Atonement

[Chesster]

Leela,

If you go to Father John A. Hardon, S.J. archives and scroll down tward the bottom of the page you will see a section entitled Atonement; I think that may help you.

 

[Leela]

Point number 5. Whereas we could theoretically pay back many sins against our neighbor, no sacrifice or offering or “payment” that we humans could come up with is sufficient to pay back a sin against God. That would require an infinite sacrifice/offering/payment which is something we obviously don’t have.

Point number 6. God therefore, being infinite, is the only source of an infinite sacrifice/offering. This is Jesus, who being God, can be a perfect sacrifice, and an infinite sacrifice. An infinite sacrifice is required for the most trivial of our sins against God, but being infinite, can also atone for all of mankind’s sins throughout history.

I’m doubtful about “infinite sacrifice.” As I understand it, God had a really really bad weekend, but certainly human beings have suffered far worse, like that Austrian woman who had been held prisoner and repeatedly raped by her father for 24 years, or the more mundane examples of long drawn out losing battles with cancer.

Also, it is interesting that your take is very different from Trish’s. Do you have any thoughts on hers? She says that God could have simply chosen to forgive our sins which sounds consistent with omnipotence. No sacrifice was necessary.

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

Also, it is interesting that your take is very different from Trish’s. Do you have any thoughts on hers? She says that God could have simply chosen to forgive our sins which sounds consistent with omnipotence. No sacrifice was necessary.

Best,
Leela

**I think the sacrifice could very possibly be nothing other than the inherent repercussions of inserting that kind of perfection-embodied in Jesus-into this world.

 

[ricmat]

I’m doubtful about “infinite sacrifice.” As I understand it, God had a really really bad weekend, but certainly human beings have suffered far worse, like that Austrian woman who had been held prisoner and repeatedly raped by her father for 24 years, or the more mundane examples of long drawn out losing battles with cancer.

The sacrifice (of the passion) is infinite not because the suffering was infinite. As you point out, some humans have probably endured more physical and/or mental suffering. But remember that an infinite sacrifice is needed because of the infinite dignity of He who is offended (God) by all our sins. If our sins were against only another human (whose dignity is not infinite), we might be able to pay that back ourselves.

The sacrifice of the passion is infinite because of the person who suffered it (also God). That God allows himself to be humiliated for our sins is indeed an infinite sacrifice.

There’s also an aspect of this which I don’t totally understand. But tradition has it that during the agony in the garden, Jesus could see all sins, past and present. As God, he could see, and feel, and experience all the human suffering which resulted from all our sins. And there’s the mental agony of knowing that God’s love for his stubborn children has been rejected, and our response instead is to choose to cause suffering.

Also, it is interesting that your take is very different from Trish’s. Do you have any thoughts on hers? She says that God could have simply chosen to forgive our sins which sounds consistent with omnipotence. No sacrifice was necessary.

Best,
Leela

This is really a complicated subject, and I’m a rank amateur, but here are my thoughts.

Yes, God could have just chosen to forgive our sins. We would benefit, obviously, but would we be ready for heaven? Generally, if you want something good, you have to work for it.

Part of the story here is that by his suffering, Jesus sets an example for us to follow. There WILL be suffering in the world. Adam and Eve made sure of that unfortunately, so how should we handle it when it arrives at our doorstep? How does that fit in with heaven, salvation, etc?

The key thing is that if we acknowledge our sins (part of repentance), we can offer up our suffering in union with Christ’s suffering for our sins or the sins of others. It’s a way of truly taking responsibility for our sins (instead of pretending that we don’t sin, or that what we did wasn’t actually a sin). And taking responsibility is the first step step in repentance. The last step is usually a penance of some sort. So we accept the suffering as a penance as part of repentance.

But as I said, I’m not an expert and I’m still learning more all the time.

 

[tonyrey]

Hi All,

I never understood how God’s incarnation as Jesus to be tortured and executed results in atonement for the sin of Adam and future sins as well. Can someone explain the reasoning behind redemption of sin through the crucification and resurrection?

Best,
Leela

We are born into an environment where there is horrific injustice for which human beings alone are responsible. None of us can claim to be guilt-free because we sin by omission: we allow innocent children, for example, to suffer and die from hunger and disease as a result of our negligence and lack of compassion. Rather than be caught up in the spiral of evil and violence Jesus chose to share the fate of all victims of injustice by allowing himself to be executed unjustly. He liberated us from our blindness and selfishness by showing us how to live and die for others. By following his example we can live in harmony on earth but only his perfect love can enable us to share his life in heaven. Otherwise there would be an infinite gulf between God and man.

