Problems with Theories of the Atonement

  • Thread starter Thread starter LateCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Only religion justifies lack of answers as acceptable.
on the contrary, we are told told subdue the earth, even to master it, now by the sweat of our brow. That is why i like the perfect harmony of the spiritual and science as evidenced during the renaissance with some of the great minds , being both spiritual and “scientific”.
Faith without doubt is not faith, it’s knowledge
not sure where you get that. Faith is the evidence of , the substance of , things not seen. The essence of faith is of a spiritual nature and dimension, not a “natural” dimension.

For example we are told of angelic beings, that only some have seen , and some by faith (where the OT prophet Elisha was not afraid of a surrounding enemy about to pounce because he saw an even larger surrounding encampment of protecting angels, that caused havoc on enemy… Kings (2 Kings 6).)
Only the natural mind doubts things of the spirit. (hence we are to have, even ask for, the mind of Christ 1 Corinthians 2:16)
And no one has knowledge of God
Well, there are different kinds of knowing aren’t there? Again our five senses are really only good for limited dimensions.

Also, I have never met Goya or Picasso, Washington or Lincoln but I have read about them and have seen their “creations”, and deeds drawing me deep into their person hood.

Scripture says the creation cries out a witness to its Creator.

Seems quite logical, even somewhat empirical based knowledge.

I agree partly though for scripture says we see thru a glass darkly now compared to the next life ( 1 Corinthians 13:12}, yet scripture says we know all things thru the unction of the Holy Ghost ([1 John 2:20)

Scripture says one must be born again to "see’’ this spiritual kingdom. The best a carnal mind can go is to admit one needs this different kind of sight. Quite counter intuitive, and really impossible save for the saving grace of God. I certainly was not born believing. In fact the older I grew from my youth the more I was at emnity with this other “realm”, and fought against it and Him, at times vigorously.

And so unlike Goya or Lincoln whom I can never really meet and intimately know, Jesus says He is a spirit who wishes to commune with us, beyond reading about Him…He says he stands at the door and knocks and will sup with whomever opens the door to Him. (Rev 3:20)
I think we need to continue to challenge our religious leaders, not blindly accept their decrees.
Partly agree as history shows us, but would add also pray for them. I would also say to challenge the status quo of this dimension also, that is other carnal minds. You don’t think nonreligious , unbelieving people don’t have clout, birds of a feather flocking together, with their pied pipers partly wrong at times also, as history shows us?
 
Last edited:
Only religion justifies lack of answers as acceptable.
The field of ethics is dominated by ethical theories that all have holes in them and don’t always agree with each other when applied. For instance, do we accept a consequentialist theory (e.g. Utilitarianism) or a non-consequentialist theory (e.g. Kantianism)?

So are you going to reject the whole of ethics? Or what about philosophy, since the same could easily extend to much of philosophy?
You always will fall back on the “it’s a mystery” cop-out.
Recognizing your limitations, which is just a mark of not being arrogant, can be done while continuing to search for as much truth as possible, even if you are aware that you may never fully understand it all.
 
So this is at least a rational attempt to resolve my concerns.
It really isn’t. Pay careful attention…
a man and a woman separated themselves from all others, God decided that they would become the “virtual Adam and Eve”, gave them souls, and all other human beings died out in time.

This is at least an explanation that fits. The point I am making is that in order to resolve evolution with Christian thinking, something like the above MUST have happened. Your explanation is the best so far.
Actually, it doesn’t fit. It’s not the best option, by a long shot.

You see, if that were true, then all humans would have the same single pair of common ancestors. That’s not what the genetic data tell us. Rather, there is significant genetic diversity to inform us that the pool of human ancestors never bottlenecked down to two ancestors. Therefore, this explanation competely fails the test of scientific reasonableness.

If you think this is a good explanation… then you don’t understand evolution and human genetics as well as you think you do. 🤷‍♂️
 
Only religion justifies lack of answers as acceptable.
Does science have all the answers to all physical questions? Does it think that it ever will? Does it characterize this situation as ‘unacceptable’?

