in love.
Yes. Welcome back but please try not to type in riddles.
What do you mean by Love with a capital L? I could guess but don't see why I have to when you could express yourself more clearly without expending too much effort.
Yes. Welcome back but please try not to type in riddles.
What do you mean by Love with a capital L? I could guess but don't see why I have to when you could express yourself more clearly without expending too much effort.
But good to see you.
I've said this relentlessly for some time now. And you guess right. If God were love, then there is no need for the term God, unless it's merely to signify supreme being. If God were love, then the supreme ground of being, would be Love. None of the stories, the unbelievable special pleading fundamentalist theology, we tell about God in and through Christ on back, are the stories of Love. Even the best, most inclusive, liberal, universal squaring of the circle, smoothing of the jagged edged so called good news. The God of the Bible and of the Church to which it is fundamental, is not Love. The God that drove Jesus to martyr himself for the conditional forgiveness of others is triply not Love. Love would not do any of that. And They would make themselves obvious. Or not at all. Not in classical era transcendental Judaism which only makes sense in that dead historical context.
I see plenty of love, here and in my family and church work, but no Love. Nothing whatsoever beyond love. Love is all we need. Not liberal fundamentalist theology trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, in love, trying to justify what cannot be justified, in love.
But more seriously, you have unpacked it for us. Thanks.
I'll remember that when I next read one of your posts on whatever subject. Martin54 doesn't believe in God any more. No need to read any further.
Sorry Martin54 and sorry Hosts and Admins. I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack on Martin54 whom I do hold in genuinely high regard.
I will adjust my posting style if I have overstepped the mark as I did on the 'blessings' thread which was closed recently. Apologies for that. I did not mean my comment to sound as harsh as it came across.
But more seriously, you have unpacked it for us. Thanks.
I'll remember that when I next read one of your posts on whatever subject. Martin54 doesn't believe in God any more. No need to read any further.
I, for one, am happy to read further, and honestly, I'm not sure why anyone whose religious rituals repeat year-in, year-out, week-in, week-out should struggle with hearing things from a shipmate more than a couple of times.
But more seriously, you have unpacked it for us. Thanks.
I'll remember that when I next read one of your posts on whatever subject. Martin54 doesn't believe in God any more. No need to read any further.
Sorry Martin54 and sorry Hosts and Admins. I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack on Martin54 whom I do hold in genuinely high regard.
I will adjust my posting style if I have overstepped the mark as I did on the 'blessings' thread which was closed recently. Apologies for that. I did not mean my comment to sound as harsh as it came across.
It's not a problem @Gamma Gamaliel. It's not about not believing (in God). It's about not believing that the God of the Bible, of the New Covenant, whether They exist or not, is Love. Transcendent, superhuman, unnatural, naturally impossible, real, Love. For They manifestly, in every layer, at every turn, are not, no matter how progressively revealed. One has to turn oneself inside out and upside down to be a liberal Christian. To make un-love Love. The screeds of theology, theodicy, atonement theories, of any and every tradition don't make whatever Jesus said and did Love. Even emergent theology does not address the problem. There is no Love in any of it. Including here of course.
If you think that that is the same as me being an infidel, OK. It's not for me.
But more seriously, you have unpacked it for us. Thanks.
I'll remember that when I next read one of your posts on whatever subject. Martin54 doesn't believe in God any more. No need to read any further.
I, for one, am happy to read further, and honestly, I'm not sure why anyone whose religious rituals repeat year-in, year-out, week-in, week-out should struggle with hearing things from a shipmate more than a couple of times.
I think one might be able to draw a meaningful distinction between repetitiveness in the liturgy and repetitiveness in a discussion.
I've said this relentlessly for some time now. And you guess right. If God were love, then
Does my reply to @Gamma Gamaliel help @Nenya?
Yes, to a degree. Thank you. However, if this describes your belief in and experience of God
The God that drove Jesus to martyr himself for the conditional forgiveness of others
I feel deeply sorry for you and not at all surprised you no longer believe in God. And I'm confused about how you talk of Love and how it can't be found anywhere, including here. Does that mean it does exist somewhere and we just can't find it? I guess you don't believe it does, if Love equals God and God doesn't exist; although you also seem to be saying God is not Love...
