Problems with Theories of the Atonement

[LateCatholic]

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.

I think that if your understanding of the Trinity is that God just changes his uniform, you don’t understand the theological depths of the issue. The Trinity was argued about for decades and is still controversial. Although most Christian sects believe in the Trinity, at the birth of Christianity there was great angst and debate. Many sects at the time either believed Jesus was not divine, or was divine and distinct, and so forth.

There is no logical or rational resolution of the Trinity. That is why apologists use presuppositionalism to support it. I’m not saying your belief in the Trinity is wrong from a theological perspective. You can believe what your want. That’s what makes it “religion”. But don’t try to claim it makes sense through logic or reason. It doesn’t. It is a matter of faith.

 

[StashLazarus]

This article has a very different atonement theory. It basically says that Christ is one of us, He was begotten of the Father meaning He came from oneness with God at the beginning of time, returns to oneness with God at the end of time. Returning to oneness with God, Jesus will lay down His flesh and this makes it completely reasonable and fair for our flesh to be separated from our spirit. Our spirit is judged separate and is found worthy of eternal life and is given a new body. Thus we have eternal life through Christ and only through Christ, but there is no transfer of responsibility for sin and all good people will go to Heaven even if they never heard of Christ.

https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Reason-for-Creation

 

[LateCatholic]

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.”

I’m losing track of your position. Do you believe in evolutionary theory or not? Y-Adam and M-Eve were not contemporaries or mates. Therefore, Y-Adam must have been a polygamist. That is all I am saying. It’s genetics.

This part of the discussion is about reconciling evolution with Christian theology. 200 years ago, there was no issue. God created Adam and Eve, they had no parents, no siblings. They sinned. We inherited that sin. Jesus saved us. End of story. Nice and tidy.

Now, we know the above is NOT true. If you still think it’s true, this discussion is not for you. Now, how do we reconcile Jesus having to die if there was no literal Adam? Well, perhaps there was a “virtual” Adam. Perhaps God picked one of humanity at some point is the past, and gave that man the first soul. He sinned, and thus the concept of original sin is maintained. This is what others in this thread are saying.

But my point is that this is not satisfying. Do we really think that the thousands of humans lived alongside Adam and his children for generations were “soulless”? Adam’s parents had no soul? His ‘wife’ had no soul? His children from his other mates were ‘soulless’? Someone in this thread said that Adam must have wandered off an been a loner, starting his own tree of humanity. The rest of humanity was out of luck. I said that as weird as that sounds, it at least somewhat helps - but others criticized me for that.

Still others have said (including the formal teaching of the Church) it is a “mystery”. Don’t worry your little head, smarter people understand it. This is a cop-out. It is these types of threads that make it hard to continue to be a Christian. There just doesn’t seem to be an answer.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m losing track of your position.

I know. I think you’re still making a leap of logic that isn’t called for.

Do you believe in evolutionary theory or not?

There is more than one way to talk about ‘evolution’. I don’t subscribe to all of them blindly. But yes… I think the scientific data can lead to valid conclusions that contradict “six-day creation.”

Y-Adam and M-Eve were not contemporaries or mates. Therefore, Y-Adam must have been a polygamist. That is all I am saying. It’s genetics.

Yeah, but “Y-Adam” is not the Adam of the Bible, nor “M-Eve” the Eve of the Bible. So, you can’t really draw any conclusions about them, vis-a-vis this discussion, with respect to theology. It seems you’re trying to do precisely that.

 

[Crocus]

You’re right, @laylow and @LateCatholic, “Barbie’s” vocational identities = horrible example for trying to explain the Trinity.

St Patrick supposedly used a shamrock. That too is inadequate.

It is not necessary to understand the Trinity to be open to experiencing the relationship with God. I am willing to accept it as mystery.

 

[LateCatholic]

This article has a very different atonement theory.

Some interesting ideas but it completely contradicts Christian thinking:
No Holy Spirit, Jesus is not eternal, humanity is inherently good, etc.
Also doesn’t really make sense. Doesn’t say anything about the Resurrection, just the Crucifixion.
Lots of missing pieces.

 

[LateCatholic]

Best perhaps for mere mortals to simply be open to experiencing the relationship with God and accepting it as mystery.

And, as I said, you are welcome accept this. or perhaps Christian theology is incorrect?

 

[Crocus]

If Christian theology is incorrect, and the Resurrection is a lie, pity us. If true, and some do rail against it because complete understanding must be found on one’s own terms, then what?

Then what? Not at all asking you, I know my duty is to pray for you.

 

[mcq72]

God is not all-powerful, and morality and justice exists above God.

