Question

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
For example the doctrines of original sin and vicarious atonement.What does the doctrine of original sin do except encourage feelings of guilt and inadequacy where none should exist?How can it be right to threaten sinners with the prospect of eternal damnation at the hands of a vengeful deity simply for failing to adhere to the dogmas and formularies of Christianity?

The doctrine of original sin establishes that man has been severed from a proper relationship with his Creator and is thus in need of a redeeming savior. It teaches that what we consider good behavior is not nearly as good as what humans are capable of, and what we are called to be, and that with the help of God we can approach a radically higher morality.

Your issues with vicarious atonement most likely apply solely to the Protestant version of the atonement which you were taught. I agree with you that it would be unjust for the Father to legally accredit Christ with the guilt of the sins of others and then punish Him in their stead. But this is not historic Christianity. Historic Christianity teaches that God is a personal being Who is personally offended and provoked to wrath by sin, but that He will relent of His wrath if someone makes a voluntary sacrifice, or an impassioned plea, on behalf of sinners to appease Him and move Him to mercy. Moses did this in the desert when he spent forty days and forty nights on his face praying that God would not destroy the nation of Israel, and this is what Christ did on the Cross. Christ never became the object of the Father's wrath, but He turned away the Father's wrath by voluntarily suffering at the hands of unjust men.

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
Historic Christianity teaches that God is a personal being Who is personally offended and provoked to wrath by sin, but that He will relent of His wrath if someone makes a voluntary sacrifice, or an impassioned plea, on behalf of sinners to appease Him and move Him to mercy.

Explain to me how a perfect being can be provoked to wrath and/or appeased by mere humans.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Neil_Caple
Explain to me how a perfect being can be provoked to wrath... by mere humans.

You are assuming that perfection precludes personality and emotions. I simply do not see why this must be so. In fact, I believe the exact opposite to be true.

Also, one of the necessary conditions for perfection is, of course, justice. Thus, any perfect being must be just, or else he wouldn't be perfect. And justice, in essence, is the desire to render to people what is their due; rewards to those who do good, and punishments to those who work iniquity (Romans 2:5-11). The term we give to the desire to render punishment is wrath, therefore the ability to be provoked to wrath is an essential component of perfection.

Explain to me how a perfect being can be ...appeased by mere humans.

I suppose I'll let God answer this one for Himself.

"Dost thou not know, dear daughter, that all the sufferings, which the soul endures, or can endure, in this life, are insufficient to punish one smallest fault, because the offence done to Me, who am the Infinite Good, calls for an infinite satisfaction? However, I wish that thou shouldest know, that not all the pains that are given to men in this life are given as punishments, but as corrections, in order to chastise a son when he offends; though it is true that both the guilt and the penalty [of sin] can be expiated by the desire of the soul, that is, by true contrition, not through the finite pain endured, but through the infinite desire; because God, who is infinite, wishes for infinite love and infinite grief. Infinite grief I wish from My creature in two ways: in one way, through her sorrow for her own sins, which she has committed against Me her creator; in the other way, through her sorrow for the for the sins which she sees her neighbors commit against Me. Of such as these, inasmuch as they have infinite desire, that is, are joined to Me by an affection of love, and therefore grieve when they offend Me, or see Me offended, their every pain, whether spiritual or corporeal, from wherever it may come, recieves infinite merit, and satisfies for a guilt which deserved an infinite penalty, although their works are finite and and done in finite time; but, inasmuch as they possess the virtue of desire, and sustain their suffering with desire, and contrition, and infinite displeasure against their guilt, their pain is held worthy. Paul explained this when he said: if I had the tongues of angels, and if I knew the things of the future and gave my body to be burned, and have not love, it would be worth nothing to me. The glorious Apostle thus shows that finite works are not valid, either as punishment or recompense, without the condiment of the affection of love."
(The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Sienna, Tan Books, 1974, pp. 30-31)

[CreepingJesus]

Anyway, since you seem to know so much about "the truth", maybe you can enlighten a poor stupid Christian like me about the missing link?

Certainly..

From
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creatio...nts/Lies.shtml

"If man evolved from apes, then where are the missing-link fossils? Where are the half-man, half-apes?"

Today, this argument is a plain and simple lie. It carried weight in Darwin's day because Darwin had based his theory on the distribution and physical nature of living species, not fossils. A century later, we have found fossils of intermediate forms of man. The australopithecus fossils is but one example, and there are many others. There are also examples of transitional forms between other species, such as Archæopteryx (between dinosaur and bird, discovered in 1862) or Amphioxus (between invertebrate and vertebrate). Since Darwin's time we have increased our knowledge of the Tertiary period more than tenfold, and the unbroken chain of life is so clear now that no one in the entire paleontological community has seriously doubted evolution theory for the past century. In fact, it's been said that if the biologists hadn't invented evolution theory, the paleontologists would have eventually had to do it for them, otherwise none of their findings would have made any sense.

