Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI

by Perry 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

Perry

ATONEMENT

Over the years since leaving the WT, I have found the doctrine of the Atonement to be one of the major litmus tests for determining Christianity and apostate Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church has transsubstantiation and the sacraments for salvation (among other things) and the WT simply rejects Christ each year formally at the Memorial. The WT spin on the Ransom negates the need for an actual exchange to take place with our Savior. Many more modern churches simply teach a watered down "Jesus Loves Everybody" message and forget about teaching how sin is actually erradicated.

If you feel a little confused about the Christian doctrine of Atonement, don’t be surprised. This is the end game for the enemy: to get you to deny the offer of a pardon for YOUR crimes (sins) so that you will not be at-one-ment with God.

On the night of deliverance from Pharaoh’s Egypt the sons of Abraham were to slaughter a spotless lamb, eat its flesh and smear some of the blood over the doorway and on the door-posts of their home. Because they were under this arrangement of blood, (drawing a line between the doorposts and down from the door header above will form the stick figure of a cross), and had the lamb inside of themselves after they ate the Passover Supper, the angel “passed over” that house as he delivered God’s execution judgment. ONLY THOSE UNDER THE BLOOD ARRANGEMENT WERE SPARED. There was no other way to avoid judgment….PERIOD.

Many years later the real Lamb of God was betrayed and murdered by not only his own covenant people, but by a collaboration of gentiles as well; hence, a representation of all mankind, Jew and Gentile. Yet, on the very day that the creation killed its Creator He offered this:

“Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye”

This offer is called the Substitutionary Atonement and is denied to Jehovah’s Witnesses by their leadership. The contract states in so many words: “My LIFE for yours. I will take your punishment due you if you will take my life inside of you”….hence the significance of eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood”. The key point is that an exchange takes place here. Christ substitutes in our place on the Cross for the punishment due us, and we become the “righteousness of God” due him. Initially, this is true by virtue of the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, and finally through the process of Sanctification.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him – 2 Cor. 5: 21

This is a very real contract that is unto the death of both parties. It is a BLOOD COVENANT in the fullest possible meaning of the term. It is sealed by the death of BOTH signatories. In the case of Jesus – on Calvary Hill; and in the case of humans who accept the offer – they die as unto themselves. They give up the rights to themselves and invite God to take control of their lives. When God does this by entering the individual by means of the Holy Spirit, that person is said to be born again. The individual is no longer the boss of his or her own life, God is. Finally, the deal is done when the believer dies and completes his end of the bargain with God.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

“it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”

Now you know the full meaning behinds Christ’s words when he said:

“Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”

This is the way out of our predicament. Jesus is the way, there is no other. The path is not a verb or a noun, conjunction, independent clause or any other figure of speech, with the exception of one singular Pro-Noun, the undying, self existing Word of God, Jesus.

Thus the Watchtower hope of escaping death and waltzing right on into paradise after God kills everyone else is false. It is based on the premise that if a person does what the ever-changing Watchtower says, they have no personal guilt before God, which would make judgment unnecessary and therefore not a threat to you personally. It is a different plea agreement than the one offered by God. And remember, there is no atonement for YOUR sin according to the WT view. No one pays the piper… not you or Christ. This is the singular objective of all false religion – to separate you, the guilty sinner, from God’s mercy and full pardon.

FORGIVE-US-FOR-OUR-SHORTCOMINGS-AND-WE-ASK-ALL-THIS-IN-JESUS-NAME-AMEN, is simply a mantra and is not legally binding upon God if invoked outside of the Blood Covenant with Christ.

There are many other pictures in the OT such as the placing of one's hand on the sacrificial animal or bull to transfer one's sin onto the animal before killing it to rid oneself of one's sin. The sacrifices were about killing off sin...not the ridiculous "sweet smelling odor" the WT would have us believe. Look at Leviticus the 1st chapter and then turn over to chapters 3 or 4. Better yet...do a word search in Leviticus on "hand".

