Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Pallas_Athene]

what you are asking is, " could god have simply done the minimum required" to accomplish our salvation. the answer is no.

Again, in my world torturing the innocent to forgive the guilty is as far from “love” as it could be. If you disagree, you could let be know how is it “just” to torture and kill the innocent, and then forgive the guilty. I already asked PR a couple of times, but she did not answer. Maybe you can enlighten me, because I am in the “dark”.

only doing what is necessary is minimalism, not love.

In the Hippocratic oath, the beginning words are: “First, do no harm”. Followed by: “if you need to do harm, make it as minimal as possible”. (not a verbatim quote).

complete gift of self is just that. complete, without counting the cost. relationships between persons who only do what is necessary are relationships of convenience, not love.

Only if that “giving is logically necessary”. I certainly would not cherish an unnecessary self-sacrifice. If you could help me out with a gesture of simple good will, and instead you would sacrifice your whole life for me, then I would feel sorry for you, but I would feel no gratitude.

 

[PRmerger]

Really? Mundane little things like walking in the rain to fetch the car is a “sacrifice”? Getting up in the night to bring a glass of water to your child is a “sacrifice”? Sheesh.

Giving up your possible education to help your spouse to finish her education… that would be a sacrifice. Giving up something important would be a sacrifice. Actually the links you provided emphasize that “sacrifice is to give up something important for a greater cause”. But most people never face such choices… so according to you they cannot “love” their spouses. Life is a collection of small things. This is getting ridiculous.

You just keep pretending that you have your very own special definition of sacrifice.

But we all know, as does the entire world, that** no one can choose to love without sacrifice.**

bellybelly.com.au/baby/10-sacrifices-new-parents-make-for-their-babies/
littlethings.com/mom-donates-kidney-to-kid/
parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/mom-wakes-dad-sleeps/?_r=0
forums.menshealth.com/topic/63643898167212688

And we all know that you know it too.

You just backed yourself into this corner.

[SIGN1]You know that you must sacrifice when you love.[/SIGN1]

 

[Pallas_Athene]

But we all know, as does the entire world, that** no one can choose to love without sacrifice.**

Only if there is a NEED for sacrifice. A logical need to achieve some greater good via giving up something valuable and important - according to YOUR links. Is walking in the rain to fetch a car a “sacrifice”? I quote you own example. Bur as we all know, life is not composed of “sacrifices”. It is all small things, smiles, kind gestures, bringing a morning cup of coffee to the bed every day - even after 30+ years. That is “love”. Helping others even if that help does not require giving up “big things”.

There was a cute joke. The couple makes a vow as part of their wedding ceremony that all the big decisions will be made by the husband, and he will let the wife to make the small, unimportant decisions. On the golden anniversary (50 years) a friend of them asks how did that vow pan out? The husband answers: “it worked like a charm”… all the problems were small, insignificant problems… there were no “big” problems at all… and she handled all the small problems just fine. That is called “love”.

A personal story, and you are welcome to discard it an unsubstantiated anecdote if you wish. About 15 years ago I was sitting at the office, when the phone rang, and it was my wife. She said - without preamble: “I just bought a property to have my own business”. I simply answered: “fine”. That is love. Of course I was aware that she just found a great deal and we had to finalize the deal TOGETHER. But the point was that trusted her. Trusting the other one without reservation, accepting that the decision is wise. That is “love”. Sacrifice? What sacrifice?

---

Why don’t you attempt to answer the question: “how is the torturing of an innocent in order to forgive the guilty mesh with “justice”?” Now that would be interesting to learn. Are you ready to enlighten me?

 

[PRmerger]

Only if there is a NEED for sacrifice.

Excellent. I am glad to see you have remanded your position.

Love and sacrifice.

#bedfellows.

 

[PRmerger]

Only if there is a NEED for sacrifice. A logical need to achieve some greater good via giving up something valuable and important - according to YOUR links. Is walking in the rain to fetch a car a “sacrifice”? I quote you own example. Bur as we all know, life is not composed of “sacrifices”. It is all small things, smiles, kind gestures, bringing a morning cup of coffee to the bed every day - even after 30+ years. That is “love”. Helping others even if that help does not require giving up “big things”.

There was a cute joke. The couple makes a vow as part of their wedding ceremony that all the big decisions will be made by the husband, and he will let the wife to make the small, unimportant decisions. On the golden anniversary (50 years) a friend of them asks how did that vow pan out? The husband answers: “it worked like a charm”… all the problems were small, insignificant problems… there were no “big” problems at all… and she handled all the small problems just fine. That is called “love”.

