I am suspicious of the notion of unrequited suffering, in particular, of its inescapable implication that suffering can be "requited". Suffering is not a debit entry in some ledger, something that can be offset by an appropriate credit on another page. Suffering is intrinsic disvalue. Positive consequences may flow from it, but it cannot thereby be "made good".
- Jay F. Rosenberg
Read More: Jay F. Rosenberg on Suffering
God, of course, is no sadist and does not enjoy seeing his Son suffer. No the Son repays our debt, as St. Paul says, by his obedience “unto a cross.” What the Father thereby gains is an example (to be preached by all of the Son’s followers) of perfect love- which is what would have kept Adam and Eve from sinning in the first place. It is as if God is now able to say to all of us ‘THAT is how you do it’.
Which makes it tough for you to explain why Jesus did suffer, since it clearly wasn’t necessary.
Feel free to explain how such a “debt” can be repayed in any sensible manner. For example, I can’t serve jail time that you’ve been sentenced to.
Right, because no human had ever sacrificed themselves for others before.
Yes it was necessary; only a PERFECT act of obedience could undo the damage done to our nature by the sin of Adam and Eve.
Sure you could serve my jail time if the authorities were willing to allow it, thereby canceling my debt to society. This happens all the time in other contexts as well: my son breaks the neighbor’s window and I end up paying the cost of replacing it.
No sinless man had ever laid down his life to open the gates of heaven for ALL mankind.
Your snideness (“Right, ….”) reveals the emptiness inside you. (Rosenberg, may he rest in peace, was the same way.) Let it also be noted that you cast the first stone.
So, your god is constrained by outside conditions?
If you think that, you don’t know anything about the law.
That’s because you are legally responsible for your son’s financial obligations. If your son were sentenced to jail time, you couldn’t serve it for him.
Either that was necessary, or it was desired. If it was necessary, your god isn’t omnipotent; if it was desired, your god isn’t morally good.
No, it reflects my inability to take your assertions seriously. You don’t even know enough about the law to get basic facts about it correct.
If you think that not taking your claims seriously is “casting a stone,” then you live a life that is far too insulated from disagreement and dissent.
I have no problem with disagreement or dissent- it’s snideness that bothers me- and rightly so. It makes me question whether my interlocutor is acting in good philosophical faith or just trying to score a cheap rhetorical point, a la Nietzsche.
There’s a lengthy debate in theology and philosophy over what constitutes omnipotence. But being unable to do evil, e.g., is not a mark against it (anymore than being unable to strike out would be a weakness in a batsman). Likewise, God was not being constrained in sacrificing his Son. He was only doing what had become necessary to save us- out of love. And nothing but love can overcome the impurities wrought by sin.
I said “If the authorities would allow it,” which, of course, they wouldn’t. But that is only a legal issue, not a philosophical one. Rosenberg was maintaining there is some LOGICAL problem with one person repaying the debt of another.
Well, since I wasn’t nasty in any way, it’s false for you to accuse me of snideness. I also don’t think that the same can be said accurately of Nietzsche.
There’s a difference between being “nasty” and being dismissive. As I already said, I don’t take your position seriously. That isn’t being nasty, that’s simply being honest.
If it was necessary, then God was being constrained.
You also said that this would cancel his “debt to society.” That’s absurd.
The legal problem is produced by the philosophical/logical one. The law doesn’t allow you to go to jail in the place of your son not out of some clumsy, cultural, or traditional way of doing things but because it would be profoundly immoral. Every reason for putting your son in jail would be violated by putting you there instead. If you don’t believe me, stop for a second and think of every reason used for incarcerating criminals — protecting society, rehabilitation, etc. — and see if any would be served in even the slightest manner by your sitting in jail instead of the actual criminal.
Moreover, I say that you are reading Rosenberg completely wrong because he is claiming a logical problem of a completely different sort form what you are attributing to him. His argument is with the idea that suffering can be paid off by anyone, whether by the person who caused it (and who would rightly go to jail) or by someone else in their stead (and who should not go to jail). So, even if we imagined that you could go to jail in the place of your son, Rosenberg’s position would remain.