One has to turn oneself inside out and upside down to be a liberal Christian. To make un-love Love.
That's the one part of what Martin says which I just don't think is true. You have to STOP turning yourself inside out and upside down. Stop listening to the siren words of atonement theory, and all the other crap, especially about the terrible stories of bigotry and accidental encounters with Love mostly misreported in the biblical texts. You have to listen to the voice of Love and hear it as God's voice. Then you retune your antennae, and find such portions of the Christian tradition as assist with this. Of which the Eucharist is at the centre, but again only if you listen to the actions and the heart of it, and not (mostly) to the words, and certainly not to most of the stories around it. Once your antennae have learned what is noise and what is valuable signal, everything else starts making sense (I hope - I am starting to find....)
...
I, for one, am happy to read further, and honestly, I'm not sure why anyone whose religious rituals repeat year-in, year-out, week-in, week-out should struggle with hearing things from a shipmate more than a couple of times.
I think one might be able to draw a meaningful distinction between repetitiveness in the liturgy and repetitiveness in a discussion.
I suggest these forums illustrate how participating in discussions can easily serve a similar ritualistic purpose.
One has to turn oneself inside out and upside down to be a liberal Christian. To make un-love Love.
That's the one part of what Martin says which I just don't think is true. You have to STOP turning yourself inside out and upside down. Stop listening to the siren words of atonement theory, and all the other crap, especially about the terrible stories of bigotry and accidental encounters with Love mostly misreported in the biblical texts. You have to listen to the voice of Love and hear it as God's voice. Then you retune your antennae, and find such portions of the Christian tradition as assist with this. Of which the Eucharist is at the centre, but again only if you listen to the actions and the heart of it, and not (mostly) to the words, and certainly not to most of the stories around it. Once your antennae have learned what is noise and what is valuable signal, everything else starts making sense (I hope - I am starting to find....)
This I understand and agree with. Thank you for expressing it so articulately.
But more seriously, you have unpacked it for us. Thanks.
I'll remember that when I next read one of your posts on whatever subject. Martin54 doesn't believe in God any more. No need to read any further.
I, for one, am happy to read further, and honestly, I'm not sure why anyone whose religious rituals repeat year-in, year-out, week-in, week-out should struggle with hearing things from a shipmate more than a couple of times.
I think one might be able to draw a meaningful distinction between repetitiveness in the liturgy and repetitiveness in a discussion.
I think one might be able to scroll past a shipmate's posts without comment instead of writing something backhanded about him.
But more seriously, you have unpacked it for us. Thanks.
I'll remember that when I next read one of your posts on whatever subject. Martin54 doesn't believe in God any more. No need to read any further.
I, for one, am happy to read further, and honestly, I'm not sure why anyone whose religious rituals repeat year-in, year-out, week-in, week-out should struggle with hearing things from a shipmate more than a couple of times.
I think one might be able to draw a meaningful distinction between repetitiveness in the liturgy and repetitiveness in a discussion.
I think one might be able to scroll past a shipmate's posts without comment instead of writing something backhanded about him.
Indeed and I apologise for making back-handed comments.
I think @Pease is right about there being a ritualistic quality to some discussions here aboard Ship.
I've contributed to that very often.
Minister Great is the mystery of faith. People For it is both/and not either or. Minister For the pudding we eat is not over-egged. People Nor shall it ever be, both now and forever and unto the ages of ages. Amen!
I've said this relentlessly for some time now. And you guess right. If God were love, then
Does my reply to @Gamma Gamaliel help @Nenya?
Yes, to a degree. Thank you. However, if this describes your belief in and experience of God
The God that drove Jesus to martyr himself for the conditional forgiveness of others
I feel deeply sorry for you and not at all surprised you no longer believe in God. And I'm confused about how you talk of Love and how it can't be found anywhere, including here. Does that mean it does exist somewhere and we just can't find it? I guess you don't believe it does, if Love equals God and God doesn't exist; although you also seem to be saying God is not Love...
