Unconditional love

[Shaker]

Poor old God 

[Rhiannon]

How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?

It's God taking the consequences of my alienation from him and alienation in general on himself.
Alienation damages the self and is eventually spiritually fatal leading a permanent state of alienation.
God takes the consequence of this on himself.

I can now enjoy a relationship with God.

I'm a parent - I think you are too, in which case you know that it's like having your heart walking around outside you. Aside from some things I regard as truly evil I can't imagine my children doing anything that would alienate me from them. Yes, possibly they might feel guilt - although I hope not to the extent that they feel alienated from me - but in the normal day-to-day mistakes and thoughtlessness (what you might call 'sin') my arms and heart will always be open for them without any need for them to suffer or any sense of restorative justice being necessary. Isn't God supposed to act like a loving parent?

Are you saying that you imagine yourself to be so bad - sinful - that you cannot approach God without restorative justice? How does penal substitution put that right?

[Enki]

How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?

Well I can't answer for Vlad, but it means that I can 'cast my burdens upon the Lord'.

This just seems to illustrate the gulf between our respective feelings and attitudes, 2Corrie.

I would feel ashamed to let someone else take upon themselves what I consider to be instances of my wrong doing, however willing they might be to do so. It would leave me in a very unsatisfactory and unhappy state. I would far rather try to take responsibility for my own failings and try to rectify my own faults, often with the support, of course, of understanding people whose help I would welcome and, indeed, in certain circumstances, would need.

[Hope]

This just seems to illustrate the gulf between our respective feelings and attitudes, 2Corrie.

I would feel ashamed to let someone else take upon themselves what I consider to be instances of my wrong doing, however willing they might be to do so. It would leave me in a very unsatisfactory and unhappy state. I would far rather try to take responsibility for my own failings and try to rectify my own faults, often with the support, of course, of understanding people whose help I would welcome and, indeed, in certain circumstances, would need.

I see no gulf between what you are describing (and what Floo often says) with what 2Corrie and others here say, enki.  The one is how we resolve issues between us and one or more  oher human being - and outlines much the same as any Christian would do in that situation.  However since, as humans we are also in relationship with God, it's not simply a human/human interaction; God is part and parcel of the equation.  Now, how would you try to repair that relationship?  Would you feel that simply 'trying' to do something would suffice? 

Remember that the death and resurrection of Jesus is far more than simply an act of forgiveness by God; it is a marker to say that death need no long hold any fear for us. 

For me, it also means that I find resolving issues with other humans that much easier, as I know that having been forgiven my mistakes in the merciful way God does, I need to show grace and mercy to those who have damaged relationships with me (and that often includes my own acts as much as anyone else's.)

I can fully understand why people who have only ever lived and grown up in the West which, by definition, no longer deal in animal and blood sacrifice as a result of the influence of Christianity; they don't see the underlying meaning.  Ironically, it took me living and working in the Indian subcontinent to see the symbolism more clearly. 

[Hope]

Then you do not have any evidence just assertions.

Why do you claim to have evidence when you don't.

Sorry you seem unable to understand what I am saying, BR.  Because you understand a given term in a given way doesn't mean that that is the only meaning it can have.  Take, for instance, the word 'love' in English.  It means a host of things, perhaps even more than the 4 meanings it contains for which Greek, for instance, uses 4 words.  Or what about 'train' - a piece of cloth that flows from a person's head (more often than not a woman's) as part of a ceremonial outfit; a multi-carred vehicle that runs on tracks; a logical progression of something (and that's not even including the verbal meaning)

[Rhiannon]

How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?

Well I can't answer for Vlad, but it means that I can 'cast my burdens upon the Lord'.

This just seems to illustrate the gulf between our respective feelings and attitudes, 2Corrie.

I would feel ashamed to let someone else take upon themselves what I consider to be instances of my wrong doing, however willing they might be to do so. It would leave me in a very unsatisfactory and unhappy state. I would far rather try to take responsibility for my own failings and try to rectify my own faults, often with the support, of course, of understanding people whose help I would welcome and, indeed, in certain circumstances, would need.

I agree - except it's not even a preference, it's a necessity.

As a pagan I do experience deity, but only as a guide and support. I don't expect them to pay any price for me.

[Shaker]

Remember that the death and resurrection of Jesus is far more than simply an act of forgiveness by God; it is a marker to say that death need no long hold any fear for us.

And yet people have viewed death without fear long before the alleged advent of Jesus and ever since. Coincidentally I've just finished watching Bettany Hughes's BBC Four programme on Socrates, in which she retold the (still to many very familiar) account of how this great man met his own death - unjust and enforced at that - calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease. And this four centuries before your ancient Jewish handyman was supposedly on the scene. The previous programme in the series, on Buddha or 'the' Buddha painted precisely the same picture of his death.