 

[Leela]

We are born into an environment where there is horrific injustice for which human beings alone are responsible. None of us can claim to be guilt-free because we sin by omission: we allow innocent children, for example, to suffer and die from hunger and disease as a result of our negligence and lack of compassion. Rather than be caught up in the spiral of evil and violence Jesus chose to share the fate of all victims of injustice by allowing himself to be executed unjustly. He liberated us from our blindness and selfishness by showing us how to live and die for others. By following his example we can live in harmony on earth but only his perfect love can enable us to share his life in heaven. Otherwise there would be an infinite gulf between God and man.

Jesus may be an example to follow but as you say, we all fall short. This doesn’t explain how the death and resurrection of Jesus results in our forgiveness for our sins, and why believing that these events really happened has anything to do with whether or not we are forgiven.

It is interesting that I keep getting different ideas about how this all works. There doesn’t seem to be any agreed upon reasoning for how this all works.

This is what I understand so far…
(1) God is offended by human beings breaking his commandments.
(2) All humans are sinners, having offended God, and are apart from God and can not themselves atone with him, so their immortal souls will be doomed to go to hell upon death unless God intervenes
(3) God can simply choose to forgive our sins and be atoned with him with no strings attached so all humans go to heaven, but chooses not to.
(4) Instead God chooses to become a human being himself and be a sacrificial offering for the sins of all human beings.
(5) God is so impressed by his own sacrifice of himself to himself, that he is inclined to forgive the sins of humanity, so long as the individual humans believe that God really did become a human being and die on a cross and resurrect himself three days later.
(6) People with the proper beliefs can be atoned with God by confessing their sins to the proper authorities and be with God in heaven after death

Do I have that much right? I’m wondering why God didn’t go with (3).

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

Do I have that much right? I’m wondering why God didn’t go with (3).

Best,
Leela

For God to have chosen #3, He may as well have forgiven Adam & Eve immediately -or not bothered to hold them accountable to begin with. But the purpose of casting them out of the garden and banning them from the tree of life-which means separation from Him which is the consequence of turning away from His will-of turning away from Him-is not so much punitive as educative/reformative in nature. Here we can learn what Adam & Eve obviously didn’t know but what God always has: that we need God. Either way, God wants our wills involved. He wants us to come to know for ourselves the perfection of His will and so for our will to be one with His. This is our perfection.

 

[ricmat]

This is what I understand so far…
(1) God is offended by human beings breaking his commandments.
(2) All humans are sinners, having offended God, and are apart from God and can not themselves atone with him, so their immortal souls will be doomed to go to hell upon death unless God intervenes
(3) God can simply choose to forgive our sins and be atoned with him with no strings attached so all humans go to heaven, but chooses not to.

But some humans don’t want to go to Heaven (i.e. be in God’s presence & conform their wills to God’s will, conform their desires to God’s desires, see beauty and love where God sees beauty and love). By their actions on Earth, they freely choose against these things and not for them. God respects the decisions of these people, and in the afterlife they are not forced to all those things they don’t want. The absence of God is hell (where, incidentally, there is no love). People voluntarily choose to be without God in the afterlife.

(4) Instead God chooses to become a human being himself and be a sacrificial offering for the sins of all human beings.

(5) God is so impressed by his own sacrifice of himself to himself, that he is inclined to forgive the sins of humanity, so long as the individual humans believe that God really did become a human being and die on a cross and resurrect himself three days later.

Justice demands consequences for our bad actions. If we don’t make things right, then someone else has to. We cannot make things right by ourselves because we have nothing to offer that is sufficient.

So he gives us the offering, but we must still choose to offer it. Christ’s sacrifice opened the gates of heaven, but we still have to walk through under our own power. God will not shove us past the gate against our will.

BTW - “belief” in the incarnation, and the resurrection is not a ticket to heaven. Nor is absence of these things a ticket to hell. We will all be judged on our actions, in light of how much we know and understand.

(6) People with the proper beliefs can be atoned with God by confessing their sins to the proper authorities and be with God in heaven after death

We always confess our sins to God, who is the proper authority. But being material and not strictly spiritual beings, we need a visible sign of who we are confessing to, and some sensual response that we can relate to. That’s what confession is. Also, penance is always part of confession, and involves making things as right as we can, given our limited abilities to repair the damages we cause.

 

[Leela]

**For God to have chosen #3, He may as well have forgiven Adam & Eve immediately -or not bothered to hold them accountable to begin with.
**

Good point

 

[jkiernan56]

Hi All,

I never understood how God’s incarnation as Jesus to be tortured and executed results in atonement for the sin of Adam and future sins as well. Can someone explain the reasoning behind redemption of sin through the crucification and resurrection?

