Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Duvniask]

What is the point of Christ's crucifixion?

Or, to quote the famous quip variously attributed to or said about Talleyrand: "What did he mean by that?"

To free us from death

Spoiler: you will die, as we all will.

[The free romanians]

To free us from death

Spoiler: you will die, as we all will.

When christ will come again all will ressurect
No one will be left dead

[Duvniask]

Spoiler: you will die, as we all will.

Christ died so we won't die
We will die
But we will also ressurect

It begs the question: why should one part of the Trinity have to manifest itself on Earth and then die in order appease another part of the Trinity? God the Father sends Jesus the Son in order to absolve humans of their sins and restore their relationship to God, supposedly. Yet why not simply restore humanity's relationship to God from the beginning? What is the point of Jesus as a middle man, as an intercessor? Approaching the theological claims asserted about Jesus' death logically seems to render it completely unnecessary.

[Tarsonis]

Christ died so we won't die
We will die
But we will also ressurect

It begs the question: why should one part of the Trinity have to manifest itself on Earth and then die in order appease another part of the Trinity? God the Father sends Jesus the Son in order to absolve humans of their sins and restore their relationship to God, supposedly. Yet why not simply restore humanity's relationship to God from the beginning? What is the point of Jesus as a middle man, as an intercessor? Approaching the theological claims asserted about Jesus' death logically seems to render it completely unnecessary.

Indeed it does beg the question, which is why there's literally hundreds of years worth of Christian thought on the matter. Ultimately the Catholic Church embraces the explanation given by St. Anselm in his work "Cur Deus Homo"

[Duvniask]

It begs the question: why should one part of the Trinity have to manifest itself on Earth and then die in order appease another part of the Trinity? God the Father sends Jesus the Son in order to absolve humans of their sins and restore their relationship to God, supposedly. Yet why not simply restore humanity's relationship to God from the beginning? What is the point of Jesus as a middle man, as an intercessor? Approaching the theological claims asserted about Jesus' death logically seems to render it completely unnecessary.

Indeed it does beg the question, which is why there's literally hundreds of years worth of Christian thought on the matter. Ultimately the Catholic Church embraces the explanation given by St. Anselm in his work "Cur Deus Homo"

The satisfaction theory of atonement, of which Cur Deus Homo is the progenitor, does not answer these questions. It claims Man had done God injustice with his sinful nature, and that God was owed reparations (i.e. satisfaction). At the same time, it claims that Man cannot possibly repay God his due, because "satisfaction ought to be proportionate to guilt" and "man is of himself unable to accomplish this" since God is already owed Man's full love and obedience; "all that you are and have and can become". It contrives the God-man as the solution to this issue, but it is just that, a contrivance.

Indeed, Anselm of Canterbury argues that God could not simply forgive Man of his sins, because it is wrong not to punish injustice, and simply forgiving it in an act of compassion is to blur the distinction between justice and injustice. But this is where the absurdity comes in, because by sending Jesus, God has not done anything other than simply forgive Man of his sins, except by additional steps. Jesus is Man in the flesh, but also God, and that means God has repaid his due to himself, from himself, by himself, taking only the form of Man in so doing. It is no different than if I, upon being owed a money debt by someone who cannot possibly repay it, simply give them the money and so that they may symbolically repay me. That is consequentially no different from forgiveness, and neither is the atonement granted by Jesus' crucifixion.

[The free romanians]

Indeed it does beg the question, which is why there's literally hundreds of years worth of Christian thought on the matter. Ultimately the Catholic Church embraces the explanation given by St. Anselm in his work "Cur Deus Homo"

The satisfaction theory of atonement, of which Cur Deus Homo is the progenitor, does not answer these questions. It claims Man had done God injustice with his sinful nature, and that God was owed reparations (i.e. satisfaction). At the same time, it claims that Man cannot possibly repay God his due, because "satisfaction ought to be proportionate to guilt" and "man is of himself unable to accomplish this" since God is already owed Man's full love and obedience; "all that you are and have and can become". It contrives the God-man as the solution to this issue, but it is just that, a contrivance.

Indeed, Anselm of Canterbury argues that God could not simply forgive Man of his sins, because it is wrong not to punish injustice, and simply forgiving it in an act of compassion is to blur the distinction between justice and injustice. But this is where the absurdity comes in, because by sending Jesus, God has not done anything other than simply forgive Man of his sins, except by additional steps. Jesus is Man in the flesh, but also God, and that means God has repaid his due to himself, from himself, by himself, taking only the form of Man in so doing. It is no different than if I, upon being owed a money debt by someone who cannot possibly repay it, simply give them the money and so that they may symbolically repay me. That is consequentially no different from forgiveness, and neither is the atonement granted by Jesus' crucifixion.