Therefore, the practice of rejecting the “flesh” and ‘blood” of Christ each year at the Memorial is most unwise. It guarantees your judgment and righteous penalty because your sin remains. Just like the Passover, ONLY THOSE UNDER THE BLOOD CAN BE SAVED. There simply is no other way. Your life for His….that’s the deal on the table. There is no other; take it or leave it. But, don’t try to pervert it.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. – Galatians 2:20

New bible versions muddy the water when it comes to Jesus dying in our stead. In the case of the New World Translation, the substitutionary atonement is at times completely replaced by their spin on the doctrine of the ransom. Just because Jesus may have paid that which was lost by Adam, and Christ’s blood may or may not be applied on other objects of God’s mercy; the only way to guarantee a favorable outcome of your own trial and judgment is to enter into a life exchange agreement with Christ NOW, if you have not already done so.

SCRIPTURE	KJV	NASB	NIV	NWT
I Corinthians 5:7 (not Adam)	Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us	Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed	Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed	Christ our Passover has been sacrificed
1 Peter 4: 1 (not Adam)	Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh	Christ has suffered in the flesh	Christ suffered in his body	Christ suffered in the flesh
Isaiah 53:10	Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin	But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting {Him} to grief; If He would render Himself {as} a guilt offering	Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering	But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring
Colossians 1:14	we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins	in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins	in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins	we have our release by ransom
Colossians 1:24 (Jesus’ paid it all)	that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ	that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions	what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions	what is lacking of the tribulations of the Christ
I Corinthians 11:24 (Christ’s body is broken or punished instead of the sinners’)	Take: eat: this is my body broken for you	This is my body which is for you	This is my body which is for you	This means my body which is in your behalf
Matthew 18:11	the Son of man is come to save that which was lost	Parenthetical	omitted	omitted
Hebrews 1:3 (Jesus took punishment that is due us)	he had by himself purged our sins	He had made purification of sins	he had provided purification for sins	he had made a purification for our sins

AllTimeJeff

If you feel a little confused about the Christian doctrine of Atonement, don’t be surprised. This is the end game for the enemy: to get you to deny the offer of a pardon for YOUR crimes (sins) so that you will not be at-one-ment with God.
Perry, I agree with you on the fact that JW's totally contradict several important passages and chapters in the bible when it comes to atonement. Only the annointed can have a true relationship with god and Christ, the great crowd can only have a relationship with Christs "brothers" (read: annointed) etc etc etc. But this statement to me gets at the crux of the problems with Christian dogma that holds us all as sinners.
Here are my main issues with this statement. There is confusion because churches don't interpret scripture the same. Is Satan behind this? That doesn't make sense. I know the bible claims that Satan is our enemy. Fair enough. But for all the power god and/or Christ supposedly possess, they somehow can't get this very basic simple "how to" on salvation straight? This means that Satan is more powerful, and it raises serious questions about how serious god and Christ really take mans salvation if it isn't clear how to gain salvation.
I also have very real reservations about sin, or as you put it "YOUR crimes". If sin didn't exist, then there would be no need for an atoning sacrifice. So we need to establish "sin". The Borg defined sin as "anything out of line with God." Is that your definition of sin? Having seen the damage that is caused to believers mentally, emotionally and spiritually because they believe they are offending an invisible being they have never seen and only been told about, I have to say that sin is a concept that is worth questioning. Consider that much depression is caused because people believe that God is ANGRY at them for their very thoughts. That is serious, and the value of having to go through this process (accepting the value of a human sacrifice) must be addressed by those who would promote a "sin atoning sacrifice."
Perry

Hi Jeff,
Before I address your concerns, do you mind if I ask you how you personally determine right and wrong?
AllTimeJeff

