Human Scarifice?

[matthewgoh]

Friend,

Even if you get all the answers to your satisfaction. At the end, you will still ask; "Why God murder me then? He should have made me immortal. I am subject to physical death. This is surely a murder - God's murder."

So the answer to your final question is Christ, your savior.

God bless.

 

[Metanoia02]

Aren't you taking that rather out of context? Certainly if my body is buried in the ground outside of a coffin it will provide food for various worms and insects, not to mention many bacteria, but that is not the same as saving people from their sins.

This idea you have put forward doesn't appear to have valid use as anything other than an analogy, and even then I don't see how it fits the example of Jesus' death.

Sorry I misunderstood your question. Let me try this again. I think your question is asking where does the "idea" of atonement come from and more specifically why the death of Jesus was more then just a brutal execution.

First off atonement is related to justice. When an offense is committed the offender must be confronted and reparations must be made if we are to be just.

Atonement which in this case is sacrifice has been understood in ancient cultures to be a way of offering reparations to the highest Good, namely God. Since God self sustaining and require nothing, the only thing we can offer is what he has already given us. This is a way to atone for the offense against the Greatest Good. Since the Greatest Good is also Infinitely Good we can never repay it completely, even one offense.

 

[fatpie42]

Atonement which in this case is sacrifice has been understood in ancient cultures to be a way of offering reparations to the highest Good, namely God. Since God self sustaining and require nothing, the only thing we can offer is what he has already given us. This is a way to atone for the offense against the Greatest Good. Since the Greatest Good is also Infinitely Good we can never repay it completely, even one offense.

Yeah, the problem there is that we don't believe in sacrifices in modern society. It simply isn't the way we think. So beginning the explanation of the atonement with "God needs sacrifices in order to atone for sins" seems to be a rather dodgy starting point.

Since we describe God as forgiving it seems very odd that he should need someone die in order to forgive. If, on the other hand, you suggest that God's forgiveness is not enough and we need to atone too, it might be asked 'why'. Why should God's forgiveness not be enough for me?

What makes things more confusing than ever is the idea that Christ's death has anything to do with my atonement. Even if I believe in Christ's death and resurrection and focus my mind on it often, how does that make any difference to my position of needing to atone for sin?

 

[Metanoia02]

Since we describe God as forgiving it seems very odd that he should need someone die in order to forgive. If, on the other hand, you suggest that God's forgiveness is not enough and we need to atone too, it might be asked 'why'. Why should God's forgiveness not be enough for me?

You fail to realize that the death of Christ stands at the fulcrum of salvation history. Those who existed before Christ were following what God has prescribed which was a forshadowing of the final sacrifice of Christ. The Prophets pointed towards this final sacrifice. Once this ultimate sacrifice was given, the substance of the sacrifice changed. We now offer ourselves as "living sacrifices". We give of ourselves to those around us.

 

[fatpie42]

Once this ultimate sacrifice was given, the substance of the sacrifice changed. We now offer ourselves as "living sacrifices". We give of ourselves to those around us.

So my next question would be "why should anyone need to focus on Jesus' sacrifice in order to become 'living sacrifices' as you say?". However I expect that you, being Catholic, will probably be happy to appeal to Karl Rahner's 'anonymous Christian' theology and say that some people may be making themselves living sacrifices without realising this is linked with Jesus' sacrifice. Naturally on those grounds you would say that people were better off 'recognising' Jesus.

Do correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps you disagree with Rahner's feelings on this issue. (Or perhaps you disagree with my summary of Rahner's ideas on anonymous Christians).

P.S. I am not saying that a non-Catholic could not accept Rahner's ideas, but simply that non-Catholics are less likely to be open minded when it comes to Roman Catholic theologians like Rahner.
After all, Rahner is, when it comes down to it, offering quite a conservative Roman Catholic view.

 

[Robinsegg]

So my next question would be "why should anyone need to focus on Jesus' sacrifice in order to become 'living sacrifices' as you say?".

They may be trying to do that. But the sacrifice is unacceptable because it isn't what God requires. Yes, He requires a living sacrifice, but that sacrifice must be cleansed by His Son.
Rachel

 

[fatpie42]

They may be trying to do that. But the sacrifice is unacceptable because it isn't what God requires. Yes, He requires a living sacrifice, but that sacrifice must be cleansed by His Son.
Rachel

The thing is that I being expected to accept here that sacrifices are a sensible concept in the first place. Metanoia02 has suggested that the reason sacrifices aren't sensible anymore is actually BECAUSE Christ made that ultimate sacrifice.

Naturally not everyone will have heard of Jesus, but surely what is important is that they feel the consequences of what Jesus did for them? Rahner is a theologian who suggests that people may be anonymous Christians because they do not know that it is Christ who is responsible for their salvation. - As a result, I am suggesting that what makes it important to accept Jesus' crucifixion 'consciously' through the Christian Church is that this is 'best' way to relate to God.

A personal issue for me at this stage would be that, since I don't understand how sacrifices are sensible, I don't see how seeing the relation between me as God as being bridged by a 'sacrifice' is a very good way to see things at all.

 

[Metanoia02]

So my next question would be "why should anyone need to focus on Jesus' sacrifice in order to become 'living sacrifices' as you say?". However I expect that you, being Catholic, will probably be happy to appeal to Karl Rahner's 'anonymous Christian' theology and say that some people may be making themselves living sacrifices without realising this is linked with Jesus' sacrifice. Naturally on those grounds you would say that people were better off 'recognising' Jesus.

Do correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps you disagree with Rahner's feelings on this issue. (Or perhaps you disagree with my summary of Rahner's ideas on anonymous Christians).

