Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[PRmerger]

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…

What you mean is that you can’t repent for the sins of another. Jesus’ repentance couldn’t (and doesn’t) replace our need to repent.

But He can certainly earn our redemption by taking our place on the altar.

 

[clem456]

Of course He can!
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.
There is a difference between “needing sacrifice” and “self-sacrifice”.

Yes he could. He is capable. We believe in an omnipotent God. God has the ability to wipe away every shortcoming with a wave of his hand.

Merely being capable is not what God is about. He is not just capable of doing things, he is a pure being, he is present, he is a lover. I AM gives us a share of his being out of love.
So that wave of his hand would be a distant gesture. That wave of the hand would be a dismissive and minimalist gesture. That distant gesture would be an easy violation of our free will, and a lover before all else desires the free response of the beloved. Distant gestures is the way we behave. We try to solve problems by force in an impersonal way. The lover desires the unification of wills between the lover and beloved, not the mere settling of a score. The lover desires a relationship more than anything else.

What does it mean to be in relationship? It means to become one with the other. Far from being a minimalist God, our God loves us so completely as to become one with us. He is not content to stand back and admire his own glory. Becoming one with us is something he can do. We cannot elevate ourselves. We are not perfect in any way. God condescends to become one with us in compassion. Compassion is not an emotion, it means “to suffer with”. We have wounds, he takes them on, just as a loving parent would for their child. He does not become one with us only in his glory, he gets into the mud and blood with us.

In becoming one with us, he shows us the way to love. Love cannot be distant and minimalist, or it is not love. Love cannot be waving the hand and merely balancing the scales, it goes beyond that to the crushing of the scales.
The CCC puts it very eloquently:

616 **It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.**447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

If you refuse to accept love as the basis for atonement and sacrifice, none of this can make sense to you. Your equation will never be satisfied. A world that does not recognize love’s power to transform and redeem is an un-reasonable world., in fact an insane world.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What you mean is that you can’t repent for the sins of another. Jesus’ repentance couldn’t (and doesn’t) replace our need to repent.

But He can certainly earn our redemption by taking our place on the altar.

If I wanted to say repentance I would have said repentance. Atonement and repentance are not the same. Repentance is to be sorry for something. Atonement is to do something to make up for what you did. Of course neither one can be done by a third party. Even if someone steals a minor amount of money, and someone else is willing to pay that money back, it will NOT undo the theft. But, of course we are not talking about a minor misdemeanor, but mortal sins. If the “price” is to die for that sin, and an innocent is killed instead of the culprit, that will not “atone” for the original act, it will multiply the injustice.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . 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.

I’d order you a Victoria Bitter, but I sense you are a Pure Blonde or perhaps the internationally trendy Corona Light sort of guy.
Me, never really understanding the point of one beer, I gave up drinking for health reasons.
It sounds sort of girly, but I’l have a ginger ale with some cranberry juice added.

Actually ‘Sacrifice of the Word at the foundation of creation’ is how I think. Let’s see how I do, breaking down the concept:

Creation occurs perpetually in the sense that everything comes into existence as a Divine act of bringing all that is, into being.
Perpetually, because things are always changing from an original point where time began.
Things came into being and remain into being until they will be no more.
There is no-thing outside of this. There is only God from whom all things come who is outside of and “over” everything He makes.

I will pass on a discussion of the Trinity since there’s no analogy that works and the explanation will sound King-Jameish…

The foundation of everything is compassion, the first light. If you were a Buddhist, I would say ॐ, the basic stuff of which everything is made.
It is the manifestation of the Word, the Son of God sacrificed to God’s creation. God is love, and through His Love, all this comes into being. This is what lies at the very foundation of creation.
We can know - perceive and think and feel because we are known from the Centre of all there is.
Not entirely happy with this explanatio and thinking that this may notl clarify the matter, all I can say is that it’s something like that.