I think a lot of my views of right and wrong come from my upbringing. I was raised with a Judeo/Christian ethic. I was taught that honesty and hard work are virtues, and that lies, theft, etc hurt others.
Without the JW theology before me, there are actions that I used to view as sinful that I no longer view as sinful. For example, I had a brother who was gay. I was taught that this was sinful. (to hate the sin and not the sinner would not be the point on this, as I frankly don't hate either a gay person or if a person chooses to have gay sex. That is a personal choice) I saw the very sad consequences of "sin" in action with the guilt and self destructive behavior it often engenders. In my brothers case, the conflict in him was so serious that he ended up despondant, on drugs and committed suicide. (don't let my brothers death affect this discussion, I use this as an example of what happens with many people. Not everyone with these problems kill themselves. But guilt DOES cause many mental and emotional problems.)
To me, there is a very real difference between actions that truly hurt others, actions that supposedly offend and hurt an invisible person who has yet to manifest himself, and actions that offend others but are clearly personal decisions to make.
I choose sex as a subject on "sin" as opposed to theft, lying or murder, because sex is a personal decision. Lying, theft and murder clearly hurt other people directly, and thus are defintely wrong. Sex is different because as long as it is consensual, it doesn't hurt others. We are taught that sexual decisions matter to the deities, that the sexual organs and their use really belong to god. To me, this would be a good basis to go forward. We also have to be taught that sexual behavior directly affects how god views a community of people, which is why communities from time's beginning view it as their responsibility to enforce the discipline that god demands. (whether that be JW shunning, or other more shocking midiveal types, like execution) Sin, the need for atonement clearly has wide ranging implications beyond the personal feeling an individual may get by feeling "saved".
I hope this starts to answer your question.
Btw, just to clear up any misconception, I am not arguing for stupid sexual conduct. Clearly there are many things to do (sex, eating, etc) that can be harmful and done in unhealthy ways. Again, this is for the sake of this particular argument on atonement.
Perry

I think a lot of my views of right and wrong come from my upbringing.
So am I correct in stating that you personally determine much of right and wrong, by what others have told you? Quite simply you believed them, right? What if your upbringing was different? You might just as likely have opposite views as to what is right or wrong, correct?
In my brothers case, the conflict in him was so serious that he ended up despondant, on drugs and committed suicide.
I truly am very sorry to hear that. My major in college was sociology, I'm well aware of this elevated suicide rate.
To me, there is a very real difference between actions that truly hurt others, actions that supposedly offend and hurt an invisible person who has yet to manifest himself, and actions that offend others but are clearly personal decisions to make.I choose sex as a subject on "sin" as opposed to theft, lying or murder, because sex is a personal decision. Lying, theft and murder clearly hurt other people directly, and thus are defintely wrong.
Well, God has manifested himself to the world on the cross. In addition to that, he has manifested himself to untold millions of people alive today. How do you "know" that sexual sins don't hurt anyone? Who told you this? My experience has led me to an opposite conclusion.
Sin, the need for atonement clearly has wide ranging implications beyond the personal feeling an individual may get by feeling "saved".
Here you are talking about the supernatural re-birth. It is not a feeling. It is a knowing.
For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that WE ARE children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him that we may indeed be glorified with Him." (Romans 8:12-17).
Christians know that there is no way that they can decide arbitrarily what is right for themselves of for others without diving headlong into cognitive dissonance. There is no way to see the beginning and the end of a matter to be able to make absolute judgments concerning right and wrong. That is why they believe God who can see the end of all things...Him being the Alpha and the Omega.
Addditionally, even if we disregard all of God's ideas concerning right and wrong, are you willing to stand before the Supreme Judge and have him replay your life and then have him dish out to you, the judgments that you have dished out to others? Ever shown indifference when mercy was requested? Ever passed by someone in need? Ever said God doesn't exist? Surely, if there is a God worth worshipping who deals in justice, we should expect the same from him, right?
My last Thread deals with Judgment more thoroughly and why we are guilty before God for at least 4 reasons as I see it. But real quick, logically, the issue of ultimate right and wrong can only be determined by someone who is "good" and can see the beginning and the end. We are neither. God's answer is not dispensing with his judgment of what is right and wrong, but His answer is the re-birth by Holy Spirit where the believer CAN actually do what it is that God calls right....without fear of punishment when failure occurs along the way to perfection.
But that issue is incidental to the fact that BY ANY MEASURE we are guilty before Someone who has a permanent record of our doings. The times that we have broken our own rules are recorded as well as the times that we have judged others for doing the same "crimes".
You can never erase your guilt by manipulating situational right and wrong...by anyone's standards, much less God's. Cold justice requires that we receive what we have mete out to others.... as a minimum.
We all have a trial coming up. We can face it alone or with Jesus as our Mediator where he can show that the fines were all paid for the violations we did. All sin gets paid one way or another, either on the cross or by us personally in Hell.
God is a very good accountant. Atonement (payment) is critical to circumventing the immediate threat of Judgment after we die.
AllTimeJeff