This, by the way, is another reason not to take your position seriously: you don’t seem to be able to be clear on who is arguing what and so what exactly you are disagreeing with. You need to clearly distinguish the argument that one person cannot be jailed in place of another from the argument that “suffering” is not something that can be repaid like a loan or a fine. There are points on which the two are related, but they remain separate issues.
No the safety problem could not be solved by sending me there in his place; but again that is not the issue. It is the DEBT we are concerned with. Society is owed something because of the transgression and I can cancel that debt as well as him.
No “Right” is used derisively and you had no reason to take that attitude at that point. Like Nietzsche, you enjoy ridiculing people; the difference being, he was honest enough to admit it.
You are being obtuse: the jail example was YOURS, not mine.
Jesus did us a favor. You and Rosenberg are simply wrong to maintain that one person cannot undo the wrong done by others. St. Paul is very clear on this. Anyway, the sacrifice on Calvary was made not to relieve God’s suffering or that of anyone else; but to blot out our offense in his eyes.
“This assumes, however, that the suffering and death of one individual can suffice to replace the suffering (eternal torment in Hell) of any other person or any group of people. Suffering must have transactional value — it must be something that can be traded in exchange for other things that have transactional value, whether other suffering or something different entirely. Work has transactional value.”
Rosenberg is the one who COMPLETELY misunderstands Christian soteriology. Again, the Son’s sacrifice has NOTHING to do with making up for the suffering of the damned. It has everything to do with restoring our relationship to the Father.
None of the reasons for incarceration would be achieved by sending you there.
Prove it.
It was dismissive and I had every reason to be dismissive of your poorly reasoned, poorly defended position. Indeed, every comment you write provide more and more reasons to be dismissive of it.
I merely point out how ridiculous a position can be.
Prove it.
No one has claimed that no wrong can be undone.
“This assumes, however, that the suffering and death of one individual can suffice to replace the suffering (eternal torment in Hell) of any other person or any group of people. Suffering must have transactional value — it must be something that can be traded in exchange for other things that have transactional value, whether other suffering or something different entirely. Work has transactional value.”
You completely misunderstand what Rosenberg says. Again. And in a brand new way. He doesn’t say that Jesus sacrifice “makes up” for the suffering of the damned. Instead, he quite accurately discusses the Christian belief that the suffering which a person would otherwise experience in hell — a suffering they deserve and which is justified — can be “paid off” by Jesus suffering on the cross.
Any “father” that needs suffering in order to have a relationship with me is not one that is worth having a relationship with.
Robert:
God, of course, is no sadist and does not enjoy seeing his Son suffer.
“Your Honor, I plead not guilty to the crime of torturing and murdering my son because I didn’t ENJOY it. I was a SAD PANDA when that happened. See? So … whaddaya say? Not guilty by reason of feeling really really bad about it?”
Austin, I applaud your patience in the previous discussion. However, we both know that the entire premise of the discussion is illogical and unsubstantiated, and therefore negates any logical discussion. First there must be proof that there was a man who lived on earth named Jesus who was not only god, but at the same time a son of a god (or two), and that he died for any other reason than the political establishment of the day didn’t like his radical teachings. Once that is proven, then a discussion of a god allowing his god son to die for some repayment issue created by his subjects might be productive. Yes?
God didn’t enjoy killing his kid
or millions of people and animals in the Flood
or thousands of first born children in Eygpt
or thousands of calf dancers at Sinai
or entire middle eastern civilizations
or 80,000 Israelites as David’s punishment
or Bathsheba’s first born child
or the entire population of Sodom and Gomorah
or all the boys under two in Bethlehem
or all the armies at Armageddan
or all the people who are going to hell.
The all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once father of love simply had/has no choice. He never liked doing it, but we made him do it.
Pitty we can’t make him understand simple conversation and empathy.
Much of the above is actually gibberish, since it is founded upon false assumptions. The Jesus character is fictional for starters; “he” was cobbled together from so many different sources that he makes a patchwork quilt look uniform by comparison. The whole Jesus death and redemption myth had been evolving in various guises throughout the Middle-East for millenia, and became infused with Hellenistic hero-god mythology. That people living in terrible times were willing to buy any story that gave them the reward of eternal life after death is hardly newsworthy.