Plenty more have done the same since, whether believing that death is the gateway to some other form of conscious, perceiving existence or believing that death is the end of everything for ever from the point of view of the individual. I remember a phrase from The Autobiography of Mark Rutherford (forgotten now; a classic if rather well-trodden and predictable account of a Victorian minister's loss of faith) which goes something like: "I say nothing now for or against a belief in immortality, save that men have been quite happy without it even when faced with disaster." And then of course there are Bertrand Russell's famous words in the quote that begins: "I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive ..." (He was wrong in only one particular; he didn't rot very much - he was cremated).

Jesus is most definitely a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra here, for others if not for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?

It's God taking the consequences of my alienation from him and alienation in general on himself.
Alienation damages the self and is eventually spiritually fatal leading a permanent state of alienation.
God takes the consequence of this on himself.

I can now enjoy a relationship with God.

I'm a parent - I think you are too, in which case you know that it's like having your heart walking around outside you. Aside from some things I regard as truly evil I can't imagine my children doing anything that would alienate me from them. Yes, possibly they might feel guilt - although I hope not to the extent that they feel alienated from me - but in the normal day-to-day mistakes and thoughtlessness (what you might call 'sin') my arms and heart will always be open for them without any need for them to suffer or any sense of restorative justice being necessary. Isn't God supposed to act like a loving parent?

Are you saying that you imagine yourself to be so bad - sinful - that you cannot approach God without restorative justice? How does penal substitution put that right?

Well I've deliberately steered away from the trivial misdemeanours understood as sin since we all find ourselves ready to excuse ourselves....I guess that's why it's easy to say to someone else your not that bad.

In terms of restorative justice....even that involves a turning for forgiveness.

But what I am talking about is alienation and the consequences. As a parent and as a person I am forgiving but this involves taking consequence on myself on behalf of others.

[Rhiannon]

No, 'we're all sinners' is the excuse. It's too easy to accept that, not least if you only need to say sorry in your prayers think yourself forgiven.

Asking for forgiveness is a part of taking responsibility for oneself and giving it a part of mental healing. But sometimes things can't be forgiven, least of all those things we do ourselves, and we have to find a way of accepting what we do and bearing it. If 'handing it over to God' works for you, fine, but its just a device for letting go. Does it help you deal with why you did it? 'I'm a sinner' doesn't throw much light on the root causes.

[Hope]

Coincidentally I've just finished watching Bettany Hughes's BBC Four programme on Socrates, in which she retold the (still to many very familiar) account of how this great man met his own death - unjust and enforced at that - calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease. And this four centuries before your ancient Jewish handyman was supposedly on the scene. The previous programme in the series, on Buddha or 'the' Buddha painted precisely the same picture of his death.

So, you are happy to accept 'evidence' from a third-party regarding Socrates and Siddhartha Gautama that is something like 2500 years after the event, yet trash potential eye-witness evidence from an event only 2000 years ago.  That smacks of double standards.  May I remind you that whilst someone may publically face death

calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease

neither you, I or the likes of Bettany Hughes can really know what was going through their mind.

Jesus is most definitely a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra here, for others if not for you.

Just because someone or something is 'a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra' doesn't mean that what they are about is unimportant.

[Gordon]

Coincidentally I've just finished watching Bettany Hughes's BBC Four programme on Socrates, in which she retold the (still to many very familiar) account of how this great man met his own death - unjust and enforced at that - calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease. And this four centuries before your ancient Jewish handyman was supposedly on the scene. The previous programme in the series, on Buddha or 'the' Buddha painted precisely the same picture of his death.

So, you are happy to accept 'evidence' from a third-party regarding Socrates and Siddhartha Gautama that is something like 2500 years after the event, yet trash potential eye-witness evidence from an event only 2000 years ago.  That smacks of double standards.  May I remind you that whilst someone may publically face death

calmly, equably and with his mind at perfect ease

neither you, I or the likes of Bettany Hughes can really know what was going through their mind.

Jesus is most definitely a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra here, for others if not for you.

Just because someone or something is 'a highly optional and easily discarded or ignored extra' doesn't mean that what they are about is unimportant.

Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.

[Hope]

Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.

But I don't recall Socrates, or even Siddhartha Gautama, ever claiming to be God.  You seem very keen to 'forget' the difference.

[Nearly Sane]

Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.

But I don't recall Socrates, or even Siddhartha Gautama, ever claiming to be God.  You seem very keen to 'forget' the difference.

No, it's the point of Gordon's post.

[Shaker]

Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.

But I don't recall Socrates, or even Siddhartha Gautama, ever claiming to be God.  You seem very keen to 'forget' the difference.

The only difference here then is that Jesus was delusional.

[Gordon]

Last time I looked Socrates stayed dead - so not quite the same outcome as is claimed for Jesus.

