Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Pallas_Athene]

Thanks for making our point.

No, you misunderstand - probably on purpose. The INCORRECT caricature deserves no response. (Like the one you presented. And even though it did NOT deserve a response, I gave you one to show where your error was.) And so far you did not show any error in the presented “caricatures”.

And more importantly you did not respond to the caricature-free analysis about the problem of atonement. Is God a bloodthirsty tyrant, who does not care if the guilty party is the one who pays the price, or if an innocent one is punished instead of the guilty?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

See, here’s the thing - Catholics (and actually most, if not all, Christians) believe that God’s mind can’t be fully understood.

Obviously. But I would be perfectly happy, if I could understand how your mind works (“your” is meant in general, indicating the Christians). Because that is the mystery for me.

In essence, it’s like the person who pleads guilty to a crime he/she knows was committed by his/her child/spouse/friend/etc. so that his/her child/spouse/friend/etc. doesn’t get punished.

Very well said. A just judge, who KNOWS that this person is lying, that he is innocent, will reject the offered sacrifice, because justice cannot be served by doubling the injustice. Not to punish the guilty and punishing the innocent instead does not lead to an “atonement”, it compounds the injustice, makes it even worse, much worse.

A just judge might smile and say: “Now that is very noble of you.” And he may add: “because of your love and good intentions, I will not punish the wrongdoers to the FULL extent of the law (in other words, I will NOT dispense justice), I will halve their punishment (in other words I will be merciful instead). Because, you know my der friend, one can either be just or merciful… but never can be both at the same time”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . In you interpretation God accepts this substitution. Effectively God says: “I don’t care if the guilty is the one which pays the debt, or an innocent one. As long as there is blood flowing, as long as there is suffering my sense of justice is fulfilled.”

In my world God’s answer would be: “What kind of nonsense is that? I am not a bloodthirsty tyrant who only cares about “someone” suffering. That is not justice. Kind of you to offer, but I will not accept it. They will have to be punished according to their deeds. Since I am merciful, I will let them pay their dues in the purgatory. No finite deed merits an infinite punishment.”

Now tell me what is wrong with this analysis?

What you say does not coincide with what I understand. Clearly, I also don’t believe what you don’t believe, simply because that’s not the way it is.

Try this:

We make of ourselves what we will: in this world as members of our professions, our families, our society and as friends or enemies.
This all happens over a course of time. With respect to the present moment, the past is gone and the future is yet to happen.
However, the totality of our existence (reality) is eternally present in all its moments within God’s vision as the Father of creation.

Judgement while external with respect to our will, is actually “built into” ourselves; it is the truth, within the context of all our circumstances, of the actual person whom we have become.

Paradise can be conceptualized as an eternal condition of love - joy in the giving all of oneself to our Creator, who is love.
In order to participate in heaven, for us sinners, what is required is a transformation into someone pure and loving. We must become Christ-like.
The Word gave of Himself to mankind, becoming one of us, taking up our sins, dying to them so that mankind could have the capacity to commune with God.
There is no way around the reality of what we have done.
The sinner has to “die and be reborn” in Christ. This has been made possible for us through His sacrifice.

 

[Bradski]

One cannot translate the sacred into the profane.

Step away from the sacred. Look at things from other viewpoints. This is what scepticism requires. What I wrote is not meant to be taken as sacred. It is meant, however, to represent the facts as have been given. I could have written it in iambic pentameter, or rap, or put it to song. It still represents the facts of the matter as described. But it seems that if you read it from the bible as it was written in the time of King James and assume a pious demeanour, then it obtains a patina of veracity. It then seems to need no explanation. The words themselves, even if they are meaningless, become the meaning itself. It must be true!

Why would a soldier fall on a grenade to save the dumazz next to him who gave away their position? Shouldn’t he just run the other way? Why would Mother Teresa give up her life and willingly risk disease and poverty
to tend people who are someone else’s responsibility?

