Explanation Please, II

Originally posted by LemonJello
I do believe you're right.

I do not think Blackburn's use of 'scapegoat' depends much, or at all, on any of these nuances (his use is somewhat co-opted), and I would not expect the phrase "doctrine of the scapegoat" to be well-received. It certainly irritated jaywill somewhat when I used it.

I think that some of the conflation might come about (this is a bit of historical speculation, but I suspect that I could find some reference in Jaroslav Pelikan’s History of Church Doctrine if I took the time to look—I have forgotten so much!) as the result of a certain, fairly latter-day, “whole bible” approach that does not admit of different authors that simply saw things differently (inspired or not). Such an approach might have difficulty conceding that different texts in the collection called biblios (not really “a book” until the printing press) offer different soteriologies.

BTW, did you see that our old friend Kirksey posted in rwingett’s thread? Brought back old memories, and really prompted my move here back into an old paradigm that I used to inhabit—albeit from a heterodox perspective (at least if one considers the likes of Meister Eckhart heterodox—or our old friend Hafiz!).

__________________________________________

EDIT: That thread on metaphysical dualism died, but i think it served good purpose. Your comments were really helpful and astute; thanks.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The transference is possible by virtue--- again--- of debt. Debt keeps us away from the riches of our designated inheritance and the same cannot be restored without the debt being removed. We have a tough time factoring the cost because we have no sense of the value of His righteousness. For our thinking, we figure why not just give everyone a mulligan ...[text shortened]... s: there is hell to pay.

Fortunately for all of us in need of mulligans, hell has been paid.

I still don't get it. How is this debt transferred? So far it is making zero sense to me.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I for one have no idea what you are trying to say. I mean, WTF?

I once asked jaywill if he had any reasons that would shed any plausibility on the "doctrine of the scapegoat" (DoS) as I like to refer to it (this is what Blackburn calls it in his book Being Good). Of course jaywill had none to offer, and he basically admitted as much. (And, in lly obvious that the DoS walks and talks like complete nonsense; at least be honest about it.

I once asked jaywill if he had any reasons that would shed any plausibility on the "doctrine of the scapegoat" (DoS) as I like to refer to it (this is what Blackburn calls it in his book Being Good). Of course jaywill had none to offer, and he basically admitted as much. (And, in fact, there are none.) He implied that he thinks only God can comprehend such things. I found that somewhat refreshing.

This sounds like a exaggerated recollection. As verbose as I am I doubt I had nothing to offer. It is probably the case that you just received nothing that I offered.

I would have liked to jump into this discussion on Explanation Please I and II. But I am limited on time these days.

Please do not exaggerate that I had nothing to say about the redemption of Christ.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think that some of the conflation might come about (this is a bit of historical speculation, but I suspect that I could find some reference in Jaroslav Pelikan’s History of Church Doctrine if I took the time to look—I have forgotten so much!) as the result of a certain, fairly latter-day, “whole bible” approach that does not admit of different autho ...[text shortened]... ied, but i think it served good purpose. Your comments were really helpful and astute; thanks.

Yes, I did notice that Kirksey posted there. That was a welcome sight. I lament the absence of many posters whose regular contributions in this forum I used to enjoy: Kirksey, Nemesio, Scribs, Pawnokeyhole, LordShark, dottewell, SwissGambit, lucifershammer, Halitose, frogstomp, Metamorphosis, Starrman, telerion, ivanhoe, etc, etc...it would be a long list if I kept going....

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]

I once asked jaywill if he had any reasons that would shed any plausibility on the "doctrine of the scapegoat" (DoS) as I like to refer to it (this is what Blackburn calls it in his book Being Good). Of course jaywill had none to offer, and he basically admitted as much. (And, in fact, there are none.) He implied that he thinks only God can co ...[text shortened]... days.

Please do not exaggerate that I had nothing to say about the redemption of Christ.

Please don't be silly. I did not say you had nothing to say about the redemption of Christ. You had truckloads to say, but none of it actually addressed my inquiry. Remember? I had asked specifically for epistemic or evidential reasons that shed plausibility on what I was calling the DoS; and you gave me none but in a candid fashion that I appreciated (although you also gave me truckloads of sermonizing which I did not appreciate as much).

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, I did notice that Kirksey posted there. That was a welcome sight. I lament the absence of many posters whose regular contributions in this forum I used to enjoy: Kirksey, Nemesio, Scribs, Pawnokeyhole, LordShark, dottewell, SwissGambit, lucifershammer, Halitose, frogstomp, Metamorphosis, Starrman, telerion, ivanhoe, etc, etc...it would be a long list if I kept going....