As to the " blood of the sacred Lamb":
Blood gives life, without it there is death - dust.
The Lamb, represents the Divine sacrifice, innocent and good, meek and trusting, giving Himself as an expression of infinite love.

As to “sacred”, let’s see if I can translate in into the mundane without being sacriligious.
Since we are in a bar, you look up and see the hottest babe you have ever seen. She looks you straight in the eyes and smiles. After you put your eyes back in their sockets and close your gaping mouth, you go to your buddy, “That is the hottest babe I have ever seen!!!”
You are gazing at ‘perfection’. What words can you use that will express what you have witnessed?
As another example, for the ladies, having referenced a babe, recall what happens when a baby is brought into a room. It is all ooh’s and ah’s and “look at the little baby!”; there is an emotional, feeling component that comes with the experience of something wondrous.
Similarly with what is holy, the world rumbles, space opens up, wonder of wonders, gazing into the shear vastness of it all, the depths, the heights, WOW!! Fear of the Lord is a grace granted by the Holy Spirit. Difficult to convey, to be experienced in oneself, relating to the Awesomeness that is.

 

[PRmerger]

If I wanted to say repentance I would have said repentance.

Fair enough.

Atonement and repentance are not the same.

Indeed.

Repentance is to be sorry for something. Atonement is to do something to make up for what you did. Of course neither one can be done by a third party.

Of course you can have atonement done by a 3rd party.

That’s why the US gov’t, for example, is trying to make atonement for what was done to the Native Americans. The present day govt is a 3rd party to this.

And yet, we understand that atonement can be made by a 3rd party.

Even if someone steals a minor amount of money, and someone else is willing to pay that money back, it will NOT undo the theft

Ah. I see where your error lies. You think that “atonement” = “undo”.

It does not.

The theft has occurred, but we can make reparation for it. It can be atoned for.

Even if not done by the guilty party.

Surely you see that.

But, of course we are not talking about a minor misdemeanor, but mortal sins. If the “price” is to die for that sin, and an innocent is killed instead of the culprit, that will not “atone” for the original act, it will multiply the injustice.

I don’t think so. When an innocent is indeed killed instead of the culprit, that does indeed atone for the original act. Infinitely so, if it was done by…Infinite Goodness.

 

[tonyrey]

The trouble with all these attempts is that one cannot atone for the deeds (sins) of others. Even if the act is voluntary. Funny that I had to spell this out several times, and no one even tried to argue against it…

What is the rational basis of your assumption that we cannot atone for the deeds (sins) of others? Or is it just an unfounded dogma stemming from the notion that we are all isolated individuals with nothing in common apart from the fact that we are related solely by an accident of birth? At that rate there is no reason why we shouldn’t kill one another! You can’t have it both ways…

Two wrongs do not make a right.

It is not a case of two wrongs making a right but of unselfish love transforming us from being selfish into being unselfish - if we are willing to be transformed…

A just judge would never accept the volunteer’s sacrifice

A merciful judge would! Retribution is a primitive notion because one evil doesn’t cancel out evil; it doubles it! The criminal incurs punishment as a result of his crimes which have adverse social and psychological consequences on himself. The only justification for imprisonment is prevention of further crimes and rehabilitation.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That’s why the US gov’t, for example, is trying to make atonement for what was done to the Native Americans. The present day govt is a 3rd party to this.

And does it erase or does it minimize the injustices performed by the guilty ones? Not at all. These “restitutions” (and not atonements) are only there to allow the people to feel “good” about themselves… "yes, our forbearers committed these atrocities, but we “pay them off”…

Ah. I see where your error lies. You think that “atonement” = “undo”.

The aim of the restitution system is to restore the original state of affairs as closely as it can be done. Usually it is impossible. But the attempt is fine. Just let’s not delude ourselves that an “atonement” was made. A very inadequate “restitution” took place.

The theft has occurred, but we can make reparation for it. It can be atoned for.

