Well JeffA, one calls it as he sees it yes??
Yet to realize that the WAY we see it is not the sum of the matter.
Personally I have trouble with religion when presented as a closed case file. Settled, beyond question, and ready to be nailed into stone.
Curious though: what might you be willing to have hammered into stone as regards your convictions?
TotalVictory
Bobx3
I think based on my personal experiences in this life the minute I replace a loving God with the impersonal forces of nature my life makes more sense - in other words life to me looks exactly like a series of stuff that just happens - the minute I try to see it as directed by a loving creator I get cognitive dissonance.
I’m sure I don’t articulate this too well but when I remove God from the equation, the fact that some people gets the breaks and some don’t (not in a commercial sense but just in a good stuff/bad stuff sense) I think ‘yes of course - that’s what I would expect to happen’.
I’m sure my problem with it all stems from my childhood experience of the early deaths of both my parents. Other than fatuous platitudes about ‘God has it all in your best interest in the long run’. I defy anyone to be able to make a rational case for those events with the existence of a loving God (they died 3 years apart and then I lived alone for 5 years). The result so far is atheism. If I don’t get any kind of genuine conversion pre-mortem then as far as even Universalist theology is concerned it’s death and a pile of punishment and then eventually some long eons into the future maybe something good will happen - but maybe not or perhaps just annihilation (you all know my views on that one). I didn’t need to wait eons before any hypothetical wiping away of all tears happens I needed it back then. Now put like that it always sounds so much hooey I’m afraid 
However, in a purely naturalistic universe those events are perfectly explicable - they both got sick - they both died - end of story’.
Excuse the dripping bile guys 
I guess it would make sense to share where my idea and bias (and HOPE!) come from by sharing this link to a very brief essay by Walter Wink on the subject. He has written at great length on this and related topics in his “Powers” trilogy. Anyway, I’m sure our readers will find this essay very interesting indeed.
ekklesia.co.uk/content/cpt/article_060823wink.shtml
TotalVictory
Bobx3
Why did God set up (or at least continue–if we don’t believe its origin is God) a system of sacrifice in the first place? I don’t think God needed the shedding of blood (death) of animals for the remission of sins. He created the system for some strange reason that we don’t understand. Would it not have been a lot easier just to require a remorseful heart?
“We said we were sorry! So you didn’t need to sacrifice your only Son.” Hey, maybe all that blood letting was just a way to convince those idiots back then.
Amen!
Hi RanRan, You may in this board strongly disagree with Bible writers, but according to the rule of this board pejorative name calling is inappropriate, which includes name calling of people who no longer live such as Old Testament (0T) writers who commanded the sacrificial system. Please review the rules of this board [Forum Rules and Policies).
Whether plant or animal we kill it to survive. We take life to live. In the Eucharist we eat and drink Christ to survive as well.
The slaughter of animals continues because we’re hungry. The slaughter of people continues because we’re evil, but only less evil than the other guy. Because Christ was the Last Sacrifice - the blood-letting to appease God has stopped. But not the killing.
Aside…(come on, Jim, that was tongue in cheek. We’re the idiots for not understanding Christ’s blood sacrifice and then calling it a myth. And then throw His name around as if it meant something. At some point it’s not even Christian any more.) I just get tired of this New Age stuff being presented to justify Universal Redemption.
I have to agree with your aside there Ran - I took it as tongue-in-cheek too 
Also Ran please supply me with something for which I can use the following quote:
You do run RanRan, you do run Ran. 
Bee-Bop a do Bop?
Rama Lama Ding Dong?
And because we are still rather insensitive to suffering which doesn’t hurt us directly.
Christ’s means of death was designed by men and meant to cause suffering. God’s design for sacrifice was not designed to cause suffering - the animals were bled until they lost consciousness.
The wages of sin is death - not torture.
It’s the maddening deathness of death that Christ came to conquer. He came to set the captives free. And will do just that at the resurrection.
