Vicarious Atonement Through Human Sacrifice

[volgadon]

Basically you're saying it doesn't really matter, volgadon. Whether Jesus is the Eternal, Uncreated God. Whether Jesus is an "organized intelligence"--ontologically no different that you and me.

You keep bringing up "Eternal" as if we don't hold that. We do. We hold that all of us are eternal, none more so than the Godhead.

I'm saying that what matters is that Jesus is God.

Ontologically, there is no different between Einstein and me- but boy could he count!

As far as the Atonement is concerned, it's six of one, half dozen the other. Kinda blows my mind anyone could think that.

Were I feeling uncharitable, I could say the same thing about your beliefs on the Trinity and Incarnation. Both provide rich fields for mockery, if one were so inclined. I'm not.

But I do appreciate your time. And hopefully we'll get some additional perspectives (including Sethbag's).

--Erik

I hope we do.

[mfbukowski]

Ontologically, there is no different between Einstein and me- but boy could he count!

The problem is that Neoplatonic "ontology" is seriously faulty and the Protestants haven't advanced any theories to correct the problem. Their alleged "ontology" goes back to Plotinus and the boys which most fundamentalist Protestants don't understand. The only people who actually accept that as a valid ontology are apologists for traditional Christianity. We are not talking "theists" here, we are certainly not talking about Mormons here, but literally apologists for fundamentalist, traditional Christianity

This is what Bertrand Russell said about Thomas Aquinas, who was a later modifier of Neoplatonism and founder of Scholasticism:

Bertrand Russell criticized Aquinas' philosophy on the ground that

He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.

[117]

This critique is illustrated on the following examples: According to Russell, Aquinas advocates the indissolubility of marriage "on the ground that the father is useful in the education of the children, (a) because he is more rational than the mother, (b) because, being stronger, he is better able to inflict physical punishment."^[118] Even though modern approaches to education do not support these views, "no follower of Saint Thomas would, on that account, cease to believe in lifelong monogamy, because the real grounds of belief are not those which are alleged."^[118] It may be countered that the treatment of matrimony in the Summa Theologica is in the Supplements volume, which was not written by Aquinas.^[119] Moreover, as noted above,^[120] Aquinas's introduction of arguments and concepts from the pagan Aristotle and Muslim Averroes was not uncontroversial within the Catholic church.

Aquinas' views of God as first cause, cf. quinque viae, "depend upon the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility; the series of negative integers ending with minus one is an instance to the contrary."^[118] Moreover, according to Russell, statements regarding God's essence and existence that are reached within the Aristotelian logic are based on "some kind of syntactical confusion, without which much of the argumentation about God would lose its plausibility."^[118]

According to Russell, the methodology of scholasticism used by Thomas is employed for proving what is already believed to be true. Therefore, according to Russell his work should be viewed perhaps as an artful, concise argument, but not a decisive proof.

http://en.wikipedia..../Thomas_Aquinas

I really do not like Russell, but he was exactly right about Aquinas and also Neoplatonic "ontology" and the whole idea of an "unmoved mover" as well.

And what it seems that Protestant fundamentalists affirm is an ontology which is totally Catholic, and they seem to do so also in ignorance. Many such people do not even see Catholics as "Christian" but yet they affirm Catholic ontology and belief in the Trinity hook line and sinker. They have re-defined nothing- and yet deride Catholicism! What kind of "ontology" is that?? They accept the same views of "Substance" and "Being" in the Trinity which are used to justify transubstantiation, which they do not accept. The lack of understanding of these issues is appalling.

I think anyone who proposes anything like a similar "ontology" will have to be able to refute Russell on that one. But Mormonism, for reasons I have already enumerated multiple multiple times on this board, escapes those criticisms completely.

Were I feeling uncharitable, I could say the same thing about your beliefs on the Trinity and Incarnation. Both provide rich fields for mockery, if one were so inclined. I'm not.

You are so so right! My problem is that I am easily tempted to mockery when one starts mocking our position with an arrogant ignorance which is what I see here. My blood starts to boil, and I tend to respond in kind. Gotta repent of that!

It's the attitude of superiority when coming from ignorance which just frosts my cookies!

Thanks for being a good example for us all!

Edited January 28, 2013 by mfbukowski