It is interesting that civilised legal systems around the globe all use the exact opposite of the Jesus-myth in regards to responsibility, crime, and punishment. I guess it’s like Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels; if you are going to lie, tell a really big lie with conviction, because people will question little lies.
If we can make it do something like that, then it isn’t omnipotent.
“You completely misunderstand what Rosenberg says. Again. And in a brand new way. He doesn’t say that Jesus sacrifice “makes up” for the suffering of the damned. Instead, he quite accurately discusses the Christian belief that the suffering which a person would otherwise experience in hell — a suffering they deserve and which is justified — can be “paid off” by Jesus suffering on the cross.”
There is no “paying off” here. Rather, there is a repairing of the damage done to our relationship with Him. That has been my position all along; your hostility towards my religion clouds your judgment. Rosenberg had the same problem: Christ’s suffering does not “replace” (what would have been) my suffering in Hell- it creates the possibility of me avoiding it. And of course one would have to believe in the sacrifice to receive this reward. Rosenberg’s suggestion that there is something unfair about this requirement is like holding it against a lady that she won’t marry a man who refuses to say he loves her. Obviously, the Father would want us to believe in the sacrifice made by His Son before admitting us to Paradise. He would want us to realize His great love for us. Also, we, not the Father, necessitated the suffering of his Son. As for the hate mongers who have leapt to your defense, there is plenty of historical evidence to support the belief in the Jesus of the Gospels. The fact that his type is anticipated in other traditions as well as Judaism does not tell against it.
Robert:
Sorry, your “loving” God is a megalomaniacal sadist. A murderer of innocents, a vengeful, evil, narcissistic bully. You can have him. I don’t want him.
You can tie yourself into as many knots as you want, but you haven’t a logical leg to stand on.
1. Perhaps you are unaware, then, that Rosenberg is addressing an entirely different Christian soteriology from the one you have adopted. Clearly, your hatred of atheists has clouded your ability to recognize this.
2. Frankly, your soteriology is in no better shape unless you can demonstrate that suffering is any better suited to “repairing damage” than it is to “paying off.”
We would also have to believe that it is moral. Or that one person suffering can “repair” damage of some sort.
If you think that it is being a “hate monger” to dispute the existence of Jesus, then you have serious difficulty dealing with disagreement.
I haven’t seen it.
The all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once father of love simply had/has no choice. He never liked doing it, but we made him do it. (Nate Mullikin)
If we can make it do something like that, then it isn’t omnipotent. (Austin Cline)
Indeed. This was precisely Nate Mullikin’s point.
I don’t think so. If it were, he wouldn’t have described this god as “all powerful.” His statement was self-contradictory because it described an omnipotent deity that is so impotent that it can be forced by puny humans to do something monstrously immoral that it doesn’t want to do.
The Babylonian skygod must have been nothing more than sadist and a grocery clerk. Suffering is a fact of life. Evil comes from sociopaths – not too different from the Babylonian skygod.
“I haven’t seen (any evidence for the existence of Jesus).”
You are a liar.
And Rosenberg is not addressing Christian soteriology at all- just his warped understanding of it.
The hate is not so much evident in what is being said but the tone of the remarks- snide and cynical.
We see the efforts of individuals repairing the damage done by other individual ALL THE TIME. E.g., Obama, one hopes, will repair the damage done to our country by the Bush administration. Gimme a break. We shouldn’t even be arguing over this point.
Omnipotence means being able to actualize anything that is possible, not do the impossible, like make contradictions true or circles squares.
And you’re pretty quick with the accusations. Do you treat everyone this way, or only atheists? Either way, it’s an exceptionally distasteful behavior that moves me from simply not taking your position seriously to not taking you, personally, seriously.
Rosenberg’s critique can be seen as addressing the ransom theory of atonement, the satisfaction view, or the substituationary atonement doctrine. It wouldn’t address the governmental view or the moral influence theory of atonement.
If you are not familiar with these theories of atonement, then I’m afraid you must not know as much about the history of Christian theology as you would have others believe.