The unbelief came first. I have no warrant to believe. Full stop. I now see the God of the Bible, culminating in Jesus' God, through the lens of Jesus' beliefs and his actions borne of them, as not love, let alone Love. Nor the God of the Church beyond Jesus. Love is in there, but far from untrammelled. Nothing special, nothing unhuman, nothing unnatural, supernatural, impossible, transcendent. Ordinary, semi-enlightened, human, love. Ordinary, human, making up meaning. Yearning. So please don't feel sorry for me. I have gained existential truth. Knowledge. Forbidden fruit. I have gained the choice of, the aspiration for, to, love. You should be glad for me. I am shorn, gutted of faith. Of false meaning.
I'm sorry for the confusion.
Love does not exist, it can only be posited. Dealt with as if it existed, as if it were the ground of being. What would being be like if Love grounded it? It certainly wouldn't be like anything Biblical. And theological from that. The Church's God. Even on a good, liberal day, rationalizing away the harsh words of Jesus. If Love were the ground of being, it's despite Christiano-Judaism.
It's not that Love equals God and as God doesn't exist Love doesn't. There is no trace of Love (which includes God, the supreme being, Love being how God is instantiated), in the first place. It's just an abstract idea. And yes, I am saying, that God, the Abrahamic God, is not Love. Because he isn't even in his ultimate revelation. He's not even love, not as we know it. Jesus was not Love personified. He was the best that love could do at that time and place. In that culture.
And @ThunderBunk. Beautiful, as you always get to be. I believe we're intersecting from different directions. We both appear to be saying my final sentence two paragraphs above. You believe in Love. I wish I did.
Likewise, I have zero faith that the occasions described ever occurred as described, and note that they are not even part of the same narrative, but I still believe that the following biblical narratives have profound power to describe what is happening now.
The first is John's account of the release of the holy spirit. The point is not the filioque clause, though this may be its justification. The point is that the incarnation survived the crucifixion, and was released into human history, in the phrase "receive the holy spirit". In practice, of course, it always was human history, but it is still hugely significant that it also incorporates the resurrection. This is the way love remains in the story, in us, in our ongoing incarnation of divine love.
The other point is the ascension. This symbolically brings back together earth and heaven, the two sides of Christ's nature, repairs the trinity etc etc etc. The concept of the harrowing of hell matters hugely in this context - all things are reconciled in Christ, because he is precisely the type of that reconciliation. It is practiced, enacted, instanced in each of us all the time, as are the crucifixion and the resurrection. And all because, to go back to the first point, we are the incarnation, the first fruits of them - him - that slept.
Comments
There are so many of them that I would have no idea how to begin reconciling them. Each one introduces yet another barrier (the necessity of payment or punishment, the defeat of Satanic power, the return humanity to an Edenic state, the satisfaction of divine honour or wrath, the displacement of violent desire onto an alternative victim...) between God and humanity that exists only in our theologies. The moral influence theory - closest to my own position, except that I do not interpret Jesus' life as merely ethical in content - is not really an 'atonement theory' at all: Abelard's articulation of it was expressly against accounts of atonement that place a barrier on the divine side of the equation.
Of course, you can take these theories, de-theologize them, psychologize/anthropologize/politicize them into something more interesting to say about being human and how we seemingly find infinitely many ways of individually and collectively fucking up. But then, they are no longer atonement theories, at least in the sense of Jesus' crucifixion offering a way to overcome them.
I can see the argument, @Green as a Leaf, and I think I can understand why it appeals to some. But personally, I don’t find it convincing, at least in part because I question why we should think we understand what Jesus was saying better than those in the first generations of believers, who were closer to the source, as it were, and closer to the culture.
Yes, there is a certain extra-Temple approach we see, but it’s not presented as anti-Temple. If anything, Jesus’s “cleansing of the Temple” seems to me to be pro-Temple. The Pharisees, the scribes and the priests seem quick to call out what they see as violations of the Law on Jesus’s part, but if they accused him of ignoring obligations like sacrifices, we have no record of it. We do have record of John the Baptist calling Jesus “the Lamb of God,” and we have record of Jesus celebrating the Passover, which would have included sacrificing a lamb.