Yes, and on that list are people who hardly ever agreed about anything, who argued hard with one another, and yet appreciated one another, so that even in the argument there was a sense of--community, for lack of a better word, with one another. I, too, lament their absence.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, and on that list are people who hardly ever agreed about anything, who argued hard with one another, and yet appreciated one another, so that even in the argument there was a sense of--community, for lack of a better word, with one another. I, too, lament their absence.

So do I. I remember all those names and although I did not participate much in the discussions I remember the atheists of those days being more tolerant than those posting now. Its almost like if you have a communicable fatal disease if you believe in God around here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't get it. How is this debt transferred? So far it is making zero sense to me.

One way this can make sense to me—granting the broad Christic framework, of course (and in the context of all that I wrote above)—is that it is the illusion that God requires some debt payment that is done away with, by God playing the final checkmate move in what Episcopal priest Malcom Boyd once called “this blasphemous game of religion”. God plays the move by essentially, as it were, saying: “I’ll take that burden (that you think you bear—and maybe that’s my fault), even if it kills me (so to speak). You’re still into that death-sacrifice stuff? (okay, maybe that’s my fault, too—but I did try to end it with Abraham when the elohim told him to sacrifice Isaac); okay, I’ll be the sacrifice. My call, not yours.”

Now, there’s a lot of stuff left out that stands behind that simplistic little homiletical story—and I only intend it as a story; but I think that a whole lot of the biblical narrative, including in the NT, is really parable (whether based on whatever historical events or not) in the sense of a literary type—that does not necessarily identify itself as such; after all, it was originally an oral tradition, in communities that knew the background. (Rwingett is much more informed than I am on the progression from orality to literality than I am.)

Now that is likely a very heterodox interpretation, that would be rejected by most Christians. (I do recall, though, that it’s pretty close to the view of Robert Farrar Capon, an Episcopalian theologian.) It’s not quite where I would stand, revisiting that Christic paradigm from my own nondualist view. But, within a Christic paradigm, it is a story that would likely have had (and still has) a powerful and transforming (which is what metanoia really means) message of soterias (normally translated as “salvation”, but probably better rendered as “deliverance” or “release”, in the sense of effecting healing, in this case psychological or spiritual). Those who have been in a twelve-step program like AA will recognize it as third-step stuff. (By the way, the Greek words translated as “to forgive” really mean to release, to let go, to set free.)

soterias as healing was not, even in the early church, the only soteriological view. However, in soteriologies of “atonement”, ilasteirion (used also in the Greek translation of the OT, from the Hebrew kapar) meant reconciliation—and the English “atonement” actually meant “at-one-ment”. This may be a biiit closer to what Freaky is getting at—but you can see that we still would have some disagreements. And none of this requires a supernatural transference of human error/failure/”sin” (hamartia) from humanity to God; although, at least for story/parable purposes, it might entail some kind of supernatural theism.

This is all just presented for information purposes. 🙂 My bookshelves seem to be strangely bereft of some of my source material—especially vol. 1 of Pelikan’s history. In any event, I repeat: it all still only works granting some kind of Christic framework. . Writing this out helps me to work it through my own thought processes, and I am presumptuous enough to dump it out here—even as I realize, having worked through it, that none of it is quite on point for your specific question vis-à-vis Freaky. 😳

_______________________________________________

NOTE: I am using the word “Christic” rather than “Christian” to avoid making a claim that would be challenged under the rubric of “not True Christian™”.

Originally posted by Rajk999
So do I. I remember all those names and although I did not participate much in the discussions I remember the atheists of those days being more tolerant than those posting now. Its almost like if you have a communicable fatal disease if you believe in God around here.

Jaywill said to me, when I apologized for having unfairly and unreasonably attacked him, something to the effect that maybe he had inadvertently stepped on my last unfrayed nerve. Perhaps our nerves fray a bit over time, as old participants pass on and new ones arrive, and the same arguments get revisited in the process—and it gets hard to put the same energy into them, at least with the same good grace. I think my nerves do fray on here more than they once did (no one else’s fault!); and I have found myself more often simply cutting and pasting from old arguments. Some of those “new arrivals” have become friends, even as we mostly disagree. But, for myself, it isn’t as much fun anymore (again, no one else’s fault).

Even the stuff I have just written on this thread seemed to sap my energy more than it would have at one time. The argument itself used to be almost a contemplative exercise for me; now I need to find that elsewhere. I still drop in now and again—I still have old friends (such as yourself) here. Even then , it pains me when people that I personally have come to like, and who are adversaries on almost all points, start to mercilessly cut each other into pieces—and when I do it, as I have too much lately, then I need to make amends if I can, and get out.