Reparation is NOT the same as atonement. If a rape happens, how can one “atone” for it? Commit a self-castration? And if the perpetrator does not perform the self-castration, then the judge will castrate an innocent one in his place??? And then declare: “justice has been served!”

I don’t think so. When an innocent is indeed killed instead of the culprit, that does indeed atone for the original act. Infinitely so, if it was done by…Infinite Goodness.

I can just imagine the process.

1. Someone is indicted and found guilty for murdering someone.
2. The judge finds the person guilty.
3. A third party offers to take the seat in the electric chair… and
4. the judge accepts the substitute.
5. The execution is carried out…

and then the newspaper article presents:

**Justice has been served! The debt to society has been paid in full! ** I have no idea which planet are you from. Here, where I live this procedure would only invoke horror. Not only the guilty one was allowed to go free, but an innocent one was killed in his place… incredible.

 

[PRmerger]

And does it erase or does it minimize the injustices performed by the guilty ones? Not at all. These “restitutions” (and not atonements) are only there to allow the people to feel “good” about themselves… "yes, our forbearers committed these atrocities, but we “pay them off”…

I find it peculiar that you look so negatively upon this.

Would you rather that the US govt make no attempts to atone for the wrong doings?

Really?

The aim of the restitution system is to restore the original state of affairs as closely as it can be done. Usually it is impossible. But the attempt is fine. Just let’s not delude ourselves that an “atonement” was made

YES!! You are starting to get to the point we Christians have already arrived at.

No atonement was possible by our feeble attempts at making restitution and reparation for our sins against Perfect Goodness.

That’s why…

wait for it…
wait for it…

God Incarnate had to come.

And die on the cross.

That way, atonement truly can be made possible.

 

[PRmerger]

Not only the guilty one was allowed to go free, but an innocent one was killed in his place… incredible.

On what planet do you believe the guilty are allowed to go free, PA?

Have you learned nothing at all–nothing–about Christianity after being here so long?

#astonishedagain

 

[tonyrey]

And does it erase or does it minimize the injustices performed by the guilty ones? Not at all. These “restitutions” (and not atonements) are only there to allow the people to feel “good” about themselves… "yes, our forbearers committed these atrocities, but we “pay them off”…

The aim of the restitution system is to restore the original state of affairs as closely as it can be done. Usually it is impossible. But the attempt is fine. Just let’s not delude ourselves that an “atonement” was made. A very inadequate “restitution” took place.

Reparation is NOT the same as atonement. If a rape happens, how can one “atone” for it? Commit a self-castration? And if the perpetrator does not perform the self-castration, then the judge will castrate an innocent one in his place??? And then declare: “justice has been served!”

I can just imagine the process.

1. Someone is indicted and found guilty for murdering someone.
2. The judge finds the person guilty.
3. A third party offers to take the seat in the electric chair… and
4. the judge accepts the substitute.
5. The execution is carried out…

and then the newspaper article presents:

**Justice has been served! The debt to society has been paid in full! ** I have no idea which planet are you from. Here, where I live this procedure would only invoke horror. Not only the guilty one was allowed to go free, but an innocent one was killed in his place… incredible.

Your entire argument is based on the unjustified assumption that this life is brought to a complete full stop at death. No wonder you cannot understand the meaning of atonement! If you persist in hiding inside your home-made box you are bound to be trapped in a meaningless existence where nothing makes sense… What else do you expect? ?

 

[clem456]

#gettingsillyandrepetitivenow
#comparingapplesandoranges

One system is about satisfying legalisms. Death and punishment are the end,

The other is based on love and self sacrifice, which is foolishness to the unbelieving.
Not a problem. It is gain to be a fool for Christ. We are fools, gladly.

This exchange illustrates why nothing is accomplished here:

What you say does not coincide with what I understand.

Then there is a problem with **your ** understanding.

This is not exactly an open minded exchange.