(I’ll help you out: the answer to each of these questions is ‘no’. 😉 )
 
I have heard of above only in jest…free will comes into play…God could be unjust, unloving, untruthful but chooses not to.
We are delving into the philosophy of the Euthyphro Dilemma. I don’t think you get the point of the first horn. When you say, for example, “God could be unjust”, you are falling for the first horn. The point is that God can NEVER be unjust. Everything he does is “just”, is “loving”, is “truthful”. He does NOT have free will. If he orders the murder of a child, that was just and righteous. If he allowed his son to be tortured while watched, that was just.

Now, if you disagree, like you seem to, then you are falling for the other horn of the dilemma. If God DOES have free will, and could act unjustly if he so desired, then there MUST be a standard of justice above God. Who made THAT standard? It must exist outside of God.

The resolution of the dilemma is as follows. You must choose one of the following:
  1. God is not all-powerful, and morality and justice exists above God.
  2. God is all-powerful, but is not all-loving because he has committed cruel and evil acts
  3. God does not exist
  4. There is no absolute standard for morality.
Most regular Catholics subscribe to #1 (like you based on your post). Most theist scholars resign themselves to #2. Atheists of course are #3. Agnostics usually choose #4.
Only religion justifies lack of answers as acceptable.
There are of course thousands of unanswered scientific questions.
But science never claims there is NO answer, just that we have not found it yet.
Science never tells you to STOP asking the question.
That is the difference.
 
But science never claims there is NO answer, just that we have not found it yet.
Science never tells you to STOP asking the question.
That is the difference.
Theology doesn’t say “there’s no answer”. Theology doesn’t tell you to stop asking the question.

If the people with whom you’re talking with are giving you these responses, then the problem is your choice of interlocutors, not the claims of Catholic doctrine. 😉
 
You see, if that were true, then all humans would have the same single pair of common ancestors. That’s not what the genetic data tell us. Rather, there is significant genetic diversity to inform us that the pool of human ancestors never bottlenecked down to two ancestors. Therefore, this explanation competely fails the test of scientific reasonableness.

If you think this is a good explanation… then you don’t understand evolution and human genetics as well as you think you do. 🤷‍♂️
OK - I’m with you (somewhat), I didn’t say this was the answer, just that someone is trying to rationally address my question rather than spit out some mumbo-jumbo that doesn’t apply. And my point was that some sort of process like this must have occurred. If you are saying genetically it still doesn’t work, I won’t disagree if you can explain why not. However, explain why the reasoning is wrong:
  1. Y-chromosome Adam lived say, 100,000 years ago
  2. You are absolutely correct to say that there was no single couple. But technically for original sin to still be valid, all that is required is that Y-chromosome Adam OR EARLIER was given the first soul, and he then committed the first sin.
  3. Then everyone else EXCEPT his offspring from the point in time he sinned died out.
Now…according to genetics … Mitochondrial Eve did not live at the same time. Meaning Y-Adam had many wives/mates. But this still fits the technical rational for original sin.

What I am trying to say is that to rationalize original sin with evolution, you MUST come up with some crazy, ridiculous scheme such as the above. In this case, God picked just one man, “en-souled” him, and then that one, same man, committed the first sin. His offspring henceforth became the current people of earth, all inheriting his weakness and requiring salvation. All this despite there being thousands of other humans alive at the time, including that man’s parents, other offspring, siblings, contemporaries, whose genetic lines could have lived for tens of thousands of years, even though they were, sadly, “soulless”.

So, technically, I don’t see why the above doesn’t work. Explain why not. However, my point is the “original sin” is a ridiculous concept. For it to be valid, you either must be a creationist and deny evolution, or come up with some crazy, ridiculous solution that has its own difficulties - but at least technically works. For example, I find it ridiculous that God gave one man a soul, but not his wives or mates, not his brothers and sisters, not his parents. not his friends. But that is what you MUST believe to rationalize evolution with original sin. The theory proposed at least technically seems to meet the above criteria. See here:

https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478
 
Last edited:
You see, if that were true, then all humans would have the same single pair of common ancestors. That’s not what the genetic data tell us.
Just to be fair to you (see my post above), many scientists deny that Y-Adam existed. That you cannot trace of lineage back to one common ancestor, that our genetic make-up is mixed with genes from even other species. In this case, our first common ancestor was probably not even human. In other words, the first en-souled creature that sinned may not even have walked on two legs (if you want to rationalize evolution with original sin).