Best,
Leela

Leela, I have corresponded with you many times in other Threads. So when I try to understand your posts or questions, I also read between the lines. Do you ask this question above because you are sincerely interested in understanding or learning the answer? Is there possibly another motive for asking the question? I won’t speak for you, but in all honesty I have my doubts as to your sincerety. You seem to enjoy intellectual gymnastics and playing mind games with others in order to cast doubt to a person’s understanding of their faith. Before you graduate to calculus, a course in basic mathmatics might be immensely helpful. These are some things I am still learning. Here are some basics to ponder …

ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARDEN (by Robert Fulghum)

• Share everything.
• Play fair.
• Don’t hit people.
• Put things back where you found them.
• Clean up your own mess.
• Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
• Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody.
• Wash your hands before you eat.
• Flush.
• Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
• Live a balanced life - learn some and think some
  and draw and paint and sing and dance and play
  and work every day some.
• Take a nap every afternoon.
• When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic,
  hold hands, and stick together.
• Be aware of wonder.
  Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup:
  The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody
  really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
• Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even
  the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die.
  So do we.

If you are sincerely interested in understanding the meaning of the Attonement, understaning some of these basic concepts would help you before you click on the link below:

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Best, Jim

 

[Leela]

Leela, I have corresponded with you many times in other Threads. So when I try to understand your posts or questions, I also read between the lines. Do you ask this question above because you are sincerely interested in understanding or learning the answer?

It never made sense to me, but I’d like to understand the reasoning behind it.

Is there possibly another motive for asking the question? I won’t speak for you, but in all honesty I have my doubts as to your sincerety. You seem to enjoy intellectual gymnastics and playing mind games with others in order to cast doubt to a person’s understanding of their faith.

I don’t know about all that, but I have never made a secret of my distaste for faith. I think we’d all be better off if people didn’t make a virtue out of putting aside reason for certain types of beliefs.

In there anything in particular from that list that you think I didn’t learn in kindergarten?

Best,
Leela

 

[jkiernan56]

It never made sense to me, but I’d like to understand the reasoning behind it.

I don’t know about all that, but I have never made a secret of my distaste for faith. I think we’d all be better off if people didn’t make a virtue out of putting aside reason for certain types of beliefs.

In there anything in particular from that list that you think I didn’t learn in kindergarten?

Best,
Leela

Distaste for faith huh? Actually a person who is agnostic or athiestic also has faith. It takes faith to arrive at a conclusion that God either does not exist or has wound up the clock and left creation. Your reality based on experience, observation, knowledge just happen to arrive at a different conclusion than mine - but hey thats OK … as long as you are honest. I’d rather share a beer with an honest athiest anyday over a self-righteous Christian.

 

[Leela]

Distaste for faith huh? Actually a person who is agnostic or athiestic also has faith. It takes faith to arrive at a conclusion that God either does not exist or has wound up the clock and left creation.

How would you define faith? I wonder how you could include atheists and agnostics as people of faith.

I don’t think that I accept anything on faith. I’d like to think that all my beliefs are based on evidence and subject to revision as new evidence and arguments become available. I don’t profess the truth of any dogmas that must be taken as true regardless of what I experience or in the face of insufficient evidence.

I doubt that any religion has it right. It takes no faith to doubt such things. I’m simply unconvinced by the evidence for gods. I make no positive assertion that gods do not exist, since it would be impossible to verify such a claim. Atheism is simply the lack of one particular belief. It is not a dogma, it is the lack of one particular dogma.

Best,
Leela

 

[jkiernan56]

How would you define faith? I wonder how you could include atheists and agnostics as people of faith.

I don’t think that I accept anything on faith. I’d like to think that all my beliefs are based on evidence and subject to revision as new evidence and arguments become available. I don’t profess the truth of any dogmas that must be taken as true regardless of what I experience or in the face of insufficient evidence.

I doubt that any religion has it right. It takes no faith to doubt such things. I’m simply unconvinced by the evidence for gods. I make no positive assertion that gods do not exist, since it would be impossible to verify such a claim. Atheism is simply the lack of one particular belief. It is not a dogma, it is the lack of one particular dogma.

Best,
Leela

Leela,
I appreciate honest and intelligent dialogue which your response clearly shows. You wonder how I could include atheists and agnostics as people of faith. When I talk about faith in this context, I am defining faith as “acknowledging or accepting something as TRUE without having 100% absolute certainty based on DIRECT empirical evidence.” When a position or idea is accepted as TRUE because of FACT, then “faith” obviously is no longer necessary or required to hold that idea as TRUE.

In order to have a meaningful dialogue with you on this subject, you and I have to agree to a definition of terms. Here are some definitions of FAITH and FACT taken from Wikipedia that I accept:

Faith is a belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that is characteristically held without proof.[1] [2] Informal usage of the word “faith” can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of “trust”, “belief”, or “hope”.

Fact is pragmatic truth, a statement that can be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial.