So am I correct in stating that you personally determine much of right and wrong, by what others have told you? Quite simply you believed them, right? What if your upbringing was different? You might just as likely have opposite views as to what is right or wrong, correct?
No. I use what I have learned as a basis for my adult beliefs. As evidence of this, my resigning from JW's is solely based on personal observation and experience, as well as the non JW willingness to actually think about the dogma to see if it stands up through an analysis of the evidence, among other things. I no longer take anyone's word for it. That is why I want to have this conversation with you about atonement. I didn't read your other essay on judgement, as you alluded to. (perhaps that would have been more appropriate to talk about there. If you wish, we can continue this at the other thread or combine the two here, as they are related.) In any case, judgement is relative to the standard of "sin" and thus the need of atonement to avoid a negative judgement by god. In this case, for me to accept that I need atonement for my sins, I have to be convinced that certain conduct is sinful. I have to be convinced that this said conduct will result in my death unless I stop it. That must be the litmus test, and thus my basic question to you. Why sin? What is sin? And if my conduct is a personal decision that hurts no one, but only offends the heretofore invisible deity, there has to be a clearly stated reason why the conduct is wrong, and not one solely based on inference. Because lets face it, ALL religons have conduct that offends "god". And few if any can really explain why some conduct (sex outside of legal marriage, eating fish on Friday, women in the Muslim world unable to show their faces) is considered sinful to their god other then the fact that they have a SUPERSTITIOUS FEAR OF JUDGEMENT. That doesn't explain why the conduct is sinful. It merely presupposes that the conduct is. (CAPS for emphasis, not to be rude... :-)
You bring up a good point about if our upbringing was different. For the sake of argument, if either of us if we were born in Saudi Arabia, we would be raised as Muslims, to believe in the prophet Allah, and depending on which dogma we were raised on, to believe that Christians and the West are infidels. At the very least, we wouldn't even consider the Christian teaching about Christs sacrifice and the need for atonement. All for the accident of where we were born. I use this as evidence against the need for atonement, as so much is out of our hands. Often, the accident of where we are born, which family we happen to be born into along with their spiritual traditions take a greater hold then one piece of truly incontrivertable stated fact from a holy book of what sin is and why it is sin.
Jeff Said
To me, there is a very real difference between actions that truly hurt others, actions that supposedly offend and hurt an invisible person who has yet to manifest himself, and actions that offend others but are clearly personal decisions to make.I choose sex as a subject on "sin" as opposed to theft, lying or murder, because sex is a personal decision. Lying, theft and murder clearly hurt other people directly, and thus are defintely wrong.
Perry's response:
Well, God has manifested himself to the world on the cross. In addition to that, he has manifested himself to untold millions of people alive today. How do you "know" that sexual sins don't hurt anyone? Who told you this? My experience has led me to an opposite conclusion.
Often in debates, questions are used to answer questions and to make points. So I accept your questions and will answer them. Firstly, remember that you are talking to a SINCERE skeptic. I do have a spiritual side. I can't accept Jesus as my god at this point. If I were to do this, I would be doing the same thing I did when I convinced myself that Jehovah was the true god. I can't do that. So with all respect, your statement that god has manifested himself on the cross is a meaningless statement to me. It is a concept that many Christians state and one that I am more then familiar with, but the proof is in the pudding. I will allow you that Jesus of Gallilee was executed on the cross. Has he manifested himself to millions as you say? Or is it at least possible that this is a mere emotional experience? And again, why all of the ploys? Can the most powerful being in the universe not do better then a 2000 year old book and the emotional conviction of his followers? Lets be honest, Muslims are every bit as convinced about Allah as you are about Christ. They also believe that Allah has manifested himself in their lives? Who do I believe? Shouldn't I try to ascertain some evidence first? Thus, I can't be swayed by emotional conviction, no matter how sincere they may be.
As for the sexual sins part, that is a great point. I think it demonstrates that any action can hurt others. But hurting others isn't "sin" as it is understood. If I break a marriage vow by saying I will be sexually faithful, then I have wronged my mate by sleeping around, that is one thing. But lets take the concept of sexual sins for a moment and give it a face, perhaps thousands of faces. What if two consenting gay or lesbian adults have sex. In fact, lets say that right now that is happening, because it is. Or, lets say two heterosexual people who aren't married are having sex right now, because it is statistically likely that is happening. Is it hurting me? You? Anyone else who is reading this? What is sinful about it? That I would like an answer to. Because in response to the question you asked "How do you know that sexual sins don't hurt anyone", I can tell you right now that any person on this earth at this moment and time who are engaging in a sexual act aren't hurting me. Again, sin? I don't see it. Now if they make an agreement to fidelity to another person, that is another story, but that is something that involves the right and wrong area of lying and keeping ones word. That would be the mistake, not the act of sex itself.
To be honest, the rest of your response from that point forward I take as a testimonial to what you believe, and what biblical points you hold to. I accept that from you, but I am not persuaded by what you said, because it presupposes belief. I don't believe that Christ is god, or that the bible is the holy word of god. I need to be convinced first with evidence before I can accept that. I hope you understand. Thanks, and I look forward to your response.
Perry