Thank you…the above is so circular…if there be a higher power, then who created it or him or them?..and then who created them?..it could go on and on…I am leary of when in trying to understand what something , someone, is, we change what really is.

 

[mcq72]

then there MUST be a standard of justice above God. Who made THAT standard? It must exist outside of God.

Interesting…yet it seems like the finite being telling the infinite being how it must be, setting the paradigm, etc…like some claim He gives us His standard and some scoff and say or ask, “Well who gave it to Him?”

I don’t know, intellectually disguised unbelief?

 

[Gorgias]

LateCatholic:

God is not all-powerful, and morality and justice exists above God.

Thank you…the above is so circular…if there be a higher power, then who created it or him or them?..and then who created them?..it could go on and on…I am leary of when in trying to understand what something , someone, is, we change what really is.

Good point. The nuance here, which @LateCatholic seems not to have considered, is that God doesn’t “obey” a higher power, but rather, He acts in accord with His own divine nature. So, when He does something, it’s not because someone or something more powerful than Him is compelling Him to do it – it’s because He Himself is the source of all goodness, and He does what is in accordance with His divine Will.

 

[mcq72]

Thank you and likwise, well said…I like what Wiki reports some as saying short and succintly, that they present a “false dilemma”.

 

[mcq72]

Adam’s parents had no soul? His ‘wife’ had no soul? His children from his other mates were ‘soulless’? Someone in this thread said that Adam must have wandered off an been a loner, starting his own tree of humanity. The rest of humanity was out of luck.

Not sure I follow. What does an evolutionist believe about what we are as a species relative to other related species…what species have “soul”, and is there anything like a “spirit” ?
I would think “humankind” has a soul, or at least something quite different than all other relative,related species. Therefore Adam’s parents were not “human” and no need to ponder their souless or unhuman or limited evolving. And as to them being out of “luck”, not sure how that fits into evolutionary vocabulary or scheme of things…I thought the whole science thing was to try to understand things apart from luck( chance/ time are not a force that change anything).

 

[LateCatholic]

Not sure I follow.

I’m frustrated that people don’t seem to grasp this simple concept. Clearly some do and are ok with it, but I find it troubling. Specifically, if you subscribe to the Theory of Evolution AND you believe in original Sin, you must acknowledge:

1. There were thousands of human beings alive when Adam was ‘granted’ a soul, and therefore
2. His parents did not have souls
3. His siblings did not have souls
4. His friends and contemporaries did not have souls
5. His wives (he must have been a polygamist) did not have souls
6. Every genetic line not directly descended from Adam, many of which must have held on for thousands of years, did not have souls

In addition:
7) There must have been a reason why God chose that particular person. Why?

Further - if you raised these points 200 years ago, the response from the Church would have been that of course the above is ridiculous. There was only one Adam, he was the first human, period. No problems.

But NOW - if you also subscribe to evolution, you have to accept the above.
I find it troublesome, yet many on this thread shrug it off like water off a duck.
I guess you can, I just don’t see how we can keep twisting our theology around to match science.
Maybe it is wrong.

personally, “Original sin” makes absolutely no sense at all. The above is just part of the reason why.

 

[LateCatholic]

The nuance here, which @LateCatholic seems not to have considered, is that God doesn’t “obey” a higher power, but rather, He acts in accord with His own divine nature. So, when He does something, it’s not because someone or something more powerful than Him is compelling Him to do it – it’s because He Himself is the source of all goodness, and He does what is in accordance with His divine Will.

No - you must have missed some earlier posts. The above is NOT my opinion. This is about the philosophical paradox called Euthyphro’s Dilemma. These are not MY positions. the dilemma is:

1. Either God is not all-powerful and answers to a higher authority, like “goodness” (to use your term)
2. God is all-powerful. Anything he does MUST be “good”.

You claim I subscribe to #1, and you bring up #2 as an alternative I have not considered. But I have considered both, and philosophers for centuries have as well. The point is that God has done some horrible, nasty things. He’s killed. He’s tortured. He’s ordered genocide. These clearly are not “good” acts. So how can he be the source of all “goodness”?

Apologists have tried to resolve this for centuries, but it never has been. Personally, I resolve it in two ways. First, I claim morality is “subjective”, and second, God ‘probably’ never did those horrible things - the Bible is full of lies and falsehoods.

