Our image of God

This radical revision of how we see "God" is so needed!
I think that one of the reasons that the notion of Blood Atonement is defended so much is because there is a fear that, if we are not threatened with Hell, what is the point of being "good"?
This question, in turn, points out the final poverty of a theology that sees "God" as Someone "Out There" rather than The Ground of All Being, Who is more intimately whatever sense of ourselves we possess than we are knowing now.
One question that constantly nagged me, when I was a practicing Catholic (I am now a Buddhist) is this: I am a social worker. As a mandated reporter, I have to report any suspected instance of child abuse or neglect. The same goes for adults. Now, when we look at the idea of Blood Atonement, what kind of a monsterous image of God do we see? Would not any sane person haul into court the kind of person who would ask his son to endure what Jesus did? Would he not be guilty of the worst kind of child abuse?
So what are we to say then of a Church that has, for millenia now, fostered this kind of infantile fear?
It is no accident, I think, that behind the tremendous power that was abused so much by so many priets who were sexual predators was the authority that the Church conferred on them to forgive sins in God's name. The ability to tap into the power of the Blood Atonement myth created a caste of people who were seen as inviolate, untouchable and the possessors of the Keys to Heaven. The poor person who found herself or himself in a state of what was considered to be "mortal sin" was bound to confess this sin in private to a priest in order to receive God's forgiveness. And more than once this experience could best be likened to psychic rape by an authoritarian figure claiming to wield the most tyrannical power of all: the power to determine one's eternal destiny.
Positing a god "out there" allows us to project our fears and fantasies onto him (Her?) and thereby elude the real responsibility which is ours. Blood Atonement is indeed this sort of notion; it posits a scapegoat, thereby seemingly letting us off the hook. But in fact it fastens us more securely there than ever before. Legalistically, it allows us to seek our answers in proof texts, as if words that were the product of decades of reflection in an ancient culture could somehow capture the Reality that lay behind the experience of Jesus.
Post-resurrection interpretations aside, the Jesus that we meet in the Gospels is, like the Buddha, like other enlightened men and women from whose lives shine the light of truth (Gandhi, Francis, John XXIII -- all to a lesser extent), is a man who is radically free, in whom we literally find the Ground of Being. In whom we encounter ultimate freedom.
That is cause for great celebration, and indeed great relief.
We do not have to worry about falling short of the mark. That is not the point. In our struggle to free ourselves from ignorance, we make mistakes -- a word that can barely encompass some of our most painful failings.
But we move on, if we follow our inner voice. That voice speaks in stillness to us all, regardless of culture, of Peace and of Lovingkindness and Compassion. That is the voice of freedom. That is the voice that allows an inarticulate fisherman to exclaim, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Even if, in fact, it makes more sense that this is being said after Jesus died, and not before.
The coming of the nonviolent "God" or Ground of Being, or Buddha-nature, is in truth the end of suffering, the end of ignorance, the end of power and its abuses. It is the recognition -- finally --- that beyond Augustine's myth of Original Sin lies the truth of Original Innocence.

Brenan

Fr. Richard Rohr and Sr. Joan Chittister are both prophets of our time... telling us that we have changed God into our own image... making Him violent and such...

Its really a systemic problem that limits peace in every possible way... and oh how lonelyit is to go against the "system"... Jesus knows.

Thanks to all of you for your welcoming and encouraging words for this first time "blogger".

It was also encouraging and inspiring to read further comments on this topic. Kindred spirits are surely needed as we walk on in faith and hope and love.

I look forward to more sharing.

For some reason I was reminded of a song I learned in kindergarten:
"The more we get together...the happier we'll be!

Peace and blessings!

My response to Fr. Richard Rohr's comments are not as erudite as some here, but his statements certainly rang a bell with me (So much so that I decided to register so I could add comments and not just read them!)