A personal story, and you are welcome to discard it an unsubstantiated anecdote if you wish. About 15 years ago I was sitting at the office, when the phone rang, and it was my wife. She said - without preamble: “I just bought a property to have my own business”. I simply answered: “fine”. That is love. Of course I was aware that she just found a great deal and we had to finalize the deal TOGETHER. But the point was that trusted her. Trusting the other one without reservation, accepting that the decision is wise. That is “love”. Sacrifice? What sacrifice?

Thank you for making my point for me.

Where there is love, there is sacrifice.

Christ, too, was like, “Sacrifice? What sacrifice? I do it out of love”.

 

[PRmerger]

Why don’t you attempt to answer the question: “how is the torturing of an innocent in order to forgive the guilty mesh with “justice”?” Now that would be interesting to learn. Are you ready to enlighten me?

It is an atonement for the sins which greatly offend Perfect Goodness.

This innocent individual took upon himself all the sins of humanity…and it was through this Great Act of Love (sacrifice? what sacrifice? see previous post ) that we were redeemed.

Seguing from tonyrey’s wonderful presentation, pagan religions understood a great truth: the human person needs to offer something to Someone Greater when we sin. If we do nothing, it demonstrates that we don’t believe that we’ve done anything wrong.

Man murders another man over a stolen piece of meat. Either he shrugs and says, “The Someone Upstairs forgives me”.

Or…

he gets it. He has to atone for this somehow.

So he offers animal sacrifices.

Jesus simply took this ineffective and otiose sacrifice and made it the Greatest Act That Ever Happened.

It redeemed the world.

 

[clem456]

It is an atonement for the sins which greatly offend Perfect Goodness.

This innocent individual took upon himself all the sins of humanity…and it was through this Great Act of Love (sacrifice? what sacrifice? see previous post ) that we were redeemed.

Seguing from tonyrey’s wonderful presentation, pagan religions understood a great truth: the human person needs to offer something to Someone Greater when we sin. If we do nothing, it demonstrates that we don’t believe that we’ve done anything wrong.

Man murders another man over a stolen piece of meat. Either he shrugs and says, “The Someone Upstairs forgives me”.

Or…

he gets it. He has to atone for this somehow.

So he offers animal sacrifices.

Jesus simply took this ineffective and otiose sacrifice and made it the Greatest Act That Ever Happened.

It redeemed the world.

But you haven’t satisfied the absurd question which is this:

"how is the torturing of an innocent in order to forgive the guilty mesh with “justice”?

To which the answer is, " the torture of an innocent can never satisfy the demands of justice".
The willing sacrifice of love, the complete gift of self, is what satisfies the demands of justice.

The poster has eyes only to see the condemnation and suffering, not the complete gift of self. It is a pessimistic and hopeless view of life in which suffering has no redeeming value. Sacrifice has no value.
It’s “What am I required to do?” rather than “I want to give you my whole self”.

The question demonstrates a literalist interpretation of life to excuse one’s self from completely giving.
(hey, we all do it to one degree or another)

 

[PRmerger]

But you haven’t satisfied the absurd question which is this:

To which the answer is, " the torture of an innocent can never satisfy the demands of justice".
The willing sacrifice of love, the complete gift of self, is what satisfies the demands of justice.

The poster has eyes only to see the condemnation and suffering, not the complete gift of self. It is a pessimistic and hopeless view of life in which suffering has no redeeming value. Sacrifice has no value.
It’s “What am I required to do?” rather than “I want to give you my whole self”.

The question demonstrates a literalist interpretation of life to excuse one’s self from completely giving.
(hey, we all do it to one degree or another)

Indeed.

My favorite new saying is: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

 

[clem456]

Indeed.

My favorite new saying is: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

This is a fact.
You will find strange bedfellows among atheists and fundamentalists, who both insist the bible must be interpreted in rigid literalist fashion. Both refuse to allow for interpretations other than their own, and will resort to parsing words before engaging in honest and sometimes uncomfortable discussions.
Both refuse to let the scriptures breathe.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is an atonement for the sins which greatly offend Perfect Goodness.

I am questioning the principle of atonement, where the one who is guilty sacrifices an innocent. In Japan the yakuza clans had an interesting custom. If someone committed a grave offense, he could try to atone for his deed by cutting off his little finger. He could offer this severed finger as token of his apology. That kind of action is logical and reasonable. You made a mistake, or error, or whatever, and you sacrifice yourself or part of yourself.

Observe, he cut off his OWN finger. Not cutting off the finger of his innocent son. No reasonable judge would accept this “pledge” as a proper atonement for the deed. To kill or torture someone innocent cannot be accepted as an “atonement”.

