It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I just bought a Kindle book from Amazon yesterday titled,
Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross
by Mark S. Heim.
It is critical of the theory of penal substitution as the way to describe why Jesus allowed himself to be crucified.
I don't say I am in agreement with Heim's offering to replace it, but I am interested in giving it a hearing if for no other reason than to know what it is.
The main point (for me bringing this up) is that the penal substitution theory is only one of many possible solutions, and comes from Augustine, who was not around until approximately a thousand years after the fact.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I just bought a Kindle book from Amazon yesterday titled,
Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross
by Mark S. Heim.
It is critical of the theory of penal substitution as the way to describe why Jesus allowed himself to be crucified.
I don't say I am in agreement with Heim's offering to replace it, but I am interested in giving it a hearing if for no other reason than to know what it is.
The main point (for me bringing this up) is that the penal substitution theory is only one of many possible solutions, and comes from Augustine, who was not around until approximately a thousand years after the fact.
Quit bragging that you own a Kindle.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 

Quit bragging that you own a Kindle.

I have the $79 model, which I hope will pay for itself where I can buy some books for less in that format than regular printed books, plus there are a lot free books you can read on Kindle which you can download from Amazon, plus I use it to read a lot of essays in PDF format.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Yeah, they're pretty nice. If I read more, I might buy one.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
Interesting. Before I get roped into this; Am I to assume that when I say "No, it's not moral to sacrifice something in your place." your next question is going to be.... "So, then is it acceptable to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins?"


Christ layed down His life no one took it from Him it was all volentary.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by milkyway12
Yes. If some one willingly volunteers to shed his life to save mine? That is self sacrifice beyong words and it completely within their judgement to die for me or not.
So, you did a crime and deserve to be punished for it. You would allow someone else to take your punishment? That would be moral of you? Do you see what I'm asking?


As it specifically relates to the sacrifice of Jesus -

We pay the penalty of our own sin with our own natural death. This *could* be the end of it if God did not have a desire to be reunited with His created. If He didn't care about establishing a more permanent relationship with us, He could have easily let His creation die off naturally - which would have been just. Turns out, He's more than just - He's also merciful.

So it's not about paying our own penalty - we already do that. It's about devising a means to pay the penalty that also allows for us to be reconciled to God

That's where Jesus comes in.

It's not just a question of allowing Christ to take our place, it's that it wouldn't be possible for man to achieve what He did.

Our natural death is just punishment for sin. Christ's death on the other hand was blameless - something no man anywhere, anywhen can say.

Since Christ's death was blameless, God has now effected perfect punishment while allowing for perfect mercy. If it weren't for Christ, God could not have forgiven humanity without intrinsically contradicting Himself; His very nature which is comprised of perfect justice and perfect mercy.

It really does make sense.

So as much as you want to postulate that it's immoral to allow someone to take your punishment - it was absolutely necessary in order to be reconciled to God.

Of course, if you don't have an interest in being reconciled to God - you won't be. He won't bind you to Himself for all eternity against your will.
edit on 24-4-2012 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Yeah, I can agree that substitutionary sacrificial atonement isn't moral. I can't really come up with a reason why it would be... especially if humans are used.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by guitarplayer
Christ layed down His life no one took it from Him it was all volentary.
Jesus said, "If you are willing, let this cup pass from me, not my will but yours be done." It wasn't his will to do it. I wonder if he and his father can have conflicting wills in heaven?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Of course, if you don't have an interest in being reconciled to God - you won't be. He won't bind you to Himself for all eternity against your will.
That's understandable. But, the ONLY alternative is to torture me forever in fire? That's just?




top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join