Jeff,
I will address some of the more relevant points... although all were relevant to some degree. Well done.
I can't accept Jesus as my god at this point. If I were to do this, I would be doing the same thing I did when I convinced myself that Jehovah was the true god. I can't do that.
That is good. We don't want a false conversion. Your post was well thought out, fairly long and was noticably lacking a single comment regarding the evidence I pointed out how we all violate even our own rules ...notwithstanding God's. My comments on that subject directly inpact the idea of atonement, and at the same time, heavily discounts your "need" to know what God knows... and has yet to reveal. Think about it.
By the way, the term for this is 'conviction"; it is an action of the Holy Spirit. Many theologians believe that a person cannot psychologically convict himself (even though the sinner has much evidence at his disposal) unless the Holy Spirit enables him. See Rom. 8:20 Where mankind is under a curse of VANITY - KJV. I am in agreement with this in general. Makes sense.
Has he manifested himself to millions as you say? Or is it at least possible that this is a mere emotional experience?
Absolutely not possible, for the large part. God has taken the first step in that while we were sinners, his enemy; he died for us, paid our fines....if we'll accept it. And, I'm not talking about joining some church either. The next step is ours...to accept. If we choose to really accept the BLOOD COVENANT He is offering (really accept it); THEN, it is God's turn to reveal himself. That's the general deal. There are of course variations according to God's good pleasure.
And again, why all of the ploys? Can the most powerful being in the universe not do better then a 2000 year old book and the emotional conviction of his followers?
What ploys? We have verifiable proof of our own guilt...by any standard. I would like to point out that eye witnesses are strong evidence in a court of law.
Lets be honest, Muslims are every bit as convinced about Allah as you are about Christ. They also believe that Allah has manifested himself in their lives? Who do I believe?
Not as a Savior that paid their debt...fines. Big difference. There is no basis for mercy from Allah like there is from Jesus.
Shouldn't I try to ascertain some evidence first? Thus, I can't be swayed by emotional conviction, no matter how sincere they may be.
You have all the evidence you need in your own life. What more could there be for evidence needed for mercy? When God reveals himself to you, it won't be emotional I assure you, not at first at least.
But lets take the concept of sexual sins for a moment and give it a face, perhaps thousands of faces. What if two consenting gay or lesbian adults have sex. In fact, lets say that right now that is happening, because it is. Or, lets say two heterosexual people who aren't married are having sex right now, because it is statistically likely that is happening. Is it hurting me? You? Anyone else who is reading this? What is sinful about it? That I would like an answer to.
Vanity, because of the curse. You or I are not in question in this instance. The ones sinning are in question....not us.
Because in response to the question you asked "How do you know that sexual sins don't hurt anyone", I can tell you right now that any person on this earth at this moment and time who are engaging in a sexual act aren't hurting me. Again, sin? I don't see it.
Because you are only seeing yourself...vanity.
Now if they make an agreement to fidelity to another person, that is another story, but that is something that involves the right and wrong area of lying and keeping ones word. That would be the mistake, not the act of sex itself.
Legalism, and not practicality for the ones actually sinning. Only someone who is "good" and can see the beginning and the end can say for sure.
I know that human nature wants some guarantee before turning oneself over to God. That is a wholly UNNATURAL thing to do. Yet, we did it with such ease when we turned ourselves over to a religion.
I can testify that turning oneself over to God is TOTALLY different and is truly natural after a person gets used to it.
AllTimeJeff