As has been already said, there is a problem, at least in my view and I know the views of some others here, in linking “atonement” specifically to the crucifixion. The Incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus all are part of the event encompassed by “atonement.”
“In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself.” Not “in Christ’s death,” but “in Christ.” All of the Christ-event.
Excellent. Not only did he fulfil (all of) the law, was its object, he fulfilled its literal stone... rock, petra, lithos, (Daniel's meteorite anyone?) embodiment. He was Judaism transcendent.
No doubt my historical imagination is lacking, but I can't see why this would have given them reason to have Jesus killed. On your point about there being "no record" of Jesus being accused of failing to meet sacrificial obligations, we actually have countless examples: namely, every time Jesus is asked 'by what authority' he has to heal or forgive sins. These episodes have commonly been interpreted as a challenge to Jesus equating himself with God; many commentators however find it much more convincing to read this as Jesus equating himself with the Temple authorities' power to declare people clean/forgiven.
(And sorry but I do have to smile at how the Johannine author(s) put those words into John the Baptist's mouth - the Evangelist(s) had far greater historical imagination that I do.)
Agree with much of this - particularly that we must interpret Jesus' life as a whole. (God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...no mention of any particular part of the Son's incarnate life, simply the pure gift of the Logos.)
But it is a point of historical fact that Christian atonement theories have traditionally been linked strongly to the crucifixion, and to a lesser extent the resurrection. This is no doubt because New Testament references to 'atonement' are almost always in connection with the Cross and utilise the sacrifice motif. We can of course expand the meaning of 'atonement' (following the usage of the English word rather than the Hebrew/Greek it has been used to translate) to the broader sense of 'reconciliation', though it seems to me that reconciliation belongs to quite a different metaphorical imaginary - in particularly, one that involves two parties working things out directly with each other rather than an intractable problem that can only be resolved by an intermediary third party who removes the problem by suffering it themselves.
The idea that God was reconciling the world to Godself through Christ also does not require seeing Jesus as a unique mediator. God seeks to work through all of us to reconcile the world to God. Jesus reveals what it means to be human in a broken world. So, no particular 'theory' of reconciliation is necessary - or at least, to offer one would be to offer an entire account of the ways God works through the created order, an attempt to say everything all at once.
(I'm afraid I can't join you in your belief that the Gospel of John has much to do with one of Jesus' inner circle, nor that there is any reason to think Twelve had a better understanding of Jesus than anyone else.)
This doesn’t follow at all to me. In what way does criticizing Jesus for claiming to be God and forgiving sins suggest criticism for failing to meet sacrificial and ritual requirements?
They criticized him for not observing the Sabbath, to which his answer was that he was keeping the Sabbath. They criticized him for failing to observe ritual washing of hands, which wasn’t explicitly in the law. Why not sacrifices if that was an issue?
It is a point of historical fact that some Christian atonement theories have linked primarily to the crucifixion.
Thank you for the citation and the quotes! This is so lovely.
I'm not entirely sure that it proves the point that Julian, at least, thought the Passion unnecessary. Clearly she thinks (he thinks?) Jesus goes above and beyond, and would do so purely for love's sake. And it doesn't rule OUT her thinking that there's no other value to it. So I guess we'll just have to leave it here?
But it's so nice to have this come up again--I think I may be due for a re-reading already.
What we don't have is an over-arching explanation of how Christ's work does what it does (and I'm phrasing it that vaguely because when I was hunting for descriptions of WHAT it does, I realized most of the phrases committed me to a particular model or another.) We don't have a definitive statement from God/Christ that just spells it all out in words of one syllable or less--and if we had that, we wouldn't be hunting for theories, I suppose.
But it's not surprising to me, anyway, that we don't have an explanation. It's like that for a lot of things in this world.
We get told the "What"--that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," and also passages like "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ... I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father" (John 10:10-11, 14-18).
So evidently Jesus thinks this is necessary. He doesn't phrase it as an "if"--if an an enemy attacks, I'll lay down my life to protect the flock. He says he's already received the charge to do so. And you could probably build an atonement theory just out of this passage if you wanted...