 

[icamhif]

Humanity amassed a lot of sins, for which the punishment is hell. (I disagree with this, but for the sake of discussion I will stipulate it).
This debt cannot be repaid. (Why not? The sin is just a disobedience.)
Therefore Jesus steps up and says: “I will take the punishment out of love”.

Now comes the problem.

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?

I think what you are describing is the Penal Substitution model of Atonement, as supported by John Calvin. That is not what Catholics believe. Catholics generally believe in the Satisfaction model, as illustrated by Thomas Aquinas.

Have you read this article on the Atonement from the Catholic Encyclopedia?:

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

 

[PRmerger]

I think what you are describing is the Penal Substitution model of Atonement, as supported by John Calvin. That is not what Catholics believe. Catholics generally believe in the Satisfaction model, as illustrated by Thomas Aquinas.

Yep.

We would join with PA in refuting the Penal Substitution model on a Calvinist forum.

 

[icamhif]

We would join with PA in refuting the Penal Substitution model on a Calvinist forum.

Just out of curiosity, do you post on CARM?

 

[PRmerger]

Just out of curiosity, do you post on CARM?

No.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I find it peculiar that you look so negatively upon this.

Would you rather that the US govt make no attempts to atone for the wrong doings?

The government has no money to pay off the debt of the past. It must forcibly take money from us. What happened in the past was wrong. To rob Peter to pay Paul is also wrong. Two wrongs do not make one right. That is the basic principle that you keep missing.

That way, atonement truly can be made possible.

How? How is “justice served” by multiplying the injustice?

 

[PRmerger]

The government has no money to pay off the debt of the past. It must forcibly take money from us. What happened in the past was wrong. To rob Peter to pay Paul is also wrong. Two wrongs do not make one right. That is the basic principle that you keep missing.

Oh, well, if it’s an economic thing, then sure, I agree with you.

But let’s try to think in the abstract here, ok?

You do see how a 3rd party can try to atone for a prior grievance, yes?

How? How is “justice served” by multiplying the injustice?

Justice is never served by multiplying the injustice.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I think what you are describing is the Penal Substitution model of Atonement, as supported by John Calvin. That is not what Catholics believe. Catholics generally believe in the Satisfaction model, as illustrated by Thomas Aquinas.

Have you read this article on the Atonement from the Catholic Encyclopedia?:

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

I went and read it. Let’s just say that it is not an easy read. But I went and researched it further. The conclusion is twofold. 1) Not even Catholics agree upon the concept. 2) And when they try to talk about it, they say that it is a “mystery”. As soon as the “mystery” is mentioned, I am not interested any further. I am only interested in the mysteries of Agatha Christie.

If someone could explain in a few simple sentences just HOW does the sacrificial death of an innocent “atone” for the sins, I would be glad to read it.

 

[Aloysium]

The government has no money to pay off the debt of the past. It must forcibly take money from us. What happened in the past was wrong. To rob Peter to pay Paul is also wrong. Two wrongs do not make one right. That is the basic principle that you keep missing.

How? How is “justice served” by multiplying the injustice?

I don’t understand what point you are trying to argue.
People have replied that your concept of atonement does not reflect Catholic teaching.
Do you believe that Christ’s died and was resurrected?
If so, why do you think this was?
If you don’t, are arguing that it did not happen because the reasons that are given for its happening, do not fit with your ideas of what constitutes justice?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Oh, well, if it’s an economic thing, then sure, I agree with you.

But let’s try to think in the abstract here, ok?

You were the one who brought up the example. I always think in the abstract.

You do see how a 3rd party can try to atone for a prior grievance, yes?

In some specific cases it might TRY. In those cases where full (or almost full) restitution is possible. There is no way to atone for a rape or a murder, for example.

Justice is never served by multiplying the injustice.

That is what I was saying all along. Was it an injustice on the part of humanity to commit all those “sins”? Was it an injustice on the part of humans to crucify the innocent Jesus? If you answer with “yes”, then multiple injustices have been performed… therefore justice could not be served.