When I made the statement that atheists and agnostics are people of faith, it is because the conclusive position or idea each of these hold to be TRUE is NOT based on FACT, but rather one based on FAITH. Let me explain before you object –
The basic conclusion or idea an ATHEIST holds as TRUE is that God does not exist.
The basic conclusion or idea an AGNOSTIC holds as TRUE is that God’s existence is not ascertainable (not knowable). I have also heard the definition of an agnostic as one who acknowledges that God “may” exist, but has a disinterested non-involvement with creation (ie – has wound up the clock and left it to itself).

Now you made the statement that “I’d like to think that all my beliefs are based on evidence and subject to revision as new evidence and arguments become available.” I acknowledge that you have internalized an understanding of facts based on evidence. That is your road map. Where you and I disagree is the destination on the map or rather the CONCLUSION based on those facts.

The CONCLUSION you and I acknowledge is preceded and supported by FACTS. But the conclusion (the destination of those facts) is in itself a position or idea accepted on FAITH and not FACT. Do you see the distinction I am making? Let’s take the position of an atheist. Conclusion – God does not exist (TRUE or FALSE)? The atheist says that position is TRUE. Is that a position that is FACT? No, it is a position and conclusion preceded by facts, but in and of itself is NOT a fact. It is rather an acknowledgement of something as TRUE that in and of itself cannot be proved to be a FACT. It is an acknowledgement of a TRUTH that in and of itself accepted on FAITH.

What kind of beer do you like to drink? I’m a Guinness person myself …

Happy Easter !!!
Jim

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus may be an example to follow but as you say, we all fall short. This doesn’t explain how the death and resurrection of Jesus results in our forgiveness for our sins, and why believing that these events really happened has anything to do with whether or not we are forgiven.
Leela

It is not just a matter of forgiveness: an infinitely loving Father forgives any crime, no matter how heinous. A finite offence cannot deserve an infinite punishment but all sins have repercussions on the sinner and the victims. Selfishness inexorably leads to alienation from God and others. The Greek idea of nemesis and the Indian belief in Karma are based on the reality of cosmic justice. God is infinitely merciful but also infinitely just. These two apparently contradictory attributes are reconciled in the prayer given to us by Jesus:

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us…

We ultimately reap what we sow and receive what we deserve. However much God loves us we can reject His love by choosing to live for ourselves. The lust for power can overcome everything else. We need help to resist the greatest temptation - to put ourselves before everyone else. We need inspiration and guidance to avoid the pitfalls in the spiritual life. The path to perfection is impossible to follow without a person who shows us how to live and how to die. Our sins are atoned by Jesus but we still have to atone for them ourselves: otherwise our flaws remain and we are incapable of living in harmony with others.

To doubt the death and resurrection of Jesus is understandable but to reject his message of love is unforgivable. We are not forgiven unless we forgive and make amends for the suffering we have caused. To any unbiased person the moral teaching of Christ is the noblest ever given to humanity. If we identify ourselves with him as he identified himself with us we become one and inseparable for all eternity. We share his life, death and resurrection. Without his love we could never deserve to be in heaven. Perhaps we could have been redeemed in some other way from evil - from our ignorance, weakness and selfishness - but no one has ever explained how!

 

[tonyrey]

I should add that those who follow the example of Christ are not necessarily Christians and professed Christians do not necessarily follow the example of Christ

 

[anon5216]

So, let’s see,

Humanity as committed a lot of finite sins,
and to compensate and atone for these finite sins,
God lets us commit an infinite sin of torturing and murdering Him
while He is manifesting as a physical human being.

 

[tonyrey]

So, let’s see,

Humanity as committed a lot of finite sins,
and to compensate and atone for these finite sins,
God lets us commit an infinite sin of torturing and murdering Him
while He is manifesting as a physical human being.

Deicide is undoubtedly an infinite offence but it was hardly an infinite sin given the ignorance of those responsible for his suffering and death. “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”…

Leela, I think your objections are based on emotion rather than logic You haven’t refuted any of the reasons I have given. You just don’t believe the greatest love is to give one’s life for one’s friends or that it can liberate them from their blindness and weakness… or that there is a solution to the problem of evil… or even that the problem exists…

 

[tonyrey]

So, let’s see,

Humanity as committed a lot of finite sins,
and to compensate and atone for these finite sins,
God lets us commit an infinite sin of torturing and murdering Him
while He is manifesting as a physical human being.

I inadvertently posted my reply to Leela instead of you But my response is the same:

Deicide is undoubtedly an infinite offence but it was hardly an infinite sin given the ignorance of those responsible for his suffering and death. “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”…

It would be interesting to know whether or not you believe that the greatest love is to give one’s life for one’s friends or that it can liberate them from their blindness and weakness… or that there is a solution to the problem of evil… or even that the problem exists…