Anyway, be well, Raj!

Originally posted by LemonJello
Please don't be silly. I did not say you had nothing to say about the redemption of Christ. You had truckloads to say, but none of it actually addressed my inquiry. Remember? I had asked specifically for epistemic or evidential reasons that shed plausibility on what I was calling the DoS; and you gave me none but in a candid fashion that I appreciated (although you also gave me truckloads of sermonizing which I did not appreciate as much).

No I do not remember specifically. I remember that generally you belittle my posts though.

What is DoS ? Doctrine of Scapegoats or something ?

Originally posted by jaywill
No I do not remember specifically. I remember that generally you belittle my posts though.

What is DoS ? Doctrine of Scapegoats or something ?

I do not remember belittling your posts in that thread. I do remember explicitly telling you, though, that I did not appreciate your sermonizing, which I found neither relevant nor helpful to my actual inquiry.

When I have a chance, I may try to find the thread, although I usually do not seem to have much luck with the search features on this site.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I do not remember belittling your posts in that thread. I do remember explicitly telling you, though, that I did not appreciate your sermonizing, which I found neither relevant nor helpful to my actual inquiry.

When I have a chance, I may try to find the thread, although I usually do not seem to have much luck with the search features on this site.

DoS is Doctrine of Scapegoat ?

Originally posted by jaywill
DoS is Doctrine of Scapegoat ?

Yes. Again, that is just an informal name, used by Blackburn.

By the way, here is the previous thread: Thread 126869

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes. Again, that is just an informal name, used by Blackburn.

By the way, here is the previous thread: Thread 126869

No need to bother: the idea that we "need" blood sacrifice of innocents for anything is just all a bit absurd -- the doctrine of the scapegoat.

In my opinion, the emphasis on the blood of Jesus is an emphasis on the truth that this man who gave up His life was God.

Without chapter and verse, there was a repeated reminder from God to Israel, that the BLOOD was the LIFE. The BLOOD represented the LIFE of the living being.

The focus and emphasis on the BLOOD of the Son of God is an emphatic indicator that this LIFE was of ETERNAL significance. This was God in a many dying. This was God in a man shedding His life, pouring out His being in love for sinners.

In my opinion the repeated focus on the cleansing of the blood of the Son of God is God's way of stressing that this MAN's LIFE is of eternal significance, eternal worth, eternal preciousness, and eternal value.

The more significant a person is the more meaningful is that person's life and death. The death of a mosquito or a fly is not that significant. The death of a cat or dog, while significant, is not too significant.

The death of a rock star or a sports hero may be very significant for some people. But in the larger scheme of things it is not overly significant. Then we come to the death of someone like an American president, ie. Abraham Lincoln. At least to American history that is significant.

The death of Albert Einstien may be very significant to a community of science or even to modern society. The death of a Winston Churchill perhaps signigicant to people in the Western world of the 20th century. The importance of the person makes the death of that person significant and important.

What about the death of Jesus Christ. Well, we say that this is a death which has significance to the whole history of mankind, to the entire history of the universe, to the entire "history" of the eternal God Himself. This is a most signficant death.

The eternal efficacy and signficance of the death of Jesus the Son of God is wrapped up in the Bible's repeated mention of His blood. Indeed, it says that this was the blood of God (as much as it is possible for us to understand) this was God's blood.

I finish this post with this quotation to back this concept up -

"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers to shepherd the church of God, which He obtained through His own blood." (Acts 29:28)


The EKKLESIA, the church, the called out assembly, which God obtained with His own blood.

The PRICE paid, the obtaining of through redemption of the church, was to the LAW of God. Christ redeemed man out from under the penalty of the LAW of God.

Originally posted by vistesd
Jaywill said to me, when I apologized for having unfairly and unreasonably attacked him, something to the effect that maybe he had inadvertently stepped on my last unfrayed nerve. Perhaps our nerves fray a bit over time, as old participants pass on and new ones arrive, and the same arguments get revisited in the process—and it gets hard to put the same ener ...[text shortened]... ve too much lately, then I need to make amends if I can, and get out.

Anyway, be well, Raj!

I know about tiring of posting the same stuff over and over but your posts are often excellent and worth reading even if people dont agree. Think of the newbies who dont know you, its their loss if you dont post.

But about 'adversaries' .. I doubt you have any. You are the perfect diplomat and know how to tone down any hostility.

Hope you stick around vistesd 🙂