It has always been a source of confusion for me, from the first time I heard in second grade that: we were all sinners and that heaven was closed to us and that none of us could make up to a holy God for our sin. So Jesus had to die for us and then God the Father would be satisfied and heaven would be opened to us. If Jesus didn't do this we would all go to Hell and suffer forever. But of course we could still sin on our own and then still go to Hell and God could still punish us forever. But God loves us!

Mind you I was only seven years old, but something about this didn't make sense. It sure didn't make God very loveable to me.
Something was missing from the picture.

Since I have raised children of my own I know how deeply a parent loves their children and would never do anything to harm them or put them in a position where they were helpless to do anything about their situation. I would always help them to work through any problem.

It seems unreasonable to me that our Creator would act like this toward us. He made us incomplete and we are really only children yet, rather stupid in relation to the whole scheme of things and how much further we need to develop and evolve. It makes much more sense to me to view Jesus as the complete Person who lived and died to show us how to live and love, and then rose from the dead to let us know what our future would look like if we, individually, and as a whole, would grow, develop and be transformed into Him.

I don't see how the idea of punishment by an angry God can be very motivating for anyone. It would seem to me that this concept creates a deep helpless fear and from that comes anger and ultimately violence. The three major religions that preach this kind of thing have the most history of violence it seems to me: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. This fear seems to create an atmosphere of we've got to get it "right" or else. Plus we've got to make sure everyone else gets it "right" and if they don't we can resort to all kinds of measures --torture, killing--because of this all holy God who will tolerate nothing but what is "right".

How simple and how complex it is that Jesus said:" I give you one commmandment and that is that you love one another." Do we really know what that means? Are we maybe just beginning to understand it, thanks to many centuries of development of humans and especially contemporary understandings of the human person, human relationships, the meaning of the transcendent in our lives.

I do hope that Fr. Richard Rohr and/or some/many theologians will get going working on this whole idea of non-violent love as the great Reality that we all seek. The other still doesn't make sense to me, even at sixty-plus...

Thanks Here Today for your response, I like much of what you say and it is reflective of the discussion in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia on Atonement. There are a few points of clarification I would like to offer.

You suggested that I was possible projecting a use of a term onto earlier writers. “I have a sense that you are projecting this term back as a filter on early writers,” actually I don’t think I was projecting any more than someone who would refer to, “Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement”. Since according to what you say Atonement wasn’t used until 1525 but here we find it used to describe and define a celebration that was in effect thousands of years before the term Atonement was invented. Let me suggest that where you believe I’m projecting might be a similar construct of using modern terms to describe or define something that is thousands of years old. Certainly there are limits in this but my main point was, and that you have confirmed in your reflections, that mystery of the Atonement has been contemplated and the understanding refined over the centuries.

Keeping that concept in mind of the change in understanding over the millenium, consider this other statement of yours, “Indeed, to remove the notion of Christ's Suffering having redemptive merit we would have to remove much of St Paul's writings from Scripture.” Actually we don’t have to remove Paul’s statements at all. We just have to understand that he was interpreting Jesus dying on the cross from his Jewish background and understanding as you previous laid out. “Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement”. When taken in that context Paul’s understanding is in prefect harmony with truths of understanding of his time.

One other point of clarification . You proposed that Abelard said:
“There is merit in some of what Abelard proposed, God, being omnipotent and all merciful, could have saved us without the Passion, certainly without the most brutal and ignimonious of deaths.”

What Abelared actually said was:

“He (Abelard) insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction.”

This part of what you said “certainly without the most brutal and ignimonious of deaths.”, is not AT ALL what Abelard said as he states very clearly in his next line the absolutely most true reason I’ve ever seen for Christ choosing to die on the Cross:

“And, in his (Abelard's) view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God.”

And this prior statement of Abelard answers your next question also:

“However, if He did choose to save us this way the Incarnation is a necessity. Still, God, all just, chose the Cross. Why? “

Then you mistakenly lump Bernard of Clairvoux and Abelard together crediting them both with this next statement with is SOLELY accredited to Abelard. You said:

"As Bernard of Clairvoux and Abelard note, by no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God."

