Problems with Theories of the Atonement

[Lucretius]

The Moral Influencer theory is probably the one most people that study the issue gravitate towards. It bypasses all the uncomfortable theological mumbo-jumbo and just declares Jesus lived a life to show us how to live and teach us morality. But in such a theory, there is no reason for the horrible suffering he endured. There is no need for a crucifixion or Resurrection. It stands without those events. In fact, it makes more sense WITHOUT those events (or is God saying that living a just and moral life will result in horrible suffering?).

Actually, the whole crux of the theory requires the suffering, death, and resurrection, because human life is full of suffering. It shows us how the suffering we have no control over doesn’t destroy us, but can be integrated into our perfection. The resurrection in particular demonstrates that God doesn’t let evil conquer over good.

You see, how we are to live isn’t just about good behavior and appearances, which can be faked, but about our interior life, our heart from which our actions and behaviors stem. Suffering, as shown in the book of Job, is a way to show where ones heart truly lies. If we love God just because of our health and riches and comfort, if these are taken away, then our love for God should go away as well, right? Your true friends are only seen in hardship, right? How is a woman supposed to know if a man’s intentions are true or not unless he is willing to sacrifice for her? We cannot see into a person’s heart except in how it flows into his actions, and good actions can be performed with bad intentions…unless the circumstances are such that only someone with pure intentions would act that way, only in circumstances that require pain, suffering, death…sacrifice. You value that which you sacrifice for.

The moral revelation isn’t just how we should act, it is how our hearts should think and feel and desire, which is not something we can see, except in extreme circumstances, where al the other variables are removed, and all that is left is the person’s innermost depths, his heart layer bare for all to see.

 

[LateCatholic]

Actually, the whole crux of the theory requires the suffering, death, and resurrection, because human life is full of suffering. It shows us how the suffering we have no control over doesn’t destroy us, but can be integrated into our perfection. The resurrection in particular demonstrates that God doesn’t let evil conquer over good.

This is a big stretch. So you are saying God knows that living a human life is full of suffering. It’s hard. It’s painful. It hurts. Now, we know God is all powerful. But instead of fixing it and easing our pain - which He could do at any instant - He turns himself into a human being, let’s himself be tortured and killed also, to sort of show us he feels our pain. Then, 3 days later, he fixes it all by resurrecting himself. Of course, we don;t get resurrected. We have to wait.

Like I said, NONE of the theories of Atonement make sense. This is why there are so many. Your’s is as good as any I guess. But if my children, whom I love very much, were suffering in a hospital with third-degree burns, and I had medicine that could ease their pain - or perhaps I could have even stopped it in the first place - I would certainly have. At the very least, I’d give them the medicine immediately. I certainly would NOT set myself on fire, wait three days, and then give myself the medicine to show them that we’re all in this together. Then I could tell my child - See! It’s going to all be OK in the end. That’s what you are saying. None of this makes sense. It really doesn’t.

 

[Shakuhachi]

This is a big stretch. So you are saying God knows that living a human life is full of suffering. It’s hard. It’s painful. It hurts. Now, we know God is all powerful. But instead of fixing it and easing our pain - which He could do at any instant - He turns himself into a human being, let’s himself be tortured and killed also, to sort of show us he feels our pain. Then, 3 days later, he fixes it all by resurrecting himself. Of course, we don;t get resurrected. We have to wait.

Thanks to Lucretius for taking a stab at these. I like moral influence. But the pain has value. God shouldn’t just fix it. It is the path of transformation. Dying to self, to ego, in order to discover who we really are is impossible without suffering. The cross is the paragon of that truth and mystery.

 

[Lucretius]

This is a big stretch. So you are saying God knows that living a human life is full of suffering. It’s hard. It’s painful. It hurts. Now, we know God is all powerful. But instead of fixing it and easing our pain - which He could do at any instant - He turns himself into a human being, let’s himself be tortured and killed also, to sort of show us he feels our pain. Then, 3 days later, he fixes it all by resurrecting himself. Of course, we don;t get resurrected. We have to wait.

How should he get rid of pain? By injecting everyone perpetually with morphine? By locking us all up in cells away from each other?

Or should he get rid of pain by getting rid of sin? That might work…but the Cross reveals that getting rid of sin involves suffering.