This has absolutely zero to do with atonement. Do you want to try to bring the story up to date and use your examples? Give it a go. Jesus throws Himself on a grenade to save His friends and that is atonement. No it isn’t. Jesus gives up His life to care for the poor and that is atonement? No it isn’t.

Both sides, as presented, make zero sense.

Well, you are the one presenting your side. I simply paraphrased it without quoting the bible. And what I wrote sounded ridiculous . But it’s what you want me to believe.

If not, then simply quote anything I wrote and tell me where it is incorrect. No deflection, please. No more: ‘Oh, you think I have a problem, well what about YOUR problem’. That’s simply being evasive. No more grenades or Mother Theresa. No more simply repeating ‘It’s just atonement’. No special pleading as to my inability to understand. It’s not difficult to understand. It’s quite a simple story. It just makes no sense the way it’s been explained. And not just by you. By anyone at all.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What you say does not coincide with what I understand.

Then there is a problem with your understanding.

Because my proposition is extremely simple: “Justice cannot be served by punishing an innocent, even if that innocent wishes to volunteer to take the punishment”. Not punishing a guilty one is already unjust. Punishing the innocent instead only doubles the injustice. That is all.

 

[davidv]

Then there is a problem with your understanding.

Because my proposition is extremely simple: “Justice cannot be served by punishing an innocent, even if that innocent wishes to volunteer to take the punishment”. Not punishing a guilty one is already unjust. Punishing the innocent instead only doubles the injustice. That is all.

If you think God punishes the innocent, this is a straw man of our understanding.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If you think God punishes the innocent, this is a straw man of our understanding.

Was Jesus innocent of any wrongdoing? yes/no?
Did he ask to remove that punishment? yes/no?
Did God honor that request? yes.no?

Whether you accept the WORDING or reject it is of no consequence. Jesus “volunteered” to be crucified for the sins of humanity. (At least at the beginning… and then he changed his mind and asked to be released… God refused.) God accepted that sacrifice as an atonement. So the innocent WAS punished.

 

[Aloysium]

Then there is a problem with your understanding.

Because my proposition is extremely simple: “Justice cannot be served by punishing an innocent, even if that innocent wishes to volunteer to take the punishment”. Not punishing a guilty one is already unjust. Punishing the innocent instead only doubles the injustice. That is all.

Agreed I don’t understand what you are saying because it has nothing to do with God as I know Him, nor with Divine Justice, which has everything to do with love and freedom.
Punishment is a way we conceptualize the negative impact that evil action has on our being.

 

[Aloysium]

Look, I am not a theologian, just a random guy on the internet. If you want my view of humanity, sin and redemption, try this:
There exists one humanity of whom we are all individual expressions.
Humanity fell and has been redeemed.

We are one humanity.
What we do includes what is happening as you understand these words, albeit in your own way, possibly how I intended.
We have these sorts of gifts to different degrees.
If we consider the experience of life, with time existing as a fixed now through which time flows, past, present, future, until it stops - this another aspect of what it means to be human, in relation to the world.
We love, build, destroy, laugh and cry. We commune with one another and are lost in isolation. All that which we have always experienced is humanity in relation to God and the rest of creation.
We are members of the human species, created as a body-spirit unity.

When Adam, the first pretty much perfect man in the perfect conditions, sinned,
he thereby caused a transformation in the human body reflecting our now damaged relationship to God.
We fell, and as a result we now die and are predisposed to sin, in this state of ignorance.
Jesus fixed this in humanity through His incarnation as one of us and by His death and resurrection.
We are now through Him capable of rising to the heavens - He is the living Way, in which we must grow.
How it works is something like that.

 

[davidv]

Was Jesus innocent of any wrongdoing? yes/no?

yes. Did God punish Him. No

Did he ask to remove that punishment? yes/no?

Not relevant. See above.

Did God honor that request? yes.no?

Not relevant. See above.

Whether you accept the WORDING or reject it is of no consequence. Jesus “volunteered” to be crucified for the sins of humanity. (At least at the beginning… and then he changed his mind and asked to be released… God refused.) God accepted that sacrifice as an atonement. So the innocent WAS punished.