P.S. I am not saying that a non-Catholic could not accept Rahner's ideas, but simply that non-Catholics are less likely to be open minded when it comes to Roman Catholic theologians like Rahner.
After all, Rahner is, when it comes down to it, offering quite a conservative Roman Catholic view.

For the life of me, I don't know why Karl Rahner has anything to do with this discussion since, I have not expressed any uniquely Catholic theology in my comments. Although a may agree with Rahner on some things I do not use him as a reference point in my theology, I am more partial to Aquinas.

Regardless of whether a person may recongnize they are being a living sacrifice or not or understand the metaphysics of atonement is irrelevent. The fact is that the good thea re able to do originates in the Goodness of their Creator.

 

[fatpie42]

For the life of me, I don't know why Karl Rahner has anything to do with this discussion since, I have not expressed any uniquely Catholic theology in my comments. Although a may agree with Rahner on some things I do not use him as a reference point in my theology, I am more partial to Aquinas.

Regardless of whether a person may recongnize they are being a living sacrifice or not or understand the metaphysics of atonement is irrelevent. The fact is that the good thea re able to do originates in the Goodness of their Creator.

I'm sorry to bring up your denomination. Like I said, I know that people from other denominations would, as a general rule, be unlikely to accept Rahner. I brought up this figure because I guessed (on the basis of your denomination unfortunately) that you might know Rahner's theology.

You see my reason for deconverting was the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, but in Rahner's theology I saw that Rahner addressed many of the same issues as Nietzsche. As a result I have come to consider Rahner to have a far more reasonable and less dogmatic understanding of Christianity than most other thinkers I normally read on the subject. (I have been fortunate enough to study Rahner under Professor Karen Kilby who is a very good writer on the subject)

To reply to your post, my main problem is that I don't understand the metaphysics of the atonement and it is possibly my greatest stumbling block.

 

[Metanoia02]

I'm sorry to bring up your denomination. Like I said, I know that people from other denominations would, as a general rule, be unlikely to accept Rahner. I brought up this figure because I guessed (on the basis of your denomination unfortunately) that you might know Rahner's theology.

You see my reason for deconverting was the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, but in Rahner's theology I saw that Rahner addressed many of the same issues as Nietzsche. As a result I have come to consider Rahner to have a far more reasonable and less dogmatic understanding of Christianity than most other thinkers I normally read on the subject. (I have been fortunate enough to study Rahner under Professor Karen Kilby who is a very good writer on the subject)

To reply to your post, my main problem is that I don't understand the metaphysics of the atonement and it is possibly my greatest stumbling block.

Were you a Catholic Christian?

 

[fatpie42]

Were you a Catholic Christian?

No, but I'm beginning to realise that many of the problems I had with Christianity are less of an issue within Catholic theology. Nietzsche is reacting to a very protestant version of Christianity (both his father and grandfather were lutheran preachers). That's not to say that Catholic theology solves all my problems, but simply that I have recognised that it makes a better attempt at solutions. The arguments from charismatic Christians tend to be along the lines of "you're an idiot not to believe in Christianity. Christianity is simple!". Rahner's theology doesn't pull any punches, but it recognises that the issues are more complicated than this.

 

[Metanoia02]

No, but I'm beginning to realise that many of the problems I had with Christianity are less of an issue within Catholic theology. Nietzsche is reacting to a very protestant version of Christianity (both his father and grandfather were lutheran preachers). That's not to say that Catholic theology solves all my problems, but simply that I have recognised that it makes a better attempt at solutions. The arguments from charismatic Christians tend to be along the lines of "you're an idiot not to believe in Christianity. Christianity is simple!". Rahner's theology doesn't pull any punches, but it recognises that the issues are more complicated than this.

I am glad to hear that Catholic theology makes more sense to you. I am not sure I would be a Christian (or at least a practicing one) if I had not become Catholic.

If you haven't already read it "Deus carnitas est" is a great encyclical. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Benedict referes to Neitzsche and is in agreement on a particular point. You may find it interesting since Benedict XVI was a student of Rahner at one time, I believe. I do know they were contemporaries. Both solid German theologians.

 

[seayhere]

If you look at the story of Abraham, you will see God is telling us he will provide a sacrifice. There is two parts to that story the first is that he provided the ram, but it was also a hint to the coming of Jesus. Jesus was the final passover lamb. God loved us so much that he sacrificed his only son, so we wouldn't have to make more killing sacrifices. God loves us and made it possible for us to be redeemed.

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

No, but I'm beginning to realise that many of the problems I had with Christianity are less of an issue within Catholic theology. Nietzsche is reacting to a very protestant version of Christianity (both his father and grandfather were lutheran preachers). That's not to say that Catholic theology solves all my problems, but simply that I have recognised that it makes a better attempt at solutions. The arguments from charismatic Christians tend to be along the lines of "you're an idiot not to believe in Christianity. Christianity is simple!". Rahner's theology doesn't pull any punches, but it recognises that the issues are more complicated than this.

Have you picked up a copy of Truth and Tolerance by Benedict XVI? I think you would find it very sturdy reading material. He often refers to Rahner's theology, and provides a well explained rejection to certain points of it, while still expressing a good deal of approval for his work. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the book.

 

[fatpie42]

Have you picked up a copy of Truth and Tolerance by Benedict XVI? I think you would find it very sturdy reading material. He often refers to Rahner's theology, and provides a well explained rejection to certain points of it, while still expressing a good deal of approval for his work. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the book.

Fraid I'm a bit busy at the moment. But perhaps later I might get the chance. I'm very worried though, that someone like Benedict would simply take from Rahner the ideas affirming more orthodox ideas and dismiss the more radical aspects of Rahner's work. Many of Rahner's views on the theology of death, for example, I could imagine being dismissed. Still, the reasoning behind the dismissal of Rahner's more radical ideas would be interesting to see.