Perry
Your sincerity aside, (and please know that I do not begrudge you at all your beliefs) I asked a question about the need for atonement. To get back to my original question, there is no need for atonement if sin is not committed. I found your response more apologetic in the traditional sense.
With all respect, I found your answers unsatisfying. For the simple reason that there is no evidence to back up your claim. You said for example that it is impossible that conviction of the need for atonement/accepting Christ could be a mere emotional experience as opposed to other religons of the world who are as convinced as you. I will let your own words talk for you, but that isn't a good enough reason to believe that I need Christs shed blood to be forgiven. Do you have photographic evidence for your belief? A recording of some kind? Your heart being spoken to by holy spirit isn't good enough. It is unquantifiable, subject to interpretation, and unreliable. Millions if not billions have heartfelt faith. Not good enough. Sorry.....
Jeff Said
And again, why all of the ploys? Can the most powerful being in the universe not do better then a 2000 year old book and the emotional conviction of his followers?
Perry's Response
What ploys? We have verifiable proof of our own guilt...by any standard. I would like to point out that eye witnesses are strong evidence in a court of law.
Guilt? We learn guilt. The other times we feel guilty is when we violate a natural law. (i.e. I rob you, lie to you, and possibly stick around long enough to see how I hurt you) If I was never taught that a sexual "sin" offended god, I wouldn't feel guilty. For example, Romans 7:7 says: (Revised Standard)
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
Here, Paul makes my point. He wouldn't have the need to feel guilty over coveteousness if the bible didn't tell him that it was offensive to god. I maintain that other "sins" fall into exactly the same category. To this day, despite Vatican I and II, many old time Catholics feel guilty over eating fish on Friday. I had a fish fillet sandwhich yesterday (Friday) from McDonalds. Who sinned yesterday? Who sinned before 1960? Guilt is a poor measure to go by. It feeds mental illness. The anxieties sin and guilt cause have to be alleviated, and need to be "covered" by a blood sacrifice that supposedly occurred 2000 years ago. Fanciful. And yes, you have to be taught that this sacrifice is for you. It's not like you can experience it. You have to find out about it the same way you have to learn about what happens to Frodo at Mt Doom. You need to read an old book. One is fiction. The other isn't? Why not? Because someone says it isn't?
As far as your responses about my questions on sexual sins, toward the end of your response, I am more then happy to leave that as it is and let your answer speak for itself. We both had our say. For anyone else, they can read and determine for themselves what they are comfortable with and what makes sense.
Perry