Even if someone innocent would offer to take the place of the guilty one, it would not make the sacrifice an atonement. Not punishing the guilty, and punishing the innocent instead simply doubles the injustice.

So I am just as baffled as I was before. But at least you tried. Thank you for your effort.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . So I am just as baffled as I was before. . .

Don’t give up so easily. If you truly want to know this stuff, you may be wasting your time asking random people on internet forums. I personally think many of the answers are right on, but there is a certain amount of antagonism within the discussion. You have access to some of the greatest minds going directly to the sources. Think about the specifics of you want to understand, and keep at it.

 

[clem456]

I am questioning the principle of atonement, where the one who is guilty sacrifices an innocent. In Japan the yakuza clans had an interesting custom. If someone committed a grave offense, he could try to atone for his deed by cutting off his little finger. He could offer this severed finger as token of his apology. That kind of action is logical and reasonable. You made a mistake, or error, or whatever, and you sacrifice yourself or part of yourself.

Observe, he cut off his OWN finger. Not cutting off the finger of his innocent son. No reasonable judge would accept this “pledge” as a proper atonement for the deed. To kill or torture someone innocent cannot be accepted as an “atonement”.

Even if someone innocent would offer to take the place of the guilty one, it would not make the sacrifice an atonement. Not punishing the guilty, and punishing the innocent instead simply doubles the injustice.

So I am just as baffled as I was before. But at least you tried. Thank you for your effort.

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

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

Atonement is not a principle or a token, it is a real and efficacious act of love. It is the willing “taking the place of…” the other. This is the definition of compassion, “to suffer with” (or “for”).
It is not slavish execution of duty, it is the free and total gift of self by someone who is absolutely not required to give. This is perfect love, because the giver needs nothing in return and is not bound to give anything at all. The Giver only desires the response of the beloved.

Redemption is not accomplished because mankind is cruel to Christ, it is accomplished because Christ willingly makes himself one with us in the whole human condition, including cruelty.
Anyone who’s had a serious sick child probably learns what “substitution” is all about. And it’s not book learning, it’s a deep seated desire to take the pain of the beloved from them. Believe me, there are parents who would die rather than see their child suffer even one more minute.
So it is with God.

It is not a difficult thing to grasp, but you have to be willing to hear it and think about it. You are arguing with Christians about what we ourselves believe. Why do you do that? If you come here to post and learn, why do you not listen?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Atonement is not a principle, it is an act of love. It is the willing “taking the place of…” the other. This is the definition of compassion, “to suffer with” (or “for”).

I understand all that. The problem is not the offering. It is the acceptance of the substitute. If you commit a serious offense (for example a murder), and the just sentence for it would be execution, and someone would up and say: “execute me instead”, that would not “atone” for the deed. It would multiply the injustice, because not only the guilty would go free, but the innocent would be executed. I can’t imagine a judge who (after the execution) would say: “Ok, the debt is now paid in full. Justice has been served”.

Way over my head…

 

[clem456]

I understand all that. The problem is not the offering. It is the acceptance of the substitute. If you commit a serious offense (for example a murder), and the just sentence for it would be execution, and someone would up and say: “execute me instead”, that would not “atone” for the deed. It would multiply the injustice, because not only the guilty would go free, but the innocent would be executed. I can’t imagine a judge who (after the execution) would say: “Ok, the debt is now paid in full. Justice has been served”.

Way over my head…

It’s not over our heads, it overwhelms our hearts.

Why would I not accept the gift you describe? Someone has given me life when I deserved death. If I am truly interested in justice, the gift I receive will be reciprocated. This is the right and just response…to be thankful for the gift and respond, not to wallow in my guilt. (I can testify, this response is a lifelong project for many people)
Justice, seen through the eyes of love, asks that I respond to the gift. I will respond to the gift, not curse my luck that I am still guilty and now an innocent has suffered for nothing. The suffering innocent has offered me life. His suffering has immense value. He has not suffered in vain.

If you think of life as a transaction, your above scenario applies. I commit xyz, I owe XYZ in recompense. A transaction must be satisfied, an equation must add up. But you run into a serious problem: none of us can satisfy the transaction.
Consider:
Are you perfect? I’m not being snotty, I’m asking an honest question.
Are you perfect?
Because only the perfect can perfectly satisfy justice.

So a transaction cannot be the answer to life. A relationship is. A relationship allows love to triumph over your logical equation. If I am not perfect, an-other can lift me up. A perfect “other” can wipe the equation off the board and offer me a hand instead of a judge’s gavel.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I can’t imagine a judge who (after the execution) would say: “Ok, the debt is now paid in full. Justice has been served”.