I don't, particularly. If I'm teaching, I'll grab the atonement model that seems most likely to meet the needs of that particular passage and audience. But a model is not the thing itself, anymore than those gumdrop toothpick models kids make of atoms in school are the real thing. They are a way to get our heads around it. If they don't work for someone, it's okay to drop them.
Re “ To me Christ fulfilled all sacrifice,” I thought you didn’t believe that. I’m confused.
Agreed. Each one could be true as well—sacrifice and scapegoat and ransom and more, all in one event/Person.
As well, though that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it, as Lewis put it, “The command was ‘take, eat,’ not ‘take, understand.’” We’re meant to engage with Christ, not just with one theory or another about Him.
The sacrificial motif goes back as far as the NT and was very much part of the culture in which Jesus lived. Indeed it remained so until the Jews were forced to reinvent their religion in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple, but it was never univocal even in Scripture. "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs or of goats." (Isaiah 1.11) I desire mercy not sacrifice ( Hosea 6.6) has already been mentioned.
There is evidence, in the gospels, already cited on this thread that Jesus wasn't totally committed to the sacrificial system. He certainly believed in the Temple as a house of prayer and knew that God was in some way uniquely present there, but had utter disdain for the corrupt priestly caste who ran it.
The death of Jesus was certainly sacrificial, "not my will but your will " to the Father, but I still see it more as the model of self sacrificial love all people are called to, and which he told us to follow, than a replacement for bulls, lambs, and goats.
He did. As did his mother with less clarity. As a Christian steeped in the OT text, I did.
Also, I'm not supposed to be eating very much meat for the next week.
For God so loved The5thMary that She caused The5thMary to completely forget about juicy, tender, Old Bay Seasoning and garlic powdered pork chops...
I love you, Lamb Chopped. Really, I do. LOL.
Just a few thoughts ...
Ok, ok, I'm a convert to Orthodoxy so I'm predisposed to say this and please forgive me for I mean no harm ...
But so much of the very interesting musings about different 'models' and how we can mix and match and swap them around or apply whichever one 'suits' and how Jesus must have been some kind of Marxist revolutionary because we like Marxist revolutionaries and think they're cool ... 😎 sounds so very 'Western' to me now.
Ok. I'm going all Orthodox on you ... 😉
It's certainly the case that the crucifixion and Passion is at the heart of things - but always, always, always in the Eastern Christian traditions (I'm taking a punt and assuming this applies to the 'Oriental Orthodox' as well as Eastern Orthodox) the cross is linked to the Resurrection.
I've spoken about 'maximalism' before now. This is what I mean.
It's the whole thing. Not filleted chunks. We've had a salivating post from Seattle about a desire for pork chops at 11.15pm with no buses running.
Let's turn that on its head abd in way that may sound offensive given OT dietary laws ... but why salivate over late night convenience food? Why not look at the whole pig, the whole animal?
Sure, it'd be far more difficult to obtain a live pig, slaughter it, prepare and cook it, of course, whether we are in Seattle, Swansea or Seoul.
But let's use the pork chops as an analogy for a moment. Yes, they are juicy and tasty but there's a whole 'hinterland' and complex web of relationships, commerce and exchange that gets them onto your folk.
I've just been to Madagascar. There are no fastfood outlets anywhere on the island. You order ahead or you wait.
You become more aware of the process.
Like all analogies this only takes us so far.
But my point is that we need a holistic approach. The whole of the 'Christ Event' as both @Nick Tamen, myself and others are arguing, whatever other differences there might be in our theologies.
The NT doesn't mention the Essenes. No. But there are lots of other things it doesn't mention either.
And yes, the NT was shaped, edited and developed/curated by The ChurchTM as it evolved from the initial 'Jesus movement' within 1st century Judaism.
But if we ditch all that- and I'm not saying we shouldn't question or interrogate it - what do we have left? Jesus the Hippy? Jesus the Marxist revolutionary? Jesus the anachronistic Western liberal projected back in our own image into a 1st century context?
Heck, toxic German Nationalism projected a kind of Aryan Christ back into the pages of the NT.
We must all tread carefully.