Guilt? We learn guilt.
Wrong. Guilt is a natural response to violation of a standard we have erected for ourselves....either learned or innate it's irrelevant.
Have you ever violated one of your own standards?
Of course, a person can sink into moral relevatism. But, where is the justice in that?
If there is a God, if he didn't have a sense of justice, that would make him a collaborator in injustice, right? I mean, if he had all power he would right the wrongs, correct?
AllTimeJeff

Guilt is a natural response to violation of a standard we have erected for ourselves....either learned or innate it's irrelevant.
Yes, guilt is a natural response to a violation of a standard, learned or innate. By I disagree that it being learned or innate is irrelevant. Didn't Paul make this point in Romans 7:7? Paul was making the point in context that some of the Mosaic Law was no longer valid. In fact, here is all of Romans 7 in context. Let the readers judge for themselves what Paul was saying about sin.
1. DO YOU not know, brethren--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only during his life?
2. Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.
3. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4. Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
5. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
6. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.
7. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
8. But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead.
9. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
10. the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.
11. For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.
12. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
13. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
14. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
16. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
17. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
18. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
19. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
20. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
21. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
22. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
23. but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
24. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25. Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
We can start another thread about the logical problems of trying to understand this in a practical, pragmatic way. The fact is that Paul is discussing sin. He gives an example of a sin he still believes is a problem for him, covetousness. He dispairs over it. But he also admits in verse 7 that if there wasn't a specific prohibition on covetousness taught to him, he woudn't have known it to be wrong and to thus feel guilty about it.
An interesting question for Paul is, would he still feel guilty about not keeping the Sabbath, which is one of the 10 commandments? (No, just read Galatians.) How is Paul able to pick and choose what to feel guilty about when it comes to the Sabbath. Numbers 15:32-36 says
32. While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day.
33. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.
34. They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him.
35. And the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."
36. And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.
Paul said at Col 2:13-17
13. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14. having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
15. He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.
16. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. 17. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
That poor man in Numbers! Maybe his conscience said that picking up a few sticks didn't amount to work. While YHWH didn't give him the opportunity to tell him it was, wanting to make a nice example of the man so that the rest of Israel could know sin, Paul said that we no longer had to worry about the Sabbath. Christ didn't come soon enough for the man in Numbers. We later LEARN that the Sabbath doesn't matter anymore, even though we have it taught in the bible that this kind of activity on the Sabbath supposedly cost at least one man his life. I would say learning what specific sins and guilt are is very important in the world of the bible.
The point is that Paul LEARNED guilt. Or to be more clear, he was taught what he should feel guilty about. (if I didn't make myself clear on that, my apologies)
Christianity teaches not only what we are to feel guilty for (being sinful descendants of Adam just from being born) but we are also taught how to feel better. (believe that Jesus died for your sins). Interestingly, this kind of cosmic guilt through offending Christ is something that the other 6 billion people in the world don't suffer from.
I put those scriptures in as much context as I could. I find these passages illogical and frankly, petty on God's part. Perry, believe me when I say that you are not the first to say that I am a sinner in need of the sin atoning value of Christs shed blood. What the entire bible fails to teach is why some sins are in fact, offensive to god, why some laws caused the death of people, only later not to even matter. The bible's fascination (and YHWH's insistence) on blood sacrifice should be called for what it is: a mideval practice that is sick. It is my strong belief that history teaches these superstitious ideas to be destructive. They have no place in a progressive society.
I will certainly allow Perry that your individual faith does much for you. Because of this, I wouldn't dissuade you from your own conclusions. But for anyone to maintain that this belief is the only way for salvation tomorrow and a better life today for all man is simply not true.
I for my part do not rule out the existence of god. I do see the value of being a spiritually minded person. However, I do not accept that worship means we must believe antiquated stories and superstitious beliefs about sin, guilt and blood sacrifice as a way to appease him. And I will not give up my standards of evidence to believe in something no one can ever ever prove.

Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI

ATONEMENT

Share this