But I don't recall Socrates, or even Siddhartha Gautama, ever claiming to be God.  You seem very keen to 'forget' the difference.

The only difference here then is that Jesus was delusional.

I find it perplexing that Hope takes the 'claim' so seriously.

I if claimed I was the immortal King of Bongo-Bong (to borrow the title of a song by Duck Baker) it doesn't mean that I just might be. Reasonable people, on hearing of an obviously unlikely or ridiculous claim like this, wouldn't even bother to take it seriously: the claim that Jesus was God seems no different.

[Shaker]

Exactly so, Gord.

[floo]

How does believing in penal substitution help you to deal with your problems?

Well I can't answer for Vlad, but it means that I can 'cast my burdens upon the Lord'.

Another cliché without any meaning in reality, imo!

[Shaker]

... and one that sounds very much to me like a dodge designed to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions, including or especially your cock-ups.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... and one that sounds very much to me like a dodge designed to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions, including or especially your cock-ups.

So Christians are criticised for continually seeing themselves for being miserable sinners AND for not facing up to their sins. Get your story straight.

Christians take their actions as having had enormous existential consequences. Antitheists trivialise there own behaviour.

[Shaker]

So Christians are criticised for continually seeing themselves for being miserable sinners AND for not facing up to their sins. Get your story straight.

The story is ruler-straight. There's no such thing as 'sin,' and the endless plaint of the Christian about how worthless and damaged and imperfect they are (but look! Here comes SuperJew to rescue us! Terms and conditions apply) is foolish, pathetic and, quite frankly, to me wholly contemptible, all the more so when it's over trivia such as perfectly natural things like being gay and so forth.

People do wrong and bad things sometimes, but they're wrong and bad because they have negative consequences for other people (although, me being me, I would broaden it to include all other sentient creatures). When we do wrong it's those others to whom we have to apologise and make restitution, not appeasing the caprices of imaginary gods.

Christians take their actions as having had enormous existential consequences. Antitheists trivialise there own behaviour.

Oooh, existential - is that your new favourite word to throw into every post for no reason?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Christians are criticised for continually seeing themselves for being miserable sinners AND for not facing up to their sins. Get your story straight.

The story is ruler-straight. There's no such thing as 'sin,' and the endless plaint of the Christian about how worthless and damaged and imperfect they are (but look! Here comes SuperJew to rescue us! Terms and conditions apply) is foolish, pathetic and, quite frankly, to me wholly contemptible, all the more so when it's over trivia such as perfectly natural things like being gay and so forth.

People do wrong and bad things sometimes, but they're wrong and bad because they have negative consequences for other people (although, me being me, I would broaden it to include all other sentient creatures). When we do wrong it's those others to whom we have to apologise and make restitution, not appeasing the caprices of imaginary gods.

Christians take their actions as having had enormous existential consequences. Antitheists trivialise there own behaviour.

Oooh, existential - is that your new favourite word to throw into every post for no reason?

You are getting obsessed Shaker.

[Hope]

No, it's the point of Gordon's post.

What, the point of Gordon's post is that Socrates claimed to be God yet failed to return to life after death, unlike Jesus who also claimed to be God?   

[Nearly Sane]

No, it's the point of Gordon's post.

What, the point of Gordon's post is that Socrates claimed to be God yet failed to return to life after death, unlike Jesus who also claimed to be God?   

The problem with you playing dumb here is that it suits you so well

[Hope]

Aside from some things I regard as truly evil I can't imagine my children doing anything that would alienate me from them. Yes, possibly they might feel guilt - although I hope not to the extent that they feel alienated from me - but in the normal day-to-day mistakes and thoughtlessness (what you might call 'sin') my arms and heart will always be open for them without any need for them to suffer or any sense of restorative justice being necessary. Isn't God supposed to act like a loving parent?

So, are you suggesting that if they were to become alientated from you, they wouldn't have to accept that and come back to you?  That you'd simply decuide that, because you love them as you do, their absence from you is inconsequential?  Surely you would want them to make that, often physical as well as mental/spiritual, journey back to you, wouldn't you.

Are you saying that you imagine yourself to be so bad - sinful - that you cannot approach God without restorative justice? How does penal substitution put that right?

As I've said before, we in the West understandably find it hard to comprehend penal substitution because we don't rely on it in the way that a Hindu does, or the Jews used to prior to the destruction of the Temple.  That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a meaning and purpose.

[Hope]

The problem with you playing dumb here is that it suits you so well

I pity if you believe that, NS, as it suggests that you fit into that category.  Gordon's post compared Socrates' death with that of Jesus, and argued that the outcome must necessarily be the same.  That is why I asked whether he was suggesting that Socrates was God, or had claimed to be God.  As you know, he wasn't and hadn't; on the other hand, Jesus had.  OK, whether he was or not has been open to debate for 2000 years, but in view of the claim, the situations are not comparable.