Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is such an evil and blasphemous view of God and His motives! Our Fathe who IS agape love would NEVER want or sanction any such atrocity for any reason whatsoever!
That's your opinion which simply disregards what is plainly stated in both the Old and New Testament Scriptures. And I will take the word of the prophets and the apostles with whom God actually communicated.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-30-2016 at 07:58 PM..
That is such an evil and blasphemous view of God and His motives! Our Father who IS agape love would NEVER want or sanction any such atrocity for any reason whatsoever!
you see an atrocity, Mystic; but Christ volunteered, He was not compelled. And, He even turned down an earthly crown, twice--which is spiritually what you might be suggesting here. It is probably worth noting, though, that the slaves were freed @ Passover by blood, and walked "through the door" the next morning and left Egypt, free men; yet only two of them reached the Promised Land. this might go toward supporting your pov here; but in the Dispensation of Law, blood was required, by God. While it might seem abhorrent to us, this is not respecting how abhorrent it is to God, who has no sin, imo, or that the whole point was to bring us into a new Dispensation, Grace, so that Love your neighbor would fulfill the Law.
That is such an evil and blasphemous view of God and His motives! Our Father who IS agape love would NEVER want or sanction any such atrocity for any reason whatsoever!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbyrd009
you see an atrocity, Mystic; but Christ volunteered, He was not compelled. And, He even turned down an earthly crown, twice--which is spiritually what you might be suggesting here. It is probably worth noting, though, that the slaves were freed @ Passover by blood, and walked "through the door" the next morning and left Egypt, free men; yet only two of them reached the Promised Land. this might go toward supporting your pov here; but in the Dispensation of Law, blood was required, by God. While it might seem abhorrent to us, this is not respecting how abhorrent it is to God, who has no sin, imo, or that the whole point was to bring us into a new Dispensation, Grace, so that Love your neighbor would fulfill the Law.
It is the stupid primitive superstitious motive that our ignorant ancestors ascribed to God that is the abomination. God did not need nor would He want any such punishment, penalty, or payment for ANYTHING. What our brutal savage ancestors did to Jesus is the atrocity and God had nothing to do with it. Jesus revealed the TRUE NATURE of God by His reaction to their brutality out of agape love. He smote no one and loved even His torturers and murderers. THAT is the Gospel - God IS agape love NOT some wrathful tyrant needing blood sacrifices to appease Him.
It is the stupid primitive superstitious motive that our ignorant ancestors ascribed to God that is the abomination. God did not need nor would He want any such punishment, penalty, or payment for ANYTHING. What our brutal savage ancestors did to Jesus is the atrocity and God had nothing to do with it. Jesus revealed the TRUE NATURE of God by His reaction to their brutality out of agape love. He smote no one and loved even His torturers and murderers. THAT is the Gospel - God IS agape love NOT some wrathful tyrant needing blood sacrifices to appease Him.
ok then, i am persuaded despite myself here, so could you rephrase these next statements for me?
The Father sent His Son to die as a blood sacrifice so that our sins may be covered.
Any sin requires a blood sacrifice, because God is perfect and cannot coexist with sin.
In a sense, scripture does contradict itself on the subject of "The Atonement," in that there are several descriptions of the RESULT of the Atonement, which are contradictory when viewed as description of the process of Atonement rather than the result. Yes, each of those "views" you gave is supported by such descriptions and the problem of conflict only comes up when they are viewed as describing process instead of result.
Can you post the rthat validate what you have just said? You don't seem to understand that the atonement is the result of the process. that is not contradictory.
An explanation that wants to use secular history and not he Bible is worthless IMO. That is what liberal theologians do.
Quote:
I see satisfaction atonement as an erroneous later development. Evidence of apostolic
and early church understanding of atonement that I present shows Christ’s work as revolving
around challenging the powers of evil rather than appeasement. My desire is thus to see the
basic principles of the earlier Christus Victor view somehow reinstated in a notion that shows
God to be nonviolent. Also the satisfaction model’s scandalous assertion that the suffering of
Christ on the cross was God’s choice, and the resulting violent character-type that God is
imbued with here and the permission that this notion gives to oppressors is unacceptable to
me. This is especially so, since, as a result of my feminist context, I feel I have an acute
awareness of the world’s suffering. Another reason that I want to argue against satisfaction
atonement is that it, (in conjunction with the Reformers and Karl Barth), supports/hinges
upon a Christocentric reductionist view of revelation. This in my opinion is an erroneous
toxic view wherein the death is focused upon at the expense of all the other aspects of God’s
revelation in Christ– especially the resurrection. As long as this reductionist view of
revelation is in place (which has also been responsible for the lack of other models being
formulated), a violent notion of atonement will remain at the forefront of Christian atonement
belief.
Thus I challenge satisfaction/penal derived atonement notions with the intention of
promoting the Christus Victor based notions of Weaver and Heim. This is because both these
scholars in my opinion offer notions that in being based on a fuller understanding of
revelation– Christ’s birth, ministry, death, resurrection and Pentecostal outpouring- begin to
make sense to a postmodern imagination by rejecting a notion that embraces strange and
tortuous explanations of how the cross can be positive and salvific.
Can you post the rthat validate what you have just said? You don't seem to understand that the atonement is the result of the process. that is not contradictory.
You can do it yourself. Line up ALL of the scriptures that reference the Atonement in any way and you will see that some of the references are contradictory if taken as descriptions of the way the Atonement was carried out. OF COURSE the atonement is the result of the process, the question is which of the descriptions of the RESULT reflects that process. Substitutionary Atonement reflects ONLY a vicious "whipping boy" mentality.
ok then, i am persuaded despite myself here, so could you rephrase these next statements for me?
The Father sent His Son to die as a blood sacrifice so that our sins may be covered.
Any sin requires a blood sacrifice, because God is perfect and cannot coexist with sin.
The Father sent His son to reconcile the world to His Way and the manner of His acceptance of death on the cross demonstrated the needed love, which IS the basis for judgement rather than the Law.
God is Love and "Holy" is not about being unapproachable, but about being dedicated to community with man.
A concept of God as unapproachable is counter to the capability to get into the trenches and fight for the dedication of selfish men and sin is a failure that God seriously knows about.
Leviticus 16:29 “This is to be a perpetual statute for you. In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you must humble yourselves and do no work of any kind, both the native citizen and the foreigner who resides in your midst, 16:30 for on this day atonement is to be made for you to cleanse you from all your sins; you must be clean before the Lord.
That passage which starts in Lev 16:1 requires a blood sacrifice to be presented to God. In fact 3 animals are offered for sacrifice to make the atonement.. A bull for the sins of he High priest and 2 goats for the sins of the people. Lots are cast for the goats so God can choose which one is for what purpose.. One is slain for the sins of he people and the other is released into the desert never to be seen gain.
The atonement ministry of Jesus is seen in both goats. The blood of the slain goat is presented to God in the Holy of Holies before the mercy seat---cleansed by the blood
The sins of the people are symbolically transferred to the scape goat by th laying on of h ands and that goat is released into the wilderness never to be seen again---Your sins I will remember no more
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