Julian's statement that she is satisfied by Christ's death makes her look sadistic unless Christ is suffering for a purpose other than satisfying her.
The general problem with atonement theories that rely on human psychology is that human psychology is pretty varied, and people react in different ways. I don't think Jesus died only for that subset of humanity that finds the Abelardian atonement helpful as a way to understand it.
This is part of what’s hanging me up here—I’m not seeing evidence in the gospels that Jesus wasn’t totally committed to the sacrificial system. I’m seeing mostly a lack of evidence one way or the other, with the possible exception of observing Passover, which required a sacrifice. Disdain for the corrupt priestly caste who ran the sacrificial system doesn’t, to my mind, indicate in any way lack of commitment to the system itself. In fact, it can indicate the exact opposite—disdain for those who have debased and failed to fully appreciate the sacrificial system and its role. I think that’s what’s going on in the cleansing of the Temple, and I think that’s what’s going on in the Hosea passage cited.
I pull back a little at “replacement” for bulls, lambs and goats. Rather, I’d say something more like what the sacrifices of bulls, lambs and goats were pointing to or foreshadowing in some way.
And at the risk of sounding like @Gamma Gamaliel (there are worse things I could do
But there's a lot worse things I can do than sound like you.
😉
Oh, you mean you believed it in the past. “To me” [back then] “Christ fulfilled all sacrifice.” 👍
Yes, sorry. Now I grant, in my good will, that a huge part of his huge genius, was that he believed it. And made sure it happened.
Yes, he did and does!
None was necessary. As it doesn't demonstrate Love. Nothing does.
If you’d been there today, you’d have seen a pretty heart-wrenching example in the middle of Bible study.
I do love these people.
In your view, yes. Welcome back, by the way.
It demonstrates love, just fine; nothing unnatural. It naturally needs a natural story of the unnatural to coalesce around. You'll be delighted to know my son experienced that yesterday. I.e. interpreted as Love.
Absolutely @ChastMastr. I see plenty of love, here and in my family and church work, but no Love. Nothing whatsoever beyond love. Love is all we need. Not liberal fundamentalist theology trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, in love, trying to justify what cannot be justified, in love. And thanks. That's the penultimate return. Just one more to go.
What do you mean by Love with a capital L? I could guess but don't see why I have to when you could express yourself more clearly without expending too much effort.
But good to see you.
I've said this relentlessly for some time now. And you guess right. If God were love, then there is no need for the term God, unless it's merely to signify supreme being. If God were love, then the supreme ground of being, would be Love. None of the stories, the unbelievable special pleading fundamentalist theology, we tell about God in and through Christ on back, are the stories of Love. Even the best, most inclusive, liberal, universal squaring of the circle, smoothing of the jagged edged so called good news. The God of the Bible and of the Church to which it is fundamental, is not Love. The God that drove Jesus to martyr himself for the conditional forgiveness of others is triply not Love. Love would not do any of that. And They would make themselves obvious. Or not at all. Not in classical era transcendental Judaism which only makes sense in that dead historical context.
And good to be seen.
Does my reply to @Gamma Gamaliel help @Nenya?
But more seriously, you have unpacked it for us. Thanks.
I'll remember that when I next read one of your posts on whatever subject. Martin54 doesn't believe in God any more. No need to read any further.
Sorry Martin54 and sorry Hosts and Admins. I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack on Martin54 whom I do hold in genuinely high regard.
I will adjust my posting style if I have overstepped the mark as I did on the 'blessings' thread which was closed recently. Apologies for that. I did not mean my comment to sound as harsh as it came across.
I, for one, am happy to read further, and honestly, I'm not sure why anyone whose religious rituals repeat year-in, year-out, week-in, week-out should struggle with hearing things from a shipmate more than a couple of times.
It's not a problem @Gamma Gamaliel. It's not about not believing (in God). It's about not believing that the God of the Bible, of the New Covenant, whether They exist or not, is Love. Transcendent, superhuman, unnatural, naturally impossible, real, Love. For They manifestly, in every layer, at every turn, are not, no matter how progressively revealed. One has to turn oneself inside out and upside down to be a liberal Christian. To make un-love Love. The screeds of theology, theodicy, atonement theories, of any and every tradition don't make whatever Jesus said and did Love. Even emergent theology does not address the problem. There is no Love in any of it. Including here of course.