When actually ONLY Abelard said:

“By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God.”

What Abelard is saying here that I believe you are failing to see. Is that Christ’s death on the Cross had NOTHING to due with Expiation, Atone ment. It had everything to do with reconciling us to God. Jesus didn’t die to Atone for our sins. He died BECAUSE of our sins. It really is a big difference. We don’t get a free ride. We must recognize, We KILLED Jesus. And when we recognize that. How could we not Love God when seeing HOW MUCH Jesus (GOD) Loved God (the Father) and Loved Us. The gift Jesus has given us is exposing our sinful nature to ourselves in a way that impels us to Love God as Jesus Loved us.

I really can’t express that enough. He wasn’t the scapegoat. He was the teacher.

As far as Bernard of Clairvoux, he rejected Abelard's teaching for the most part as we see in this next quote from the New Advent:

“Abelard's teaching on this point, as on others, was vehemently attacked by St. Bernard”.

And so in the two fold purpose you present, Abelard had nothing at all to do with the Expiation Part of your statement. That was ALL St. Bernard.

“So we have a two-fold (at least) purpose in the Crucifixion: Expiation and Reconciliation. Freeing us from sin and reuniting us with the Father.”

And the “freeing us of sin”, it is still a process that Jesus set in motion when he died on the Cross for love of us and God. Thus compelling us by His Most Perfect Love to turn away from sin and embrace righteousness by doing the Will of God.

Can you see it Here Today? Do you see Jesus’ Most Perfect Love for us and God in that understanding of his death on the cross?

God’s blessings and peace be with you Here Today. Thank You so much for the courteous reply.

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

"One conclueds that the notion of a non-violent God is just too much to bear." I believe the same can be said of a God who loves. I find it intertesting how such starements draw such energized rejection from so many. We will hear of the money chagers and the sword to prove Christ was not non-violent and so, I guess, the same must be said of God."

"What is our image of God?" Interesting question. Could it be that one's image of God tells us more about that individual than it does of God?

"Nothing Changed on Calvary"

If nothing changed on Calvary, the we are fools for naught. But then the Cross is foolishness to the Gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews, perhaps Fr could compare this non-violent theology with this:

Excerpted from CCC 599-617

Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus (was) delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God." This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.

"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures." In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfils Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant. Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant. After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.

"For our sake God made him to be sin"

Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers... with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake." Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love

By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins." God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."

III. CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO HIS FATHER FOR OUR SINS

Christ's whole life is an offering to the Father

The Son of God, who came down "from heaven, not to do (his) own will, but the will of him who sent (him)", said on coming into the world, "Lo, I have come to do your will, O God." "and by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." From the first moment of his Incarnation the Son embraces the Father's plan of divine salvation in his redemptive mission: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work." The sacrifice of Jesus "for the sins of the whole world" expresses his loving communion with the Father. "The Father loves me, because I lay down my life", said the Lord, "(for) I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father."

The desire to embrace his Father's plan of redeeming love inspired Jesus' whole life, for his redemptive passion was the very reason for his Incarnation. and so he asked, "and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour." and again, "Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"420 From the cross, just before "It is finished", he said, "I thirst."

"The Lamb who takes away the sin of the world"

After agreeing to baptize him along with the sinners, John the Baptist looked at Jesus and pointed him out as the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world". By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the suffering Servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes, and also the Paschal Lamb, the symbol of Israel's redemption at the first Passover. Christ's whole life expresses his mission: "to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Jesus freely embraced the Father's redeeming love

By embracing in his human heart the Father's love for men, Jesus "loved them to the end", for "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." In suffering and death his humanity became the free and perfect instrument of his divine love which desires the salvation of men. Indeed, out of love for his Father and for men, whom the Father wants to save, Jesus freely accepted his Passion and death: "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." Hence the sovereign freedom of God's Son as he went out to his death.