Well, I’ve never said that all non-Christians necessarily have a pile of punishment waiting and then some long eons into the future maybe something good will happen to them! I’m pretty sure I’m on record around here as stating, as most of us universalists believe (and even some non-universalists, like C. S. Lewis), that the sheep are not formally Christians. And they seem to get in without any trouble at all! The goats are in for some brisk eonian cleaning; but aside from the fact that I identify those from the prior contexts as lazy and/or uncharitable Christians (and I thereby make it a point to have myself in mind), I haven’t ever said there’s any reason why their cleaning must necessarily last long eons into the future.
What I have routinely said, is that I find and believe that problems only come insofar as any of us (Christian or non-Christian) insist on holding onto sins that we ourselves do recognize as being sins. I take that warning very seriously, but otherwise I am hopeful for as much of an instantaneous transformation and salvation from sin as feasibly possible.
All that can be excused, will be excused; all that can be healed, will be healed; God will pass by a thousand sins, even tens of thousands, He will pass by all that He can. The one, only sin He cannot and will not pass by, is whatever sin (if any) that we still insist on sinning.
It’s true that there are some older universalist writers who seem to think that there must be some set term of purgatory (and an unspeakably long one at that), and then an automatic jubilee release. I have a lot of respect for jubilee theology, but I think they’re off base on the set-term idea. And offhand I can’t think of anyone here today on the forum, who has written much material, who professes in favor of a set-term punishment (much moreso one of long eons!)
That’s all meant to be reassuring, by the way. 
I thought I had better get this reply done first, before moving on to catching up with TV (Bobx3).
Well, since I’m sort-of stuck at the office tonight (actually last night, when I began this reply), I can finally start catching up on a bunch of entries here! (Though not remotely all of them yet.)
This was the oldest thread that has some connection to an ongoing discussion I’m having elsewhere. So I thought I’d start here first. (Good Lord, I haven’t checked in on it since Sept 24… Illness, busy-ness, other threads, more work at work, illness again, etc. Sorry. 
)
At the end of the day, this is really all I’m doing, too. 
I’ve only been spelling out some of the implications of the ontological level of it.
Which is also why I’ve put this comment first in my new reply.
Since the rest of it, in detail, runs something like 26-1/2 pages, I’m just going to upload it in .doc format. I very much appreciate your civility in opposition, btw! {bow!}
(Note: since I decided to post this as a doc file rather than inflict it upon our poor forum engine, I do need to take some time to try to alter the BBCode formatting in places to something more, um, doc-ier. {g} If the file isn’t attached yet to this message, check back later.)
Dispute on UR and Myth of Redemptive Violence.doc (96 KB)
If I may, I wanted to jump in and offer some perspective from the fields of medical and social science that I think can help us tremendously in thinking through this theologically. Specifically, I want to take a step back and consider what we have come to understand about the affects of violence and abuse in the past century:
For centuries violence, and more specifically the idea that corporal punishment was “redemptive” was foundational to society. This has changed dramatically, beginning roughly in the middle of the 20th century. Consider: Teachers do not beat school children, prisoners are not tortured, the insane are not beaten and kept in dungeons, etc. All of that used to be common practice. Today it would be considered criminal. As a result you see laws being passed that prohibit this kind of corporal punishment (let alone torture) and focus on human rights.
The primary reason for this shift is what the fields of medical and social science have come to understand over the last century about how humans work, how we break, and how we are made better. From that perspective, we have come to understand the affects of abuse on a person. Inflicting physical punishment on a person has been called “abuse” because we have come to recognize (through empirical observation by mental health experts) that this can severely damage a person, it can destroy them on the inside. So far from advocating corporal punishment as a means of raising healthy children, we have groups like the AMA making statements that parents should not spank children. Behind such statements is the extremely broad consensus among health professionals that hurting people is not how you make them good. Of course we can have a whole thread on nuanceing this, but the simple point I want to make here is that a major shift has happened in our world where we no longer believe that the way to make good people is to break their spirits, and beat them until they behave. On the contrary, we have become deeply concerned about the severe harm this can do.
Bob (TV) has brought up the correlation that violence leads to fear. However I want to suggest that behind that is the much larger contemporary understanding of the profound psychological damage that abuse can cause, which we have come to recognize today. So this is not simply a matter (despite what C.S. Lewis might think) of whether fear is good motivator. It goes way deeper, in a way that Lewis–writing in the early part of the 20th century–likely did not comprehend in the way we do today.
