Interesting, thanks! This is how Calvinists view it:

The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty due, according to God the Father's wrath for humanity's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin. — Wikipedia

The reason they give for the fact that very few humans were actually saved from God's wrath is that you have to identify with Jesus in order to be saved. That identification allows you to partake of Jesus' punishment and thereby, be freed of original sin.

The issue regarding the fact that Jesus didn't stay dead is dealt with by saying his resurrection is about "renewal and restoration of righteousness."

The idea of vicarious atonement flows from Judaism. Isaiah 53:4–6, 10, 11 refers to the "suffering servant":

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities." — Wikipedia

So this is the concept of a scapegoat. Scapegoating doesn't mean much intellectually, but at a deeper level, it fills a need. But Christianity turns this on its head by emphasizing that the scapegoat was innocent, and then going through his execution blow by blow: the crown of thorns, the nails in the hands and feet, the spear through the abdomen, the final scream before asking God, "Why have you forsaken me?"

This isn't how scapegoating is supposed to work. Do we still do scapegoating?

2 Corinthians 5:21—"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (RSV)

All in all, I think I would accept the Penal substitution theory except for the part where God gives himself for the redemption of mankind. That was supposed to be God on the cross. God is the one who was demanding punishment for original sin (which was basically a matter of eating fruit from a particular tree.)

There is no third party. It's just God and humanity. Next: criticisms.

There is no third party. It's just God and humanity. Next: criticisms. — frank

Are you fully and completely equating Jesus and God and saying God sacrificed himself? Maybe I'm not following what you're saying.

is my question: is it more that a bizarre narrative — frank

the lack of logic in the core Christian doctrine — frank

attempts to express that truth result in a convoluted story. — frank

How does a story that makes no sense survive that long? — frank

at best, the story is horrifying, at worst, it just makes zero sense.

What myth is even close to that bizarre? — frank

original sin (which was basically a matter of eating fruit — frank

the core message of Jesus, — frank

The message of Jesus.

Let’s say you don’t speak or write Chinese but you have a question about something written in Chinese. Do you think you will get anywhere stepping into room of non-Chinese speakers and asking them their opinions? Or then going into a room with some Chinese and English speakers and saying “having no alphabet makes no sense and using characters can’t be a precise way of communicating - the Chinese language is bizarre and can’t be logical - but tell me, how do you speak Chinese anyway?”

That’s what you are doing here. Are you looking for any actual information or just a sense of confirmation for your bias?

Are you fully and completely equating Jesus and God and saying God sacrificed himself? Maybe I'm not following what you're saying. — Hanover

The Trinity is mysterious. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not like portions of one pie. Each one is the whole pie in terms of Godhood, power, and authority. Each one is fully God. This doctrine is borrowed from Neoplatonism. I think the problem sketched by the OP is coming from the fact that Christianity is the fusion of several distinct cultural outlooks. In this one area, it's more of a collision than a fusion. The idea of the Covenant (debt), divine retribution (the Penal substitution theory), and mystical Neoplatonism give us a myth that is inexplicable.

The Second Council of Constantinople of 553, also known as the 5th Ecumenical Council, captures it well:

“If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have one nature (phusis, natura) or substance (ousia, substantia), that they have one power (dunamis, virtus) and one authority (exousian, potestas), that there is a consubstantial (homoousios, consubstantialis) Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three hypostases (hupostaseis, subsistentiae) or persons (prosopa, personae): let him be anathema. For there is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit, in whom all things are.“13 — here

Shouldn't Jesus and the Holy Spirit have different definitions?

Shouldn't Jesus and the Holy Spirit have different definitions? — MoK

They're different persons. They're the same God.

Ok. Isn't that spacetime in which all things are? The Holy Spirit is defined as one in whom all things are.

Ok. Isn't that spacetime in which all things are? The Holy Spirit is defined as one in whom all things are. — MoK

The Holy Spirit is the same thing as the World Soul. It's from Platonic and Stoic philosophy. Probably closer to being what we would call natural law than spacetime.

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is the sustainer of material? What is the role of Jesus here? We have the creator, Father, and the Holy Spirit, who is the sustainer. It seems that we need two Persons rather than three Persons. Moreover, the creator can be the sustainer as well. So, one Person is enough to do the job.

The trinity is a system of relating principles, or concepts, based on the family unit, of father, mother and son. The idea that if there is a creator(father), then there is what the creator creates(son) and the medium through which it is created(mother). Any act of creation has at least three components.

It works well as correspondences;

God———-creator— —-law of nature—Father
Holy Spirit—meduim——energy————Mother
Man———-creation—-—matter————Son

This system can be applied to many things.