Christ doesn’t just show us that he suffers with us, but he shows us that our suffering means something. He shows us our suffering can heal sin, which is the real problem in the world, and the very source of suffering.

God even makes unjustified suffering work towards good, he makes unjustified suffering into unjustified mercy.

The truth of the matter is that pain is not the real problem with the world, but a symptom. The real problem is in our hearts, not in the blows to our head. And until sin is understood, atonement will not make any sense, let alone any theory.

 

[LateCatholic]

the Cross reveals that getting rid of sin involves suffering.

God is all-powerful. Getting rid of sin doesn’t require suffering. If it does, that’s God’s requirement.

He shows us our suffering can heal sin,

I never understood this. We still sin today. Nothing has changed. How does someone suffering, how does MY suffering, “heal” anything? Remember, the Atonement is about redemption by PROXY. Your sins can be resolved by another being. It makes no sense.

God even makes unjustified suffering work towards good, he makes unjustified suffering into unjustified mercy.

Can you explain this. I don’t understand what you are saying. How does a child getting cancer (unjustified suffering) morph into ‘mercy’? How can mercy be ‘unjustified’?

until sin is understood, atonement will not make any sense, let alone any theory.

I guess this means you agree with me, that the Atonement doesn’t make any sense? As I said in the beginning of this thread, all discussions about this eventually lead to “It’s a mystery” or “Cannot be understood by man”. I cannot accept such defeatism and, unless we can resolve it, perhaps the Atonement has no rational foundation.

 

[Gorgias]

This is a big stretch. So you are saying God knows that living a human life is full of suffering. It’s hard. It’s painful. It hurts. Now, we know God is all powerful. But instead of fixing it and easing our pain - which He could do at any instant - He turns himself into a human being, let’s himself be tortured and killed also, to sort of show us he feels our pain. Then, 3 days later, he fixes it all by resurrecting himself. Of course, we don;t get resurrected. We have to wait.

As a parent, you could refuse to take the training wheels of your child’s bike, or just take the bike away from him. After all, as a parent, you know that learning to ride a bike is full of suffering – in the beginning, it’s hard, it’s painful, it hurts. But, instead of fixing it and easing your child’s pain – which you could do at any instant – you allow your child to suffer. (And then, on the other side of the suffering, there’s good stuff.)

That’s “a stretch”? After all, it’s exactly the same argument you just made, albeit not on the cosmic scale of human redemption!

Then I could tell my child - See! It’s going to all be OK in the end. That’s what you are saying. None of this makes sense. It really doesn’t.

OK. So, in other words, your problem isn’t with “theories of atonement”; it’s with Christianity in general. Got it. (Well… that only took 150 comments to establish! )

I never understood this. We still sin today. Nothing has changed. How does someone suffering, how does MY suffering, “heal” anything?

Our suffering, when joined to Jesus’ redemptive act, can be linked to the treasury of merit. This is the whole “offer it up” thing that Catholic moms told their children throughout the ages…

I guess this means you agree with me, that the Atonement doesn’t make any sense?

No, it means @Lucretius recognizes something that you apparently don’t: if you don’t understand the concept of sin, then the concept of how we are saved from sin will never make sense to you.

As I said in the beginning of this thread, all discussions about this eventually lead to “It’s a mystery” or “Cannot be understood by man”.

No, that’s not true. None of the explanations you’re received in this thread have made that claim. Why, then, are you sticking to this straw man argument of yours?

 

[OmnesBonum]

I haven’t had time to read most of the replies to this thread, but I know that the normal problem with people’s understanding of the theories of atonement, is this: They fail to recognize that they are just images to help people understand what happened, not something to be taken literally. For example, God did not pay anyone anything to atone, or make people one, with him. This is just a picture that will be helpful to some people, and not to others. None of them are intended as an actual description of what really happened, since this is beyond human understanding.

 

[LateCatholic]

None of them are intended as an actual description of what really happened, since this is beyond human understanding.

Again, the discussion descends to simply, “we cannot understand”. Or perhaps, “smarter people than you understand, stop asking”.

I’m sorry, but I can’t accept that. To me, it may as well just be made up. If you are OK with accepting it acknowledging it doesn’t make sense, the discussion is over. I can’t.