The charge by feminists that the cross is “divine child abuse” has also been mentioned. This draws on our contemporary understanding of abuse and the profound harm it can do. This idea of abuse as a term is one that was simply not on the radar of people prior to the 20th century. So while the charge of “divine child abuse” used by these feminists is of course pejorative and deliberately provocative, it is vital to not let that cause us to simply dismiss it as name calling. Instead, it is crucial that we look closely to make sure that we are not inadvertently advocating abuse.
The contention of Wink and Weaver is that the “myth of redemptive violence” does perpetuates an ethic of abuse. Whether this abuse is inflicted on the Son by the Father, or it is “self-abuse” where the cross is viewed as a divine “suicide” is immaterial. The issue is whether the cross is abusive or not. That is, whether it shows that abuse is how God works, and whether self-abuse is put forward as a model for Christian discipleship and ethics.
Now I would say that Jesus willingly giving his life for us on the cross is not a picture of abuse. I would also say that following Jesus in that way (“take up your cross and follow me”) also should not entail embracing a way of abuse. However I think it also undeniable that some people have in fact (mis)interpreted the model of Jesus as a way that has lead them into self-loathing and self-abnegation which are in fact abusive, and that some understandings of the atonement do seem to promote an understanding redemptive violence which has also been used to justify a policy of violence.
It is therefore deeply important that we clearly distinguish what it means to follow the way of Jesus in a healthy way, and distinguish that from an abusive one. Likewise it is vital to distinguish our image of God from the abusive image of God which has characterized a good deal of Christian theology co-opted by the State to justify their program of violent dominance.
Jason writes:
Again, here I would say (and at this point I disagree with many feminists making this charge) that these are NOT the same thing. But it is critical that we distinguish what exactly the difference is (especially if we plan on imitating that same way).
I would propose that it is not enough to simply have a good intent. To take a dramatic, but very apt example: I’m sure that many parents in the past had a good intent when they repeatedly beat their children in an effort to break their spirits, and consequently instilled in them deep rooted feelings of fear and self-loathing. But those kids were nonetheless profoundly damaged by that well intentioned violence. Good intentions are not enough.
What I would propose is that the cross does not model redemptive violence (the idea that things are made good by inflicting harm and pain), but rather that it models enemy love. The way of God is not the way of retribution, but the way of restorative justice. That way involves bearing suffering in love, but not in order to satisfy some divine need for people to hurt, but in order to expose the evil of violence, and call us to the way of enemy love.
-Derek
The discussion is really involved for me to read in its entirety, but some verses came to mind and I thought they might help. I get the impression from TV that you object to Jesus being seen as a victim of God? You see humankind, who crucified him as the “perpetrators”?
Jesus was no one’s victim. Not God’s, not humanity’s. A couple verses came to mind:
The latter is in context of a passage on resisting sin to the point of blood, and receiving painful discipline from our Father.
You mentioned the violent cruelty of Noah’s flood. You’re an anesthesiologist. You must have seen human suffering. There are a LOT more long drawn out and painful ways to die than drowning! And we ALL die. Death is universal. Another verse comes to mind:
and this one is in 6 different places in the Gospel
I wonder if it was not the DEATH part which was hard and painful for Jesus but the BECOMING sin for us?
When we read things like God saying He will “punish the world”; “destroy the sinners” (Isa 13); and “Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished” (Isa 13:16), we hear that as “mean”. But really, what good is it if my body lives on with a lifeless spirit? My flesh NEEDS to be put to death, I NEED to be crucified with Christ. Submitting to DEATH is not a BAD thing. Submitting to DEATH is a NECESSARY thing. If God, man, war, the devil, nature kills off my body, isn’t that just a reflection in the flesh of the spiritual reality that-apart from Him- I am DEAD?
just to throw in a couple things…i’m not that learned, but i did notice that some debate was two different perspectives of the same things, with a few bits edited.
my take on things is that God is perfect, and God is love.
in love He created us, and as Jasen sort of stated, we are given the grace to sin. we couldn’t sin if not for the grace.
this doesn’t mean that God is “responsible” for our sin, simply that in order to not have a slave race, He’s given us the option.
now, we can choose NOT to sin…we can choose to act according to His will, and be blessed as a result.