At the Last Supper Jesus anticipated the free offering of his life

Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with the twelve Apostles "on the night he was betrayed". On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men: "This is my body which is given for you." "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice. Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it. By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: "For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth."

The agony at Gethsemani

The cup of the New Covenant, which Jesus anticipated when he offered himself at the Last Supper, is afterwards accepted by him from his Father's hands in his agony in the garden at Gethsemani, making himself "obedient unto death". Jesus prays: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. . ." Thus he expresses the horror that death represented for his human nature. Like ours, his human nature is destined for eternal life; but unlike ours, it is perfectly exempt from sin, the cause of death. Above all, his human nature has been assumed by the divine person of the "Author of life", the "Living One". By accepting in his human will that the Father's will be done, he accepts his death as redemptive, for "he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."

Christ's death is the unique and definitive sacrifice

Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world", and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".

This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

It is love "to the end" that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died." No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. the existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation" and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us." and the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."

Catholic Encyclopedia > A > Doctrine of the Atonement
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm
JT thank you for your reply and invitation to explain. Except about the Post Christian part., I didn’t appreciate that but I figure you just meant it as a joke. You weren’t serious. Right?

If you take a look at this recognized Catholic link. Nothing Post Christian About It. Purely current Christian and Historical Christian. You can see the development of the Atonement Theories throughout the History of the Catholic Church. You’ll also notice through out the history of development of Atonement Doctrine that it is referred to as a Mystery.

“This redemption by death is another mystery”
“Atonement, the theory which is sometimes described as Mystical Redemption”

In this following opening main sentence to a paragraph further discussing the mystery you see it plainly stated the development on this theory is “chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery”, by fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church.

“The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics.”

So like so many other precepts of the church the conservatives and traditionalist stand on as the rock solid foundation of their faith, it actually and rightly so an evolving doctrine. As new light is shed on it from generation to generation the understanding of it’s meaning is profoundly refined.
Please read the full History of the evolution in understanding of the doctrine at the link provided.

Briefly there a few limited points I would like to share with you.

In the introduction we get a great original meaning of the word Atonement At One Ment . becoming One with God. That’s what I’m talking about. Not dying, not being a blood ransom for the sins of man. And a horde of other repulsive ideas projected from the corrupted Sin influenced minds of men as to the reason Christ died for us. You’ll see many of them in the history and a few here.

“The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e. g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. "For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself"

further down in the history of Atonement we see the definition changing over the centuries after Christ’s death. Now we see the “ransom” idea developing. Christ freed us from the bondage of our Sin by paying a ransom price of his Most Precious Blood for our redemption. Do you see JT how this idea is reflecting the best explanation the minds of that TIME could come up with?

“It must not be forgotten that the account of our deliverance from sin is set forth in figures. Conquest, captivity, and ransom are familiar facts of human history. Man, having yielded to the temptations of Satan, was like to one overcome in battle. Sin, again, is fitly likened to a state of slavery. And when man was set free by the shedding of Christ's precious Blood, this deliverance would naturally recall (even if it had not been so described in Scripture) the redemption of a captive by the payment of a ransom.”

Now even it this next sentence you see that these projected ideas of men are seen as repulsive even by the writers of this Catholic Encyclopedia. So I don’t understand why you even questioned me about what part was repugnant. The whole idea of Jesus being used as sacrificial scapegoat for our repayment of our sins is repugnant. Don’t you think so JT?

“In the hands of some of the later Fathers and medieval writers, it takes various forms, and some of its more repulsive features are softened or modified.”

Now you see in this next little section how the meaning of AT one ment id being changed to Atone ment – “making amends for an offence”.

“It may be added that the same idea underlies the old Jewish "sin-offerings" as well as the similar rites that are found in many ancient religions. It is specially prominent in the rites and prayers used on the Day of Atonement. And this, it may be added, is now the ordinary acceptance of the word; to "atone" is to give satisfaction, or make amends, for an offense or an injury.”