Strange definition of punish you are using. He suffered, He was not punished, because of man. Big difference.

 

[Bradski]

Agreed I don’t understand what you are saying because it has nothing to do with God as I know Him, nor with Divine Justice, which has everything to do with love and freedom.

According to Christian theology (and posts explaining such in this thread), we all sinned and a sacrifice was required to atone for them. But apparently, we couldn’t pay for our sins ourselves:

God paid a ransom he didn’t owe because we owed a ransom we couldn’t pay.

So we couldn’t pay it and someone else, apparently, had to ‘step up to the plate’ as has been said. And that someone was God. And He chose an innocent man to be sacrificed. And He chose His own son.

…through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ

He didn’t sacrifice Jesus Himself. He sent Him to us so WE could sacrifice Him. So this innocent man was beaten, tortured, flayed and nailed to a cross to wait to die. By the very people who were in the wrong in the first place. And the fact that God ensured that we killed an innocent man is meant to atone for our sins.

How, Al, can that not be understood? It’s all as plain as day. It matches exactly the little conversation piece in my earlier post. No difference at all. It just doesn’t, yet again, make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Aloysium]

According to Christian theology (and posts explaining such in this thread), we all sinned and a sacrifice was required to atone for them. But apparently, we couldn’t pay for our sins ourselves:
So we couldn’t pay it and someone else, apparently, had to ‘step up to the plate’ as has been said. And that someone was God. And He chose an innocent man to be sacrificed. And He chose His own son.
He didn’t sacrifice Jesus Himself. He sent Him to us so WE could sacrifice Him. So this innocent man was beaten, tortured, flayed and nailed to a cross to wait to die. By the very people who were in the wrong in the first place. And the fact that God ensured that we killed an innocent man is meant to atone for our sins.
How, Al, can that not be understood? It’s all as plain as day. It matches exactly the little conversation piece in my earlier post. No difference at all. It just doesn’t, yet again, make any sense whatsoever.

The first thing that pops to mind is that the sacrifice of the Word at the foundation of creation, is revealed throughout scripture until its revelation in Jesus Christ. In the Garden the two trees represent the wood of the cross by which sin is taken up by God, who dies to it and brings all who follow to everlasting life. Later we find Him revealed in Abel’s favoured sacrifice of his first-born, spotless lambs. This then angers Cain who kills his brother. In the story of the arc, we find the the wood protects the good as evil is destroyed - a new creation emerges in right relation to God. Isaac, the chosen son of Abraham the father of faith, carries the wood on his back by which he would be sacrificed to God, he and his father demonstrate their obedience, trust and faith in God. God stops them and offers them the sacrifice. Moses is told that they must kill the unblemished lamb, whose blood will protect them from death. They are told to eat of the lamb as we now eat of the body and blood of the most sacred innocent lamb, Jesus Christ.

God did not ensure we killed the innocent lamb. It is what we did, chosen freely as we do whenever we sin.

Above, in a previous post, I explained how this act transformed our very nature, making it possible for each and every one of us to enter paradise. He is the living Way, in whose likeness we become in obedience to God’s will to love. Jesus is the one true Vine.

The other aspect of the death and resurrection is in the revelation of God’s presence with us throughout our lives. He knows personally every suffering that this world can bring and it is within His eternal holy Heart that we can find peace and consolation. Some of the evil we endure is a consequence of our actions, but in Christ we see clearly the total injustice of this world, all the evil that exists, death itself, taken up and conquered. It is surely the good news.

Something like that. I’m not surprised it is difficult to make sense of all this as it takes us to the depths of what it means to be human, to suffer, to sin and to be in right relation to God.

 

[Bradski]

Something like that.

Well, thanks for the effort. It can be a pain typing on a phone.

I never read any copy and paste passages that someone throws in from the bible in any given post because I’m rarely interested in what someone has found to bolster his position from within scripture. I’m much more interested in what the guy doing the cutting and pasting personally thinks about it. I want to know if he’s simply cuttin’ and pastin’ with no thought or he actually believes what he writes.

