The Mad Priest Has the Same Theory of Atonement As the Guy in the Pew

When I first floated my notions about atonement, my parish priest Father Nicholas Knisely assured me (well, "assured" may be a bit a strong) that I was not a heretic. My concern is that whenever a guy like me with no formal theological training starts coming up with notions about theology, it turns out that some monk in the 4th Century came up with the same idea and got soundly thrashed over the head repeatedly by Augustine of Hippo (and a dozen other early church fathers) as a heretic for having the same idea.

Well it turn out that the Mad Priest (of the Church of England no less) has the same notions as me, and he calls them heresy. Here is what he says:

For a middle way, may I suggest you consider THE MADPRIEST HERESY. This states that Jesus died for our sins on the cross. Not because God demanded it but because we demanded it. God cannot be wrathful because, according to the Son of God, wrath is a sin. If anything can forgive its enemies it would be God. God's love is unconditional. We are forgiven. But because we live among people who are unable to offer us love unconditionally (and yes, mothers, that includes you as well), we don't believe God can be unconditional with his forgiveness and love.

So, because we feel guilty for the shit things we do to each other, we demand punishment from God. However, we believe that our punishment would not be sufficient to "pay the price" for our sins. So, God allows his Son to offer himself as "the scapegoat" and is punished as the representative of all humankind. A role he can assume because of his divinity and humanity. God then shows his unconditional love by accepting the sacrifice but then giving Jesus his life back (which is what he would have done for us if we had only asked in the first place).

To tie salvation to belief is so stupid and nonsensical that anybody who believes in it should be put into remedial education immediately. Unconditional means unconditional. Like, if somebody doesn't believe in God, he storms off to his bedroom in a right sulk and refuses to come out until the Holy Spirit and Jesus persuade him, through the closed door, that everybody, everywhere really thinks he's wonderful. What sort of a petulant, childish god would that make him? GET REAL.



Read it all. Of course, there may still be that 4th Century Monk as well. I am still looking.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Giles Fraser on Gay Marriage

Image
The Rev. Gileas Fraser offers thoughtful piece on gay marriage on BBC Radio this morning: Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Book of Common Prayer was being put together, marriage was said to be for three purposes: First, It was ordained for the procreation of children … Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication .. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. How do these three concerns relate to the prospect of gay marriage? The third priority insists that marriage is designed to bring human beings into loving and supportive relationships. Surely no one can deny that homosexual men and women are in as much need of loving and supportive relationships as anybody else. And equally deserving of them too. This one seems pretty clear. The second priority relates to the encouragement of monogamy. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rig...
Read more

Religious Map of United States

Image
This map shows which of eight major Christian denominations has a plurality in the United States, county by county. the map obviously does not capture the full story given the rich diversity of Christian denominations in the United States, but it does show much of the regionalization of the major denominations. The map and analysis can be found here . Hat Tip to my friend Jim .
Read more

Faith, Reason and Science, Part X: Some Humor and Serious Ponderings By A Thoughtful Atheist

Update : Welcome Digg visitors. For more of my posts on Science (including my Science and Faith series), go here .Interested in my take on atheism? Then try here . For my comments about the experience of being dugg, so here . Original Post : Eric Michael Johnson is a primatologist and endocrinologist completing a PhD at Duke University, and he blogs at the Primate Diaries . He has two recent posts that are worth reading. First, some provocative humor: Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns. "Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5. "Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended. "Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles...
Read more