As far as i understand
To enter hell because only humans can go to hell

[Reverend Norv]

Indeed it does beg the question, which is why there's literally hundreds of years worth of Christian thought on the matter. Ultimately the Catholic Church embraces the explanation given by St. Anselm in his work "Cur Deus Homo"

The satisfaction theory of atonement, of which Cur Deus Homo is the progenitor, does not answer these questions. It claims Man had done God injustice with his sinful nature, and that God was owed reparations (i.e. satisfaction). At the same time, it claims that Man cannot possibly repay God his due, because "satisfaction ought to be proportionate to guilt" and "man is of himself unable to accomplish this" since God is already owed Man's full love and obedience; "all that you are and have and can become". It contrives the God-man as the solution to this issue, but it is just that, a contrivance.

Indeed, Anselm of Canterbury argues that God could not simply forgive Man of his sins, because it is wrong not to punish injustice, and simply forgiving it in an act of compassion is to blur the distinction between justice and injustice. But this is where the absurdity comes in, because by sending Jesus, God has not done anything other than simply forgive Man of his sins, except by additional steps. Jesus is Man in the flesh, but also God, and that means God has repaid his due to himself, from himself, by himself, taking only the form of Man in so doing. It is no different than if I, upon being owed a money debt by someone who cannot possibly repay it, simply give them the money and so that they may symbolically repay me. That is consequentially no different from forgiveness, and neither is the atonement granted by Jesus' crucifixion.

It may or may not be no different consequentially. But have you considered that the atonement might matter for reasons that are not strictly consequentialist?

This is about restoring man's relationship to God. Relationships are not math problems: the process, the how, matters as much as the final outcome. Anyone who's ever argued with a spouse knows that well enough.

Looking at it that way, rather than in strictly consequentialist terms, can you see how the additional steps you are describing might be something other than a contrivance?

[Raskana]

Just curious, but how bad is it if you do something sinful in a dream?

Our priest says it is not because it is not real, but I would like a second opinion.

[The free romanians]

Just curious, but how bad is it if you do something sinful in a dream?

Our priest says it is not because it is not real, but I would like a second opinion.

I don't know
I would recomand to say that too at confesion to be sure

[Raskana]

Just curious, but how bad is it if you do something sinful in a dream?

Our priest says it is not because it is not real, but I would like a second opinion.

I don't know
I would recomand to say that too at confesion to be sure

Well, it can not be a sin (I think), sooo why?

Besides, I do not want to bother our clergy, since they do not have the time ATM.

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

I am Orthodox Christian, but haven't been active for a few years.

[Diarcesia]

Just curious, but how bad is it if you do something sinful in a dream?

Our priest says it is not because it is not real, but I would like a second opinion.

In your dream, did you have agency in choosing what actions to take? Or are you like an audience where you see yourself doing everything without your control?

[Raskana]

Just curious, but how bad is it if you do something sinful in a dream?

Our priest says it is not because it is not real, but I would like a second opinion.

In your dream, did you have agency in choosing what actions to take? Or are you like an audience where you see yourself doing everything without your control?

I was thinking the same thing just now, and I do not really know.

I can control my actions, but not my mood or morality.

I do something that seems right, but then I wake up and think: "Eh, that was just EVIL"

[The free romanians]

I don't know
I would recomand to say that too at confesion to be sure

Well, it can not be a sin (I think), sooo why?

Besides, I do not want to bother our clergy, since they do not have the time ATM.

It is their duty to guide you spiritualy

[Raskana]

Well, it can not be a sin (I think), sooo why?

Besides, I do not want to bother our clergy, since they do not have the time ATM.

It is their duty to guide you spiritualy

I know, we just have a shortage atm, and its not all about me.

[The Archregimancy]

Just curious, but how bad is it if you do something sinful in a dream?

Our priest says it is not because it is not real, but I would like a second opinion.

I'll say this as gently as possible, but I really don't think a second opinion from a bunch of strangers on the internet perhaps carries as much weight as the opinion of a priest.

I'd go with your priest on this one.

[Raskana]

Just curious, but how bad is it if you do something sinful in a dream?

Our priest says it is not because it is not real, but I would like a second opinion.

I'll say this as gently as possible, but I really don't think a second opinion from a bunch of strangers on the internet perhaps carries as much weight as the opinion of a priest.

I'd go with your priest on this one.

Good advice, thanks, I think you are right.

And you are very polite, so well done.

[Salus Maior]

Just curious, but how bad is it if you do something sinful in a dream?

Our priest says it is not because it is not real, but I would like a second opinion.

I'll say this as gently as possible, but I really don't think a second opinion from a bunch of strangers on the internet perhaps carries as much weight as the opinion of a priest.

I'd go with your priest on this one.

Agreed.

But I also happen to agree with the priest. For a sin to be mortal it has to be intentional, you have to choose to do it. You don't really have a choice in what you dream usually.

[Sordhau]

I'll say this as gently as possible, but I really don't think a second opinion from a bunch of strangers on the internet perhaps carries as much weight as the opinion of a priest.

I'd go with your priest on this one.

Agreed.

But I also happen to agree with the priest. For a sin to be mortal it has to be intentional, you have to choose to do it. You don't really have a choice in what you dream usually.

I mean you don't always have a conscious choice in what you think either, yet many seem to consider just having sinful thoughts to be equivalent to acting in sin. Either sinful thoughts and dreams count as sinning or they don't, you can't have it both ways. I personally don't believe either count.