But that just justifies my point more - original sin is ridiculous.

Which gets back to my original point at the beginning of this thread. Without original sin, most of the Atonement theories fall apart. So why then did Jesus have to die?
 
Last edited:
The field of ethics is dominated by ethical theories that all have holes in them and don’t always agree with each other when applied. For instance, do we accept a consequentialist theory (e.g. Utilitarianism) or a non-consequentialist theory (e.g. Kantianism)?
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that given a certain context, there MUST be an answer. Your examples (Utilitarianism vs Kantianism), with all due respect, actually justify my point. Specifically, if you accept a certain initial context, both Kantianism and Utilitarianism are rationally consistent. The argument becomes whether your subjective basis to morality fits with either framework. For example, do you believe that actions are moral if they benefit life as a whole? Utilitarian. Do you believe persons are an end in and of themselves? Kantian. BUT…and here is the key - if you accept that initial content, both theories are rationally consistent - and you can even use game theory to prove it. There IS an answer. If the result is not rationally consistent (ie, “it’s a mystery”), then your initial context MUST be wrong.

But, ONLY with religion do you accept inconsistent rationalizations as valid. This is why Presuppositionalism has gained so much favor recently in apologetics - in many cases, it’s the only way for a theist to win the argument.

Consider, as another example, the concept of the the Trinity in the initial context of formal logic. It makes no sense, Never has, never will. One does not equal three. Three does not equal one. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you will never come to a rational conclusion. What is the final resolution? “It’s a mystery”. heck- we even say it as if it means nothing - “The mystery of the Holy Trinity”. Only in RELIGION is such a conclusion acceptable. Why? Presuppositionalism. The Church claims it to be true, so therefore it IS true - regardless of any logic, reason, or evidence. You will not see the concept of presuppositionalism anywhere else except in religion. That is the point.

Don’t take this as an attack on Christianity. All religions have this problem. That’s what makes them religions.
 
Now…according to genetics … Mitochondrial Eve did not live at the same time. Meaning Y-Adam had many wives/mates. But this still fits the technical rational for original sin.
OK… let’s stop right there and pause for a minute. The notions of ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ and ‘Y-Chromosome Adam’ have nothing to do with the theological assertions of Adam and Eve. So, don’t even go there. Don’t talk about whether Y-Adam was ensouled, or whether M-Eve had ensouled children. Just don’t do it. If you do, then you’re “crossing the streams” (to steal a ‘Ghostbusters’ metaphor). By talking about the genetic / genealogical concepts and attempting to correlate them to the theological ones – when there is no correspondence between them, per se! – we end up being confused and conflating the two fields improperly. We don’t posit that either of them are necessarily ensouled, nor does science discuss the matter of ensoulment whatsoever!

OK… I’ll get off that particular soapbox now… 😉
What I am trying to say is that to rationalize original sin with evolution, you MUST come up with some crazy, ridiculous scheme such as the above. In this case, God picked just one man, “en-souled” him, and then that one, same man, committed the first sin. His offspring henceforth became the current people of earth, all inheriting his weakness and requiring salvation.
Yep!
All this despite there being thousands of other humans alive at the time, including that man’s parents, other offspring, siblings, contemporaries, whose genetic lines could have lived for tens of thousands of years, even though they were, sadly, “soulless”.
A couple of thoughts:
  • You have no idea that the first truly human ancestor of ours had unensouled offspring. It’s a conjecture not worth bringing into the discussion.
  • You trust in the theories surrounding evolution, don’t you? What about “survival of the fittest”? Wouldn’t you say that an ensouled, rational human has an advantage over an unensouled hominin? And therefore, any offspring of his – also ensouled – would likewise have an advantage, namely, one that a scientist might identify as ‘natural selection’ when that line flourishes?
  • You seem to be suggesting that our first human parents’ children inbred. That, too, isn’t necessary. All that’s necessary is that their children had souls. So, a process of assimilation, rather than one of extinction, would create the scenario I’m describing, wouldn’t it?
And… that process is far less “ridiculous.” All you have to assent to is that the children of ensouled human(s) are themselves ensouled, and that they – as true humans – possess an advantage over others, which asserts itself according to natural processes of inheritance and natural selection. That doesn’t sound too ridiculous to me at all!
 