This next section is really important JT. For those conservatives or traditionalists that think that a Bloodless Atonement Doctrine is Post Christian or out of line. They couldn’t be farther from the truth. You see that the idea that Richard Rohr expressed and John Dear shared with us in not new it’s actually centuries old. You’ll see that Abelard’s understanding of Jesus’ mission here on Earth was correct.

Abelard utterly rejected the old and then still prevailing, notion that the devil had some sort of right over fallen man, who could only be justly delivered by means of a ransom paid to his captor. Against this he very rightly urges, with Anselm, that Satan was clearly guilty of injustice in the matter and could have no right to anything but punishment. But, on the other hand, Abelard was unable to accept Anselm's view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeerner.

And Rohr’s and Dear’s suggestion that we teach the Bloodless AT ONE MENT with God by accept Jesus Gospel of Love is exactly what Ablard taught over a thousand years ago. Hardly Post Christian. I would say it more like Original Christian with correct understanding of Christ’s mission on earth, to save us by showing us the Real God. A God of Love.

“He (Abelard) insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God.”

Here’s the the paragraph in full.

“Whatever may be the reason, it is clear that this doctrine was attracting special attention in the age of St. Anselm. His own work bears witness that it was undertaken at the urgent request of others who wished to have some new light on this mystery. To some extent, the solution offered by Anselm seems to have satisfied these desires, though, in the course of further discussion, an important part of his theory, the absolute necessity of Redemption and of satisfaction for sin, was discarded by later theologians, and found few defenders. But meanwhile, within a few years of the appearance of the "Cur Deus Homo?" another theory on the subject had been advanced by Abelard. In common with St. Anselm, Abelard utterly rejected the old and then still prevailing, notion that the devil had some sort of right over fallen man, who could only be justly delivered by means of a ransom paid to his captor. Against this he very rightly urges, with Anselm, that Satan was clearly guilty of injustice in the matter and could have no right to anything but punishment. But, on the other hand, Abelard was unable to accept Anselm's view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeerner. He insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God. Abelard's teaching on this point, as on others, was vehemently attacked by St. Bernard. But it should be borne in mind that some of the arguments urged in condemnation of Abelard would affect the position of St. Anselm also, not to speak of later Catholic theology.”

So you notice here at the end Abelard’s correct teaching gets trumped by St. Bernard and the error of ATONE MENT doctrine presists done to today.

In St. Bernard's eyes it seemed that Abelard, in denying the rights of Satan, denied the "Sacrament of Redemption" and regarded the teaching and example of Christ as the sole benefit of the Incarnation. "But", as Mr. Oxenham observes,
he had not said so, and he distinctly asserts in his "Apology" that "the Son of God was incarnate to deliver us from the bondage of sin and yoke of the Devil and to open to us by His death the gate of eternal life."
So now as Fathers and theologians of the Church Today still consider the mystery of Atonement in the light of our current developing understanding of the Teachings of our Lord we see that Abelard was right. “for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God.” And as Jesus taught for love of Man. And the reason he died like I said was to show us: “

“By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God.”

If you saw The Passion, by Mel Gibson, I would venture no other movie left so many people stunned and crying in the theaters for just that same reason Abelard stated. We cried because our sins torture Christ. Even today. Each time we do something wrong we are pounding that nail through Christ’s hands with our sins. He didn’t die to pay a ransom for our sins. He died because of our Sins. So we could SEE in this later time the error of our ways and turn away from sin and be moved to Love God to the extent that we change our lives and live the way God wants us to live.

Can’t you see it JT?

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

jim walsh

Dear, John
Oh how I hate to write!
(I couldn't resist that)

The last sentence of the second paragraph says we need a new theology of non-violent atonement a theology that upholds the non-violence of God and Jesus.

Is that how we do theology? Start wth the conclusion we want to arrive at and then piece the facts togeher to make it fit?