[Tarsonis]

Agreed.

But I also happen to agree with the priest. For a sin to be mortal it has to be intentional, you have to choose to do it. You don't really have a choice in what you dream usually.

I mean you don't always have a conscious choice in what you think either, yet many seem to consider just having sinful thoughts to be equivalent to acting in sin. Either sinful thoughts and dreams count as sinning or they don't, you can't have it both ways. I personally don't believe either count.

Dreams are hallucinations caused by chemical release in your brain. Different factors can effect them, but they're largely just movies that you watch.


As for your thoughts, Christ was pretty explicit that thoughts can bear just as much consequence as action, though it's not exactly black and white. As someone whose been at war with their own brain for 3 decades, I know all to well how thoughts can come unbidden. Largely it depends on how much you indulge them.

[Sordhau]

I mean you don't always have a conscious choice in what you think either, yet many seem to consider just having sinful thoughts to be equivalent to acting in sin. Either sinful thoughts and dreams count as sinning or they don't, you can't have it both ways. I personally don't believe either count.

Dreams are hallucinations caused by chemical release in your brain. Different factors can effect them, but they're largely just movies that you watch.


As for your thoughts, Christ was pretty explicit that thoughts can bear just as much consequence as action, though it's not exactly black and white. As someone whose been at war with their own brain for 3 decades, I know all to well how thoughts can come unbidden. Largely it depends on how much you indulge them.

How do we define "indulging" them, though? I've had plenty of intrusive thoughts, some quite sinful, that I didn't want or ask for yet have never tried to make them reality. Do these count?

[Duvniask]

The satisfaction theory of atonement, of which Cur Deus Homo is the progenitor, does not answer these questions. It claims Man had done God injustice with his sinful nature, and that God was owed reparations (i.e. satisfaction). At the same time, it claims that Man cannot possibly repay God his due, because "satisfaction ought to be proportionate to guilt" and "man is of himself unable to accomplish this" since God is already owed Man's full love and obedience; "all that you are and have and can become". It contrives the God-man as the solution to this issue, but it is just that, a contrivance.

Indeed, Anselm of Canterbury argues that God could not simply forgive Man of his sins, because it is wrong not to punish injustice, and simply forgiving it in an act of compassion is to blur the distinction between justice and injustice. But this is where the absurdity comes in, because by sending Jesus, God has not done anything other than simply forgive Man of his sins, except by additional steps. Jesus is Man in the flesh, but also God, and that means God has repaid his due to himself, from himself, by himself, taking only the form of Man in so doing. It is no different than if I, upon being owed a money debt by someone who cannot possibly repay it, simply give them the money and so that they may symbolically repay me. That is consequentially no different from forgiveness, and neither is the atonement granted by Jesus' crucifixion.

It may or may not be no different consequentially. But have you considered that the atonement might matter for reasons that are not strictly consequentialist?

This is about restoring man's relationship to God. Relationships are not math problems: the process, the how, matters as much as the final outcome. Anyone who's ever argued with a spouse knows that well enough.

Looking at it that way, rather than in strictly consequentialist terms, can you see how the additional steps you are describing might be something other than a contrivance?

Then you might as well throw out the idea that this has anything to do with the dispensing of justice to punish wrongdoing. It is forgiveness with theatrics.

[Tarsonis]

Dreams are hallucinations caused by chemical release in your brain. Different factors can effect them, but they're largely just movies that you watch.


As for your thoughts, Christ was pretty explicit that thoughts can bear just as much consequence as action, though it's not exactly black and white. As someone whose been at war with their own brain for 3 decades, I know all to well how thoughts can come unbidden. Largely it depends on how much you indulge them.

How do we define "indulging" them, though? I've had plenty of intrusive thoughts, some quite sinful, that I didn't want or ask for yet have never tried to make them reality. Do these count?

I think this is one where conscience dictates.

[The Archregimancy]

It may or may not be no different consequentially. But have you considered that the atonement might matter for reasons that are not strictly consequentialist?

This is about restoring man's relationship to God. Relationships are not math problems: the process, the how, matters as much as the final outcome. Anyone who's ever argued with a spouse knows that well enough.

Looking at it that way, rather than in strictly consequentialist terms, can you see how the additional steps you are describing might be something other than a contrivance?

Then you might as well throw out the idea that this has anything to do with the dispensing of justice to punish wrongdoing. It is forgiveness with theatrics.

Powerful evidence that the Orthodox Church is the One True Church.

(Joke, obviously)

[Diarcesia]

It may or may not be no different consequentially. But have you considered that the atonement might matter for reasons that are not strictly consequentialist?

This is about restoring man's relationship to God. Relationships are not math problems: the process, the how, matters as much as the final outcome. Anyone who's ever argued with a spouse knows that well enough.

Looking at it that way, rather than in strictly consequentialist terms, can you see how the additional steps you are describing might be something other than a contrivance?

Then you might as well throw out the idea that this has anything to do with the dispensing of justice to punish wrongdoing. It is forgiveness with theatrics.

Does that mean that Jesus is a God and man of culture?