Last edited:
For it to be valid, you [must]… come up with some crazy, ridiculous solution that has its own difficulties
It’s all a matter of perspective.

You know what they told Copernicus about heliocentrism? “Ridiculous!”
You know what they told Darwin about the origin of species? “Ridiculous!”
You know what they told Einstein about general relativity? “Ridiculous!”

The genesis of every theory of natural physical science is labeled ‘ridiculous’ when it is first proposed. I think I’m in good company. 😉
I find it ridiculous that God gave one man a soul, but not his wives or mates, not his brothers and sisters, not his parents. not his friends.
Just stop. “Wives or mates”? Umm… theologically speaking, we believe that our first human parent had a ‘wife’ (if we can put it that way), and she, too, had a soul. Theologically speaking, we do not assert that he had (or did not have) “brothers and sisters.”

So, all we can say is that, if evolution is true, then our first human parents had their own parents, who were unensouled. Why is that ridiculous? Evolution posits that species evolve new features – dinosaurs evolved wings and became birds. That means that one dinosaur evolved wings that could support him, while his “wives and mates, brothers and sisters, parents, and friends” did not. Why is unensouled → ensouled any more ridiculous? Especially when the claim is that they weren’t evolved, per se, but given directly and immediately by God!
 
Last edited:
Bzzt. The doctrine of the Trinity does not posit that three equals one and one equals three. Never has, never will, to use your words. You can’t be one and three of the same thing simultaneously, of course, but the doctrine has never claimed that. It is entirely permissible in formal logic (if still hard to conceive and seemingly unique to God) to be one of one thing and three of another — three Persons in one God, three hypostases in one ousia, three “whos” in one “what.”
 
Don’t take this as an attack on Christianity. All religions have this problem. That’s what makes them religions.
And yet, 85% of the world is religious. Nearly a third of the word(!) identifies as Christian according to a demographic study done by the Pew Research Center. There is a concept in finance called the efficient market theory. It basically says that the market incorporates all publicly available information into the value of assets - or ideas. While I am impressed with your breadth of knowledge, I don’t think you would argue than any of what your propose is secret - or even groundbreaking.

If we assume a standard deviation among the 85% of the world that is religious in terms of intellgence, there a quite a few really, really smart people - like you (and maybe a few who are even smarter) - who are, in spite of knowing what you know - still religious. Why do you think this is the case(no kidding - as a businessman, I’m curious to know what you think about this - it’s always stumped me)?

I’m in the commodity business. I look at everything in terms of upsides and downsides. Blaise Pascal - a pretty smart guy - posited his wager. I’m sure you’re familiar with it. Help me understand where the downside is of believing in something greater than ourselves? Why are there still smart people out there who believe? (This last question is not meant to be persuasive or pedantic - if we were talking you would be able to tell - but since I’m writing this, I want to let you know that I’m actually interested in your thoughts on this.)
 
IIRC, the usual Christian response to the Euthyphro dilemma is to posit that the standard of justice exists “inside” God … that God has a nature that does not change. It’s not imposed from outside, but it’s not just “whatever God wants it to mean,” either. God is love and justice and all those things, and His power is used in accordance with that nature, not because some even higher power is making him do so, but because that’s the way He is. That is closest to your #1, but does not posit anything outside God setting the standard.

It helps to remember that actual theists have rarely meant “all-powerful” in the same sense as those who ask why God can’t choose to be evil or perform logical impossibilities. If you want to say that “all-powerful within the limits of His nature and basic logic” isn’t really all-powerful, then I suppose most of us indeed don’t believe in a really all-powerful God, but I also suspect we’re okay with that. As long as there isn’t some competing entity of equal or greater power, and as long as God isn’t some jumped-up alien but the actual foundation of reality itself, we’re good.
 
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that given a certain context, there MUST be an answer. Your examples (Utilitarianism vs Kantianism), with all due respect, actually justify my point. Specifically, if you accept a certain initial context , both Kantianism and Utilitarianism are rationally consistent.
So in ethics, it is entirely acceptable to accept a theory of ethics and march on ahead applying it while ignoring that people have philosophical problems with your core reasoning, but in Catholicism, it isn’t acceptable to accept a theory of atonement despite people’s objections to the philosophical reasoning behind it?
But, ONLY with religion do you accept inconsistent rationalizations as valid.
Not necessarily. Using the atonement as an example, the Church has obviously not thrown itself entirely behind one theory at the expense of others. Why? Because there are problems others have with each theory from a philosophical perspective, and no one has been able to come up with a theory that everyone accepts at the expense of others.