In man, the son becomes the father, so we have the synthesis of Father and Son, resulting in a duality, the divine marriage, as in Shiva and Parvati. On consummation becoming one, again.

The trinity is a system of relating principles, or concepts, based on the family unit, of father, mother and son. The idea that if there is a creator(father), then there is what the creator creates(son) and the medium through which it is created(mother). Any act of creation has at least three components.

It works well as correspondences;

God———-creator— —-law of nature—Father
Holy Spirit—meduim——energy————Mother
Man———-creation—-—matter————Son — Punshhh

What is the duty of Son here if it is part of creation? To just die on the cross? Also, what is the definition of an Omnipotent God to you? I am asking since I think an Omnipotent God does not need a medium to create. Even I can create stuff if I am given a medium to act, so there should be a difference between God and us.

What is the duty of Son here if it is part of creation?

The son is the result of the creator engaging the medium. The creator can’t create without engaging the medium. The son can’t be the same as either the medium, or the creator. Because the son is the medium + the creative input. And the son can’t be the same as the creator, because the son is what the creator has done to the medium.
However, the son is in a sense the creator, because the essence, or signature of the creator is expressed in the meduim. So we have three distinct things, creator, medium, creation.

Also without the son, we have a silent creator and a formless medium. It is only at the moment of creation that there is light and shade. Before this there is only a blank sheet of paper and an artist who has not produced any art.

If an omnipotent God creates something that is finite, then these rules must be present in some way.

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. The duty of the son is to bring the creator into the world(the medium), upon the synthesis of son with father. Resulting in the divine marriage, the synthesis of creator and meduim, God and matter(energy, or medium).

Also, what is the definition of an Omnipotent God to you?

I don’t give much weight to an omnipotent God. I see the Omni’s as a human invention, like infinity. I don’t think there are any infinities.

You didn't answer the question: What is the duty of Jesus in creation?

I don’t give much weight to an omnipotent God. I see the Omni’s as a human invention, like infinity. I don’t think there are any infinities. — Punshhh

I think that your version of God looks to human invention more. A God who needs a medium to act, exactly like humans!

The inconsistencies you have noted do not matter to those who believe.

Part of the reason is that they have been taught that belief is of greater import that consistency.

It follows that any argument you might offer is irrelevant, because what is at stake is not rational.

It's why the replies from believers consist mostly of repeating doctrine rather than responding to the inconsistency. To reaffirm the creed is to participate in the truth.

This also explains the segue into theology, which consists in attempting to cover, or as they might prefer, "explain", the inconsistency.

When faces with the profound, inexpressible, existential mystery, the rational response is I don't know.

But silence is difficult.

The Catholic Church teaches that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us... from His own wrath... by allowing Himself to be tortured to death. And apparently this strategy worked in spite of the fact that he didn't actually die (people saw him walking around three days later), and most people didn't get saved. — frank

It’s a pretty absurd story and hard to make sense of unless you buy into it emotionally and overlook its incoherance. I guess this is why many freethinkers often describe the New Testament as: “God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself, to protect us from the rules He Himself made.”

Of course, ritual sacrifice is a big element in most religions because it’s so dramatic and attention grabbing. It lends itself to great slogans like this from John - “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son."

the inconsistencies you have noted do not matter to those who believe.

Part of the reason is that they have been taught that belief is of greater import that consistency.

It follows that any argument you might offer is irrelevant, becasue what is at stake is not rational. — Banno

Indeed, they often find extraordinarily complex and implausible ways to justify doctrine. It’s hard work trying to make human sense out of myth.

You didn't answer the question: What is the duty of Jesus in creation?

I was talking about the trinity, which is a way of talking about these things. I represented Jesus as man(mankind). Jesus is the son of God and so is mankind.

I can’t tell you why the bible story of Jesus happens, you’ll have to ask a bible scholar about that.

I think that your version of God looks to human invention more. A God who needs a medium to act, exactly like humans!

You accept there is a medium to act in your post here;

Ok. Isn't that spacetime in which all things are? The Holy Spirit is defined as one in whom all things are

Spacetime is the medium in our instance. God isn’t spacetime, do you agree? (God is an omni present being who created spacetime).

So already you have two things. Then you have what happens in spacetime, which is referred to as Gods creation, man. Now you have three things.

God doesn’t “need” a medium to act. Rather, when he acts, he creates the medium through which the act is expressed.

But silence is difficult.

I have remained silent on the issue for a number of years. But you didn’t seem to have much to say about that. Or even acknowledge that I was doing it.

Perhaps you were also being silent.