If you think that that is the same as me being an infidel, OK. It's not for me.
Yes, to a degree. Thank you. However, if this describes your belief in and experience of God
I feel deeply sorry for you and not at all surprised you no longer believe in God. And I'm confused about how you talk of Love and how it can't be found anywhere, including here. Does that mean it does exist somewhere and we just can't find it? I guess you don't believe it does, if Love equals God and God doesn't exist; although you also seem to be saying God is not Love...
That's the one part of what Martin says which I just don't think is true. You have to STOP turning yourself inside out and upside down. Stop listening to the siren words of atonement theory, and all the other crap, especially about the terrible stories of bigotry and accidental encounters with Love mostly misreported in the biblical texts. You have to listen to the voice of Love and hear it as God's voice. Then you retune your antennae, and find such portions of the Christian tradition as assist with this. Of which the Eucharist is at the centre, but again only if you listen to the actions and the heart of it, and not (mostly) to the words, and certainly not to most of the stories around it. Once your antennae have learned what is noise and what is valuable signal, everything else starts making sense (I hope - I am starting to find....)
This I understand and agree with. Thank you for expressing it so articulately.
I think one might be able to scroll past a shipmate's posts without comment instead of writing something backhanded about him.
I think @Pease is right about there being a ritualistic quality to some discussions here aboard Ship.
I've contributed to that very often.
Minister Great is the mystery of faith.
People For it is both/and not either or.
Minister For the pudding we eat is not over-egged.
People Nor shall it ever be, both now and forever and unto the ages of ages. Amen!
Thank you @Nenya.
The unbelief came first. I have no warrant to believe. Full stop. I now see the God of the Bible, culminating in Jesus' God, through the lens of Jesus' beliefs and his actions borne of them, as not love, let alone Love. Nor the God of the Church beyond Jesus. Love is in there, but far from untrammelled. Nothing special, nothing unhuman, nothing unnatural, supernatural, impossible, transcendent. Ordinary, semi-enlightened, human, love. Ordinary, human, making up meaning. Yearning. So please don't feel sorry for me. I have gained existential truth. Knowledge. Forbidden fruit. I have gained the choice of, the aspiration for, to, love. You should be glad for me. I am shorn, gutted of faith. Of false meaning.
I'm sorry for the confusion.
Love does not exist, it can only be posited. Dealt with as if it existed, as if it were the ground of being. What would being be like if Love grounded it? It certainly wouldn't be like anything Biblical. And theological from that. The Church's God. Even on a good, liberal day, rationalizing away the harsh words of Jesus. If Love were the ground of being, it's despite Christiano-Judaism.
It's not that Love equals God and as God doesn't exist Love doesn't. There is no trace of Love (which includes God, the supreme being, Love being how God is instantiated), in the first place. It's just an abstract idea. And yes, I am saying, that God, the Abrahamic God, is not Love. Because he isn't even in his ultimate revelation. He's not even love, not as we know it. Jesus was not Love personified. He was the best that love could do at that time and place. In that culture.
And @ThunderBunk. Beautiful, as you always get to be. I believe we're intersecting from different directions. We both appear to be saying my final sentence two paragraphs above. You believe in Love. I wish I did.
The first is John's account of the release of the holy spirit. The point is not the filioque clause, though this may be its justification. The point is that the incarnation survived the crucifixion, and was released into human history, in the phrase "receive the holy spirit". In practice, of course, it always was human history, but it is still hugely significant that it also incorporates the resurrection. This is the way love remains in the story, in us, in our ongoing incarnation of divine love.
The other point is the ascension. This symbolically brings back together earth and heaven, the two sides of Christ's nature, repairs the trinity etc etc etc. The concept of the harrowing of hell matters hugely in this context - all things are reconciled in Christ, because he is precisely the type of that reconciliation. It is practiced, enacted, instanced in each of us all the time, as are the crucifixion and the resurrection. And all because, to go back to the first point, we are the incarnation, the first fruits of them - him - that slept.