But just like we don’t reject the whole of philosophy because one of its fields, ethics, is dominated by theories that philosophers can’t universally agree on, we don’t reject Catholicism because one of its subjects, the atonement, has theories Catholic theologians and philosophers can’t all agree on.
Don’t take this as an attack on Christianity. All religions have this problem. That’s what makes them religions.
https://media.giphy.com/media/pjxtO8yBV3rGg/giphy.gif(image larger than 4096KB)
 
I have also pondered these questions and cannot, unfortunately, cite a single source which finally satisfied me. It was only after I had been listening for a long time to people like Bishop Barron, Dr. David Anders and others that my Protestant upbringing finally began to break up and come loose over the mainly-Calvinist issue of “atonement”. I also learned a great deal from the late Episcopalian, Dr. Marcus Borg on this.

What I was able to boil it down to was this, which comes from both Barron and Anders- If God could not forgive us except someone be sorely punished, tortured, and put to death, then he is no parent anyone should want. So I tossed that idea out altogether and began from scratch. Tim Staples covers it very well here in 8 minutes;

 
Last edited:
I find much of Christian thinking lacking.
Define Christian thinking exactly.
I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings,
That’s an immature expression in a discussion.
You are not hurting anyone’s feelings. How can you be? This is a discussion. Do you understand how the development of an accepted theory works? Or peer review?
or make them question their faith.
Faith is knowledge brought about by the gift of grace. It cannot be caused to be questioned due to one guy being very confused about why Jesus died on the cross and was Resurrected.
posing these questions always resulted in me either being branded a troublemaker or to stop asking them.
You are at least 40yo.
When we are young and rebellious we usually get some tag,
But you have expressed this in several posts on several threads. Time to push past these tags of a misspent, rebellious or youth full of questions that were not responded to in the correct manner
Not surprising someone suggesting the latter would eventually appear. I’m happy your child-like faith allows you to ignore the contradictions of our faith and the world around us. I cannot.
No, devout2him is not suggesting that at all.
What you have failed to appreciate in his or her posts, and thus demonstrates a huge gap in your basic understanding of Jesus and His Ministry, is the expression of faith in its childlike simplicity.

Read the Gospels.
But you do not trust God. You trust his messengers and translators that claim to be speaking for God.

For example, you read the gospels. You notice inconsistencies. Your response, based on the above posts, is to ignore those and assume God knows what He is doing. After all, He is God.
Who are you calling a messenger of God?

Latecatholic, I doubt you are catholic . But that’s ok. In fact I read on another thread you were booted from a site for challenging. And people were saying you should declare your atheism or what you believe, straight up.

But I will tell you one thing. You are focussing in on a very fundamentalist view of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. You are then drawing a very long bow with your fundamentalist interpretation and then conclusions.

Know this, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.
 
Last edited:
Again, not sure what you are disagreeing with. But here is the point I am making. The Church SPECIFICALLY says that every human being alive today DESCENDED from this person you call “Adam”
Where does the church say this. Provide the documentation.

You are making a lot of claims and expecting us to just swallow them, without backing.

Where does the church mention 6000 years too? You made that claim up thread. Show us this too.
 
to be one of one thing and three of another — three Persons in one God, three hypostases in one ousia, three “whos” in one “what.”
My granddaughter received a “Barbie” doll recently. The doll arrived dressed as an airplane pilot. In the package was a white smock and stethoscope, for a doctor. Another change of clothes say, with a book and pointer, could easily have been included to represent her role as teacher/professor. Three in one at the level of a child’s toy.
 
Last edited:
My granddaughter received a “Barbie” doll recently. The doll arrived dressed as an airplane pilot . In the package was a white smock and stethoscope, for a doctor . Another change of clothes say, with a book and pointer, could easily have been included to represent her role as teacher/professor . Three in one at the level of a child’s toy.
That sounds like modalism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top