You are also pretty quick to read “tone” into online remarks. You did so with me, continually, and you are continuing to do so with others. I recommend you stop because you don’t do a very good job at it. The fact is, online text carries little in the way of tone because it lacks all the audio and visual cues we take for granted in live conversation. Much of what people perceive as “tone” in online conversations is as much or more their own creation than anything else.
To put it another way: before leaping to assume the worst about the attitudes and feelings of others, why not be charitable and assume the best while asking questions to directly and more reliably ascertain what they are thinking? You aren’t a mind reader and you simply have no business treating people so shabbily simply because you think you have the power to discern all sorts of negating things about them through a few words typed into a computer screen.
On the other hand, you could continue to behave as Christians typically do when it comes to atheists: with animus, prejudice, arrogance, and spite. It doesn’t matter to me, personally, because I don’t expect any better of you, but I won’t hesitate to call you on it every time.
Well, I never said that it was impossible to “repair the damage done by other individuals.” However, the question here is whether one person suffering can repair damage of any sort. I might be able to repair damage done to your car from an accident, but I wouldn’t get very far by beating on my foot with a hammer.
One hopes Obama doesn’t think that any act of personal suffering will achieve that goal, however. The reason is because no one normally imagines “one person suffering can “repair” damage of some sort.”
We wouldn’t if you didn’t disingenuously substitute the concept of “repairing damage through suffering” with simply “repairing damage done by others.” The first is an accurate label for the issue under discussion; the latter is what you substituted in its place in a manner as a straw man, thus allowing you to score cheap but entirely false points.
That is one “theory” of omnipotence. If it’s the one you’d like to use, you’d have to then demonstrate that Jesus not suffering and dying would have entailed a logical contradiction akin to squaring a circle.
It is not the suffering that repairs the damage; it’s Christ’s obedience, which, of course, entailed great suffering.
I stand by my characterizations. You know darn well that you and others showed animus towards me even before I advanced them. My conscience is clear. I am trying to help you. That’s the oldest trick in the atheist’s wicked book: throw stones at the Christian then label him a hypocrite when he points it out. I do find your attitude, behavior, and view repugnant. And rightly so because atheism IS wicked. But for YOU I pray, every night.
Well, then, it wold have to be shown that obedience to an order to suffer would have to repair damage of any sort.
As if that made a difference. I really don’t care what you “stand by,” I care what you can support or prove.
Failure to take assertions or ideas seriously is not the same as animus towards a person.
Bigotry, prejudice, accusations, and animus are not ways to help people.
Well, then, no wonder you never tried to behave like a decent person.
And here we have the clear admission that you always and from the very beginning were committed to behaving exactly as I described. The fact that you can have a “clear conscience” while treating other human beings whom you’ve never met and don’t know as “wicked” merely amplifies the gross immorality of your ideology.
I disagree with you, but I’ve never been anything but civil to you and have not consistently made unsupported accusations against you. You, in contrast, can’t treat me as anything other than repugnant and wicked. The different couldn’t be more stark or more significant. I don’t think there can be any question but that I’d rather spend my time with people who, however much they might disagree with me, will continue to treat me personally with civility and decency. Yours is simply a toxic personality that corrodes all it comes into contact with.
So you simply aren’t welcome here anymore. We get plenty of toxic theists who presume treat us like pond scum — you aren’t the first and you won’t be the last. We may appreciate your reinforcing just how destructive your religion is to morality and personality, but your presence just has no more value or purpose now.
Well, if you’re going to presume to pray for me, would you mind if I presumed to do the thinking for you? Probably not, and rightly so, but that might give you an idea of how arrogant, presumptuous and insulting your own statement is.
I wonder if Robert Allen knows about this….
Bible situational ethics…
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/morality/Bbl/ethics.html#Killing
I don’t think so. If it were, he wouldn’t have described this god as “all powerful.” His statement was self-contradictory because it described an omnipotent deity that is so impotent that it can be forced by puny humans to do something monstrously immoral that it doesn’t want to do.
I meant to say that Nate’s point was to show the contradiction between on the one hand claiming a god to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and on the other claiming that it can be forced by mere humans to commit acts of immorality against its will.