we can also choose NOT to act according to His will and (depending on your view) either be discliplined by God directly, or merely endure the natural consequences of our sin.
so Joseph, as a great example, needed to go to Egypt. is it possible that he would’ve made it all the way over without his brothers selling him into slavery? we can’t know HOW, as it didn’t happen that way. however God can do anything, so i personally assume, yes…He could’ve done that.
but the brothers acted in that evil and jealous way…and God’s will was put into motion in that way. great good came from it, and so we thank God…but we blame the brothers and don’t honour them for the evil thing they did, we merely marvel at God’s grace that He worked with those circumstances to such a great end…an end which (incorporating even more avoidable evil) ended with Moses leading the people home to the promised land.
now i believe that God needed/wanted to act through our evil, through our choices, to enact His true grace (while we were sinners), and as such, Christ (as the 2nd Person of God) paying our wages (the wages of sin=death) chose to (here’s where it gets scary for me) …allow us to kill His Son, knowing we’d do it… as an act of absorption. I think of Him as taking our sin and almost absorbing it into His goodness and somehow changing it, making the outcome GOOD, despite our worst intentions. sort of like when a Christian martyr filled with the Love of God allowed the waves of persecution to wash over him because of the Hope she/he had of His glorious resurrection and restoration…and with love, they conquered, as is evidenced by all the converts who came from witnessing the martyrdom…evil is broken not by conquering, not by violence,
but by taking the full brunt of it…
sorry that was rambling, but what i mean is kind of like God voluntarily went into a toxic area (like Mr Spock in Star Trek!!! a great example, especially as he comes back to life) to save us, knowing that in the physical form He’d assume for our sake, He would die…the toxicity was our sin, and so by our sin He died…but He made the choice to go through it. it is NOT suicide or murder, it is death for us…He lay His life down for us, as a hero may do…not out of suicidal tendancies, or violent ones, but simply for love of the one to be saved. to me this isn’t a difficult concept. there are far more difficult ones to me, like the judgement of sin both in the OT and NT.
hmm i am still rambling. hopefully i’ve made sense and am not totally out to lunch!
anyway, the violence, then, becomes ours…not God’s. He submits to undergo the worst we can throw at Him, and He conquers it by coming back from the dead. this act not only saves us, as it illustrates His plan for a kingdom of Love, and addresses our Fear of Death (a big motive for alot of sin), and it shows us what’s possible to Him (EVERYTHING!), and also the length and bredth and depth of His great love.
i’ll say that again, we are violent, we are sinful, but God is good. but as He is Love, He chooses to act WITH us, cooperating in a sense, like Jasen says (not to imply complicitness, but just to say He operates WITH us=cooperates), not forcing His will, but getting it just the same.
God did speak of destroying nations…He did speak of sacrifice (violence to animals), but i do think there were lessons there for all of us. not always comfortable lessons! but the discipline of a child is never fun for the loving parent nor for the child, yet the end result is character, maturity, etc.
i don’t pretend to say however that i “understand” why some bad things happen…and why God seems to have ordered the deaths of children and women alongside sinful men. this is in no way me trying to sweep that under the carpet, because basically i don’t know.
at the end of the day, God is love, and i trust Him to bring to fruition what He has promised.
what i’ve offered are just my meagre thoughts on the subject! proceed to tear them apart, good scholars 
this is all academic really, as the end result is that God wills that none should perish…He gets His way. that’s the perk of being God!
Can UR trump the Myth of Redemptive Violence?
I very much think so. I’ve loved Jesus since 1963, been Evangelical since 1976, URist since 1988, felt really satisfied with my ‘radical orthodox’ theology since 2006. Please take a look at: jub.id.au . Please bear in mind I have a lot more satisfying ‘answers’ than are written there so far - but not all the answers, I know. Thus I am looking for help & also am happy to answer questions!
regards,
On my post 10 mins ago I forgot to tick “Notify me when a reply is posted” - so I’m doing it on this one!
Oh and it was ~1971 when I was blessed with abduction & sexual abuse (and learned not to trust humanity) & 1985 when God shook me (and all my Baptist theology) up - I only continued to follow Jesus then because I could see that none but He 'had the words of eternal life"!