Way over my head…

Take it one step at a time, perhaps starting with the concept that it is humanity who is in the dock.
We are members of one body, which is fallen in Adam and risen in Christ, our Redeemer.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It’s not over our heads, it overwhelms our hearts.

As soon as you bring up the “heart”, which is the substitute for emotions, you lose me. I am not interested in emotions, only logic, reason and justice.

Why would I not accept the gift you describe?

Of course you would accept it. The JUDGE should reject it.

The question is about the judge, who commits a travesty by punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Whether the innocent volunteered is of no relevance. How can anyone say that “justice has been served” in such a situation? It is the height of injustice to allow the guilty to escape, and knowingly, willfully punish the innocent. To call this procedure “just” makes a farce out of justice.

Take it one step at a time, perhaps starting with the concept that it is humanity who is in the dock.

I am not interested in the fate of humanity, only in the concept of justice. How can anyone say that “justice has been served”, when the innocent is punished and guilty is allowed to go free? What kind of “atonement” happens if the guilty compounds his guilt by torturing and killing the innocent?

 

[clem456]

As soon as you bring up the “heart”, which is the substitute for emotions, you lose me. I am not interested in emotions, only logic, reason and justice.

Of course you would accept it. The JUDGE should reject it.

The question is about the judge, who commits a travesty by punishing the innocent instead of the guilty. Whether the innocent volunteered is of no relevance. How can anyone say that “justice has been served” in such a situation? It is the height of injustice to allow the guilty to escape, and knowingly, willfully punish the innocent. To call this procedure “just” makes a farce out of justice.

I am not interested in the fate of humanity, only in the concept of justice. How can anyone say that “justice has been served”, when the innocent is punished and guilty is allowed to go free? What kind of “atonement” happens if the guilty compounds his guilt by torturing and killing the innocent?

The heart is not equal to emotions. I’m not talking about emotions,
And the other problem you have is, you are human. So, you have a heart, right?

And since we are not accomplishing anything, good luck and God bless you. No point in going round in circles.

 

[Bradski]

So he offers animal sacrifices.

Jesus simply took this ineffective and otiose sacrifice and made it the Greatest Act That Ever Happened.

You mean God. God made the sacrifice. John 3:16. And every pagan example you gave (I can’t believe you are comparing this to a pagan ritual), has the wrongdoers committing the sacrifice as a penance. ‘They give something valuable’, you say.

God gave His son. So who are the wrongdoers here? You have the whole pagan analogy completely the wrong way around.

‘See those people over there? They are the pits. I mean really, they sin, they fornicate, they don’t obey my laws. Do you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to send my boy over there’

‘What! But they’ll probably kill him’

‘Yeah, I know that. I’m not stupid.’

‘So you’re doing this because…?’

‘Well, to atone for their sins. Obviously.’

Does anyone really understand the logic in that? Could someone explain it to me? Does it make any sense whatsoever?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I am not interested in the fate of humanity, only in the concept of justice. How can anyone say that “justice has been served”, when the innocent is punished and guilty is allowed to go free? What kind of “atonement” happens if the guilty compounds his guilt by torturing and killing the innocent?

Whether you are interested in the redemption of mankind or not, realize that through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have the possibility of eternal joy in communion with God.

As to justice, please recall that individually we are judged upon our deaths and at the end of time when the full impact of our actions will be felt through time.

Does that make sense? You don’t have to believe it, but do you get what I’m saying?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Whether you are interested in the redemption of mankind or not, realize that through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have the possibility of eternal joy in communion with God.

Yes, I know about that. That is how the whole conversation started. The original question was about the NECESSITY of this sacrifice. Could God have simply forgiven our trespasses without the sacrifice? If he could have simply forgiven us, then the sacrifice was not logically necessary. (A father can forgive the misdeeds of his children without any “sacrifice”. It is not necessary for the child to sacrifice his favorite pet or toy to be forgiven.) Why perform an act which is not necessary? On the other hand, if it was logically necessary, then what is this whole “atonement” process? How can the sacrifice of an innocent “make up” for the sins of others?

As to justice, please recall that individually we are judged upon our deaths and at the end of time when the full impact of our actions will be felt through time.

Does that make sense? You don’t have to believe it, but do you get what I’m saying?

Yes, of course I get it. But it has nothing to do with the problem at hand. Just what is “justice”? How can justice be reconciled with punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free? What kind of “justice” can one expect when the guilty is not punished, but the innocent is tortured to death? Because that is the point that troubles me (and others).