tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8647562459433740241.post635260875198313893..comments2023-08-23T08:27:08.039-04:00Comments on UU A Way Of Life: Morning meditation - Dysfunctional theology creates a hell on earthDavid G. Markhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08336565533124142690noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8647562459433740241.post-5572970116258878962008-12-28T05:22:00.000-05:002008-12-28T05:22:00.000-05:00Hi Fausto & David,I learned a lot from each of...Hi Fausto & David,<BR/>I learned a lot from each of your comments too. In particular that St. Augustine originated the idea of Orginal Sin. How could he have convinced so many of such a dumb idea? And as a boy I was taught that I was inherently sinful - what a horrible way to start a life.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886135022528717571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8647562459433740241.post-57158610653331231412008-12-27T12:19:00.000-05:002008-12-27T12:19:00.000-05:00Hi Fausto:Thanks for your comment. I learned a lot...Hi Fausto:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment. I learned a lot from it.<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>David MarkhamDavid G. Markhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08336565533124142690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8647562459433740241.post-4275560765582502692008-12-27T11:14:00.000-05:002008-12-27T11:14:00.000-05:00Parker is only partially correct when she criticiz...Parker is only partially correct when she criticizes atonment theory. She should be speaking more precisely, to criticize only the doctrine of <I>sacrificial</I> atonement. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, I think she even misconstruse the doctrine of sacrificial atonement. In the orthodox understanding it is not we who must suffer in order to achieve our own redemption, but Christ who suffered on our behalf in order to bring about the redemption of which we ourselves acting alone are incapable. That's why it's most correctly called the doctrine of <I>vicarious</I> sacrificial atonement.<BR/><BR/>Having said all that, it's still a doctrine that we Unitarians (but not, historically, Universalists) have always rejected, because even in its clearly-vicarious formulation it it can be seen to portray a cruel, retributive God rather than a God of love. <BR/><BR/>We do, however, have our own Unitarian doctrine of atonement. It stresses human moral capacity rather than incapacity, and in the 19th century went by names such as "self-culture", "salvation by character", and "likeness to God". This is a doctrine of atonement that as far as I can determine originated in the 4th century with the British monk Pelagius. It was revived in a somewhat different form in the middle ages by the French theologian Peter Abelard, whose "moral influence" doctrine taught that Jesus saves by inspiring us to follow his moral example. (This is the same "love as I have loved" to which you refer.) Pelagius was bitterly opposed and eventually anathemized by St. Augustine, the author of the doctrine of Original Sin, while Abelard was opposed by St. Anselm, who helped develop the vicarious sacrifice view.<BR/><BR/>In addition to vicarious sacrifice and moral influence, there are other orthodox doctrines of the Atonement that do not rely on a cruel streak in God's character. The "ransom" theory, for example, supposes that Jesus paid a debt not to God for human sinfulness, but to Satan to release humanity from bondage. (Incidentally, that's the theory that C. S. Lewis uses in <I>The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe</I>.) The <I>"Christus Victor"</I> theory, which is probably the oldest of all of them and is still current in Eastern Orthodox churches, emphasizes not the crucifixion but the resurrection, as a symbol of triumph over sin and death.faustohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08858053354116695746noreply@blogger.com