I have remained silent on the issue for a number of years. — Punshhh

Can't say as I'd noticed.

Maybe all the silent theists and believers, patiently being silent should now come forward and make their presence felt. Otherwise the casual observer might conclude that philosophy has won the debate that the issue of God and divinity in the world we find ourselves in has been put to bed. When in reality, they’ve just been told to be quiet.

How is that relevant to our discussion? Do you see how your depiction of Christianity was a straw man? That's all I was attempting to argue here.

It's why the replies from believers consist mostly of repeating doctrine rather than responding to the inconsistency. To reaffirm the creed is to participate in the truth.

I literally responded with a philosophical account of why God had to sacrifice Himself, devoid of faith, and @Frank ignored it. I understand many laymen do not take this approach and your critique here can be generally valid of those who do not have a robust understanding of their Christian beliefs; but I gave the consistent and rational position that Aquinas would endorse: so this isn't even a niche or unlikely position for the Catholic Church to endorse.

I have not. I haven't had the time to sift through all the posts in here.

How is that relevant to our discussion? Do you see how your depiction of Christianity was a straw man? That's all I was attempting to argue here. — Bob Ross

Thanks for taking the time. :up:

Part of the reason is that they have been taught that belief is of greater import that consistency. — Banno

Maybe they're right? Social stability is a life-and-death issue. Having a logical story isn't (unless it is.)
..

Maybe all the silent theists and believers, patiently being silent should now come forward and make their presence felt. Otherwise the casual observer might conclude that philosophy has won the debate that the issue of God and divinity in the world we find ourselves in has been put to bed. When in reality, they’ve just been told to be quiet. — Punshhh

It’s hard to have a discussion with a rock.

Especially when the rock carries a slogan on it like:
“Argument is irrelevant”
“Belief is irrational”

Further, the non-theists don’t mind being the ones to characterize what theism is, and then waiting for the theists to answer their questions about their characterization.

Frank and others already seem to understand all there is to understand about Catholicism, and therefore, their conclusion of bizarre absurdity is not really the issue. The issue is how could someone who claims to be rational actually follow such bizarre absurdity.

That is a recipe for a non-conversation. A sparring match here in the coliseum.

I was talking about the trinity, which is a way of talking about these things. I represented Jesus as man(mankind). Jesus is the son of God and so is mankind. — Punshhh

I understand that you were talking about the Trinity. I was wondering what Jesus' role is in creation. He must be necessary to complete God; otherwise, a God with two or one persons is functional when it comes to the act of creation.

You accept there is a medium to act in your post here; — Punshhh

Sure, but I can imagine a God who does not need a medium to create. The point at which God exists and the point that God creates must coincide, though.

Spacetime is the medium in our instance. God isn’t spacetime, do you agree? (God is an omni present being who created spacetime). — Punshhh

If the definition of the Holy Spirit is a thing in whom things exist, then we are dealing with spacetime since spacetime is what things exist within.

So already you have two things. Then you have what happens in spacetime, which is referred to as Gods creation, man. Now you have three things. — Punshhh

No, we have one thing, so-called God. You need to show me why the Holy Spirit is required.

God doesn’t “need” a medium to act. Rather, when he acts, he creates the medium through which the act is expressed. — Punshhh

What is your definition of the Holy Spirit? Did God even create the Holy Spirit? What do you mean by "through which the act is expressed"?

I have not. I haven't had the time to sift through all the posts in here. — Bob Ross

I was asking @frank why God does not simply forgive the sins of those who realize their mistake and repent. At the end, we are not perfect, so we are vulnerable to sin. Why does God need to torture Himself so He can then forgive our sins? What is the reason behind Jesus' sacrifice?

How does a story that makes no sense survive that long? — frank

Because we're neurotic apes and just part-time rational? Evidently, the elasticity/plasticity of our mental/cognitive lives establishes in such a way that we may be taught, believe, or defend (tooth and nail) false dogmas and fictional stories. Incoherence and incorrigibility make irrational bedfellows in our heads.

Or is Christianity a special case? — frank

Heck no. :)

Because we're neurotic apes and just part-time rational? Evidently, the elasticity/plasticity of our mental/cognitive lives establishes in such a way that we may be taught, believe, or defend (tooth and nail) false dogmas and fictional stories. Incoherence and incorrigibility make irrational bedfellows in our heads. — jorndoe

I'll buy that. The brain comes with an off-switch. We may flip that switch when we want to. This would contradict Nietzsche's view that religious beliefs hold the key to understanding culture. Official doctrine may be completely opaque. Private, personal beliefs are a different matter.