As for the "old theology", I'm an old-timer but I never believed that God called for Jesus to die in order to somehow balance the books for original sin. Rather, I believe that Jesus went about trying to do the will of his father. He died because that way of living brought him into conflict with the culture of his time. Likewise we see that today in the lives of Martin Luther King, Archbishop Romero, Ita Ford, Maura Clark, Jean Donovan,
Dorothy Kozel, the Jesuits in El Salvador...

For those like me who are living comfortably and keeping our noses clean, not upsetting any applecarts, it seems perhaps we are not doing the will of Our Father.

Good luck in creating this new theology of a non-violent God. John is getting off to a good start with the remainder of his article.

I wonder. I'm about as far from a bible scholar as you could get, but I've been thinking about the Jewish scriptures and the world in which they developed. The peoples around the Hebrew people largely belonged to fertility religions,. The divine image was the goddess. Rituals sacrilized the sex act and linked it to the cycle of planting and new life. There were temple prostitutes of both sexes.
And then there was Israel. How were they to establish themselves as a people set apart? They sacrilized conflict. God fought with them and for them. God told them to kill the enemy. They honored God, not with sex but with killing animals, spilling blood. God is male. God is a warrior. God requires the death of perfect animals and imperfect people.
I think there still today is a struggle between those who see God in sex and those who see God in death and destruction. (No, dear Spiritfed, I don't mean America and Iraq. )
I have always been intrigued by the Tibetan book of the dead. Here when you die you are shown beautiful images for a week. Lovers embracing in fields of flowers, women nursing infants, children at play. All the soul has to do is see God and say yes. If they have failed to recognize God in any of these images, they are presented with images of destruction and death. Sickness, battlefields, bloated and rotting corpses. All the soul has to do is see God and say yes. If at the end of two weeks the soul has still failed to do so, it
returns for another life in which to develop that awareness.
The reborn soul need not participate in slaughter or orgies. All the soul has to do is live forward encountering what comes, embracing the presence of the divine that infiltrates both bloody ground and sweaty beds and everything in between. Could such a mindset transform the world? I don't know. But I am sure it could transform me.

Dear John Dear wrote:

“The time has arrived, Richard said, for a new theology of non-violent atonement, a theology that upholds the non-violence of God and Jesus.”

Amen! Thank You Dear John Dear.

What a great column John. It’s so true. The Blood Atonement Doctrine is so repugnant. We should no longer have to suffer with the horror that we are children of a God who would send His Son to be sacrificed as a scapegoat for our sins. It’s WAY past time that we left that relic of a concept in the Past. What really surprises me that I see people in many religions and of many faiths finally speaking up for the Truth!

I read this recently:

The earliest idea of the sacrifice was that of a neutrality assessment levied by ancestral spirits; only later did the idea of atonement develop. As the traditions of the days of Adam filtered down through time, the concept of sin and of original sin became widespread, so that sacrifice for accidental and personal sin evolved into the doctrine of sacrifice for the atonement of racial sin. The atonement of the sacrifice was a blanket insurance device which covered even the resentment and jealousy of an unknown god.

Religion has always been largely a matter of rites, rituals, observances, ceremonies, and dogmas. It has usually become tainted with that persistently mischief-making error, the chosen-people delusion. The cardinal religious ideas of incantation, inspiration, revelation, propitiation, repentance, atonement, intercession, sacrifice, prayer, confession, worship, survival after death, sacrament, ritual, ransom, salvation, redemption, covenant, uncleanness, purification, prophecy, original sin--they all go back to the early times of primordial ghost fear.

Jesus did not incarnate in the likeness of mortal flesh and bestow himself upon the humanity of Earth to reconcile an angry God but rather to win all humankind to the recognition of the Father's love and to the realization of their sonship and daughtership with God. After all, even the great advocate of the atonement doctrine realized something of this truth, for he declared that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." (2Co:5:19)

The good news that salvation, favor with God, is to be had by faith. But this gospel of simple faith in God was too advanced; the Semitic tribesmen subsequently preferred to go back to the older sacrifices and atonement for sin by the shedding of blood.