So, if one day I find myself at the Golden Gates in front of God to be judged, I have NO PROBLEM saying “Sorry, God, you should not have ordered the genocide of the Amalekites”. I expect one of three things to happen:

1. God says “Well, sorry but there are forces above me that even I answer to, so I had to do it” - choice 1 of the dilemma.
2. God says “Well, you’re wrong, I am the source of all goodness. Everything I do is good. If I want to kill babies, it’s a good thing” - choice 2 of dilemma
3. God says “Good for you. Of course I didn’t order that, that was political leaders tricking people into doing evil things in my name. The Bible is full of lies.”

I’m hoping for #3. Now, many Christians will think I am crazy, but come on, have you ever actually READ the Bible?

 

[TULIPed]

That he killed only the Amalekites is a perfect example of his goodness and mercy. We all deserve to burn.

 

[mcq72]

Rather, there is significant genetic diversity to inform us that the pool of human ancestors never bottlenecked down to two ancestors.

are you sure about this ? I saw a program on PBS where folks traced their dna and ancestry, and they found that all could be traced to back to a general geographical area of northeast Africa…they concluded on a common ancestry, even of two people…was not a religious program

 

[mcq72]

ok…still don’t understand. God chose one person for what ? to give him a soul, when you state there were many "humans’ 'already around, with souls. Or did he chose one human with a soul , out of many , and give him a spirit? That is different, and don’t know what others espouse. Not sure that evolution requires humans to pop up all over the place simultaneously . Why couldn’t there be a first male and a first female to pop up ?

Again what makes up a human being and what is owed to evolution and what is owed to direct Godly intervention in creating any difference ?

 

[mcq72]

well, first of all thank you for sharing . I am wondering if you have read Aquinas …not sure he would change anything due to evolution. Anyways, seems like many christian folks have answered the dilemma, claiming it to be false for centuries, and Jews also, way before there was a "dilemma’’ via the Greeks.

As to your three responses, not sure why you limit to three, if indeed everything is subjective. There are no absolutes, yet you play within that paradigm (leaving our answers out). I mean even saying it is all subjective seems to be an “absolute”…then it is immaterial to hope for any of the three…all are "good’’ plus ours, or anyone’s.

Understand your points though, just wish you would see other’s point …for sure we have read the bible. We do not stick our head in the sand when it comes to God’s “atrocities”. All in the eye of the beholder, and yet one can certainly be wrong in seeing. I mean folks used to spank their kids, make them eat their vegetables or finish their plate , and we used to hang horse thieves and murders, and consider abortion murder and homo sexuality a sin…and today such actions and views are evil.

I mean is there such a thing as personal sin? and is there such a thing as "judgement’’ ? Can injustice be “good” ? is hell a lie, and the flood, for which there is some historical and scientific data to support, a lie ? Was there a “Christ”? Did He die and resurrect ? All these things are in the bible, so now not sure that you believe any of it, save for what you specifically say (there is a God and He is “good”).

 

[Gorgias]

Not sure I follow. What does an evolutionist believe about what we are as a species relative to other related species…what species have “soul”, and is there anything like a “spirit” ?

That’s the whole point – scientists don’t concern themselves with souls! Therefore, when a scientist things about origins of specie, he’s not thinking about the same things that theologians are, when they think about creation. So, it’s an error of category to conflate the two. We might wish to harmonize the two, so that the two accounts do not conflict with each other, but one is dealing in apples and the other in oranges…!

I would think “humankind” has a soul, or at least something quite different than all other relative,related species. Therefore Adam’s parents were not “human” and no need to ponder their souless or unhuman or limited evolving. And as to them being out of “luck”, not sure how that fits into evolutionary vocabulary or scheme of things…I thought the whole science thing was to try to understand things apart from luck( chance/ time are not a force that change anything).

Right. But, that’s where @LateCatholic is coming from; he’s looking at the problem and asking, “if we attempt to harmonize theology and science, there are some issues that make me feel uncomfortable; how can I deal with that?”…

His wives (he must have been a polygamist) did not have souls

You keep saying this, without any seeming rationale. How do you know that our ‘Adam’ even had “wives” prior to ensoulment? How do you know he was “polygamous”? Wild conjectures.

Every genetic line not directly descended from Adam, many of which must have held on for thousands of years, did not have souls

How do you know that they “held on for thousands of years”? And, why would an unensouled line bother you so much? (And, of course, consider that what I’m suggesting is that as soon as a descendent of Adam had children with a non-descendant of Adam, their children were now “descendants of Adam”, and therefore, were ensouled!)

Further - if you raised these points 200 years ago, the response from the Church would have been that of course the above is ridiculous. There was only one Adam, he was the first human, period. No problems.

You keep refusing to answer my question: if you’d asked about heliocentrism 600 years ago, you’d get the same response. Does that mean that the response is correct? If not, why bother worrying about it?