I’ll grant that you are not quoting scripture but you are reverting to King James-speak all the same. ‘Sacrifice of the Word at the foundation of creation’ ? That doesn’t mean anything at all. This is a simple matter, so let’s discuss it simply.

Look, I’m a guy propping the bar who says: ‘Hey Al, what is it with this crucifixion business. Makes no sense at all’. The last thing you’d say (hopefully, anyway) would be something like ‘the blood of the most scared innocent lamb’. C’mon…we have time for a couple of beers and a chat before you need to leave.

 

[PRmerger]

He didn’t sacrifice Jesus Himself. He sent Him to us so WE could sacrifice Him.

Egg-zactly right.

So this innocent man was beaten, tortured, flayed and nailed to a cross to wait to die. By the very people who were in the wrong in the first place.

Absolutely right.

And the fact that God ensured that we killed an innocent man is meant to atone for our sins.

Not because He is innocent. For there were many innocent folks–Mary, to name one; but none of them could have atoned for our sin.

 

[tonyrey]

Wow. Pithy. Trenchant. Well said.

Thanks PR.
It seems inevitable that a sense of guilt leads to a desire to punish yourself in some way to make amends. Suicide is the most logical punishment for abetting murder - as in the case of Judas - but most people realise it is better to do something they** think **is more constructive (even though killing animals is destructive!). At least they felt and expressed their contrition unlike many people today.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks PR.
It seems inevitable that a sense of guilt leads to a desire to punish yourself in some way to make amends.

Yes.

What is it again that we call folks who do wrong but don’t feel the need to amend or fix it?

Oh, yeah–they’re called psychopaths.

 

[tonyrey]

It was indeed necessary to give all of us faith, hope, courage, inspiration and determination to follow His example if ever it becomes necessary for us to die for others. Actions not only speak they proclaim far more convincingly than words how we should live and die for everyone including our enemies.

Of course He can!

If he could have forgiven us, then it was not necessary.

I have explained why it is necessary for a loving Father: to give us faith, hope, courage, inspiration and the determination to follow His example if ever it becomes necessary for us to die for others.

If he needed that sacrifice, then he is just another pagan god.

There is a difference between “needing sacrifice” and “self-sacrifice”.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes.

What is it again that we call folks who do wrong but don’t feel the need to amend or fix it?

Oh, yeah–they’re called psychopaths.

A cruel word but it describes a fact!

 

[tonyrey]

According to Christian theology (and posts explaining such in this thread), we all sinned and a sacrifice was required to atone for them. But apparently, we couldn’t pay for our sins ourselves:

So we couldn’t pay it and someone else, apparently, had to ‘step up to the plate’ as has been said. And that someone was God. And He chose an innocent man to be sacrificed. And He chose His own son.

He didn’t sacrifice Jesus Himself. He sent Him to us so WE could sacrifice Him. So this innocent man was beaten, tortured, flayed and nailed to a cross to wait to die. By the very people who were in the wrong in the first place. And the fact that God ensured that we killed an innocent man is meant to atone for our sins.

How, Al, can that not be understood? It’s all as plain as day. It matches exactly the little conversation piece in my earlier post. No difference at all. It just doesn’t, yet again, make any sense whatsoever.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that you regard the Father and the Son as two different beings. They are three Persons who act in perfect harmony. Jesus **chose **to allow Himself to be killed to liberate us from evil. He was a man like us in all things but sin and was tempted to avoid torture and crucifixion yet He overcame that temptation because He knew it was His mission. It was precisely because He was innocent that we are redeemed; a criminal’s self-sacrifice would be noble but it wouldn’t be so astonishing and revolutionary:

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends…

I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The trouble with all these attempts is that one cannot atone for the deeds (sins) of others. Even if the act is voluntary. Two wrongs do not make a right. A just judge would never accept the volunteer’s sacrifice. Funny that I had to spell this out several times, and no one even tried to argue against it…