In these times as we develop more advanced understandings supplanting the atonement idea by the concept of divine attunement as a philosophy of mortal survival will most likely occur.
------------------------

I'd just like to tell you even though there’s a lot of Old Fashioned Fire and Brimstone, Fear of God Christians. There are a whole bunch of Christians that are seeing finally in today’s day and Age the Truth in Christ’s teachings. It is the Truth about a Living and loving God. A Bloodless Atonement. That Christ didn’t DIE for us to save us FROM SIN. HE LIVED FOR US TO SAVE US FROM SIN. He lived and taught us how to live. His message wasn’t one of suffering, It was one of HOPE for those of us who suffer.

He wasn’t an animal or scapegoat to be tortured and suffer and die for us. We flat out killed him. He died like that so that in future times we could see how ruthless we were and ARE when we kill each other.

HE WAS THE SON OF GOD made HUMAN to show us HOW TO LIVE LIFE RIGHT. HE LIVED GOD’S WILL. TO SHOW US HOW WE SHOULD ACT TOWARDS EACH OTHER.

And He is the Truth about having a living Faith dedicated to doing the Will of God. Loving and worshiping God and our fellow human beings regardless of religion, sex, race, age, physical features or capacities or beliefs. It’s a faith base not on what we are taught about Jesus and God but rather one based on living like Jesus and God would really want us to live. Not with the discriminations we’ve been taught before but with a new love a Love of God that is spreading around the world in all faiths, in all humans, it is the spirit of truth affecting the realization of the promise of Jesus to the World. “I will pour out my Spirit over the World.”

A new Guide that functions from our hearts not from external dogma.. The Spirit of Truth is one of all encompassing LOVE, not of hellfire, brimstone, judgement of others and damnation. I'm just so thrilled seeing this on so many sites. It's a Truth meant for the down trodden, the weak, the weary, the windows and orphans, the sufferers of famine, war, natural disasters. It’s a religion of the spirit of Life and Loving service to one another.

Well basically all I wanted to say there are some of us who believe babies are born innocent into a world of SIN.

Did you see the movie the Pursuit of Happiness? The guy’s 5 or 6 year old kid tells him a joke.

There’s this guy in a flood and the water is raising around him. He prays to GOD. “Save me Lord”. Some rescuers come by in a boat and urge him to get in. He says “No. The Lord will save me!” The flood waters rise. He prays, “Save me Lord!” The boats come. He refuses again, “The Lord will save me.” Finally he’s on the roof of his house and a Helicopter comes by to get him. He refuses, “The Lord will save me!” And he drowns. He goes to heaven and sees the Lord and says, “Lord why didn’t you save me?” The says, “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want.”

We must remember. We are God’s ambassadors of faith. Jesus and many prophets and saints of God have taught us how to live right. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO CHOOSE TO DO IT! When we do it as a whole human race, SIN will be no more! Our world will return to how it was meant to be. You have to believe in and you have to live in the Spirit of GOD.

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

Getting back to some of the first comments re: Jesus' anger in the temple and overturning the tables, it has always seemed to me that God created anger in us for a reason. That reason is to create energy in us to right the wrong that we see. Thus, I see nothing wrong in good righteous anger. It is what we do with the anger that is important. If we use it in a violent manner -- then that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. If we use it to create something positive that will combat what it was we were angry with in the first place, then by all means, enjoy that good righteous anger, and use its energy constructively. We can do this on every level of our society from the neighborhoods to Washington, D.C.

It's a shame people use the one example of Christ turning over tables in the Temple to show his "violence". I don't consider that violent at all. He did not strike anyone or cause any harm, he simply turned over some tables to prove his point. It was certainly CONFRONTATIONAL, which all Christians are called to be when great injustice is occurring. We discussed this when John was here because this story is used by Christians to justify war. Equating turning over a table with killing another human being, and using this to justify the ultimate violence of war, which some Christians do, is ridiculous if you think about it.