Creationists have four tactics which they use against this evidence:

Pretend that the transitional fossils aren't really transitional, ie- australopithecus is 100% human. They typically find a characteristic that is like modern man and say "ha! Australopithecus man is just a human!". But that is a deception because the "missing link" should, by definition, have some structural aspects which are like humans, and other structural aspects which are like apes. If they want to disprove the status of a transitional fossil, they will have to demonstrate that all of its structural aspects are like a modern species, rather than simply showing that some of them resemble those of humans.

Pretend that it doesn't exist, stating the nonexistence of transitional form fossils as a fact. For example, creationists will often say things like "contrary to popular misconception, no transitional form fossils have ever been discovered anywhere." They try to make it seem as if all of the paleontologists in the world are subscribing to "popular misconception", and we enlightened folk should know better. Yeah, sure.

Pretend that it has been faked. Invoke the ever-present spectre of the vast, overarching global conspiracy of evil scientists.

Demand ever smaller steps of transition. If a missing link can be found between man and ape, then demand a missing link #2, between ape and the missing link. If that is found, demand yet another missing link #3, between ape and missing link #2. If that is found, demand missing link #4, between ape and missing link #3. Repeat ad nauseum.

These tactics are desperate and against rational people, they would be utterly futile. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of people in this world who have poor or virtually nonexistent critical thinking skills and who are therefore vulnerable to such arguments.

Even if we had not discovered these fossils, this failing would still not constitute disproof of evolution- it would only constitute a gap in the supporting evidence, which would still fit evolution theory far better than creation theory. Trends in the fossil record are very clear, even though we have not unearthed all of it and will never unearth all of it due to the effects of tectonic activity and other environmental effects which can act to obliterate fossil evidence. Some gaps will undoubtedly exist in this record, but the continuity of life has been well established. Remaining gaps do not constitute disproof of the validity of paleontology, or of evolution theory. The creationists again rely upon logical fallacies, by claiming that "if the evidence for evolution is not 100% complete, then we don't have to explain any of it."

[CreepingJesus]

Well if God never existed (and therefore Jesus would not be His Son) the how do you explain this:
Recently scientists uncovered (okay, I'm no Biblical scholar and my mind has gone blank! Ah!) the old city that God told (I can't believe this! I can't even remember the guy's name! Was is David? Gosh, I am so brain dead right now) one of his followers to walk around the city and blow horns and then the walls would fall down and they could go into the city. Most everyone knows the story. So anyway, scientists uncovered the city and found the walls crumbled down low enough to walk over and proof that there had been an invasion, but that is only part of it. In the Bible God told them not to raid the city-to not take anything. I don't know if any of you are familiar with that time, but grain was extrememly valuable. Archaeologists found a barrel of grain in every house. They were baffled because they knew the city had been in invaded, but the invaders didn't take a single thing! There were still beautiful pots and furniture, and clothing.

So archaeologists find a ruined city in an earthquake zone with evidence pointing to the sudden evacuation of houses, and the sort of devastation you would expect from an earthquake.

Look here

http://www.iiees.ac.ir/English/Bam_report_english.html

See anything familiar?

Go and find something more convincing and less coincidental.

The fact that a location described in a holy book actually existed proves nothing about any fanciful event supposed to have happened there.

The TV show "Angel" is set in Los Angeles.

Would you say that since Los Angeles exists then Vampires and demons etc must also exist?

The same logic applies to your argument about your ruined city.

[CreepingJesus]

On the subject of the Bam earthquake.

let me quote myself from anothe thread.....

Let us for the moment make the unlikely assumption that a god exists, and is by definition all-powerful.

If this god created the Earth, presumably it designed it to have earthquakes.

Now if it also created man, and loves its creation as much as is claimed in that touchy-feely missive, why would it deliberately expose that creation to such danger?

Why would it create say 40,000 people, and suddenly one day decide they were no use and kill them all in a horrible disaster if it was a loving God?

Any answer you can give must contradict the supposed perfection of this god by applying human failings to it.

Try it and you'll see what I mean.

Never be fooled by this superstitious nonsense.

There are no gods.

Get off your knees and look ahead like a human being, not like some toy of an imaginary creator.

[CreepingJesus]

Explain to me how a perfect being can be provoked to wrath and/or appeased by mere humans.

Easy! They attribute the "perfect" being with whatever characteristic suits the argument at the time.

They invented the being so it can be anything they like. As long as some high ranking theologian pronounces the characteristic then it's definitely how the god thinks, because the church says so.

Look at the ridiculous rhetorical acrobatics they have to go through with their theodicy argument to explain the rather awkward question of the presence of people like Hitler when the god's supposed to be a loving one.

It looks terribly like a hastily prepared excuse in response to the discovery of an oversight in the design of the god.

Ask young Ben to explain it and you'll see what I mean.






[Edited by CreepingJesus on 5th April 2004 at 14:24]