Two ways to live

[nameandnature]

robhu made a post on the Two Ways to Live presentation, which summarises the important points of evangelical Christianity. That particular posting's intended to be evangelistic without getting de-railed by knowledgeable atheists, so I've move my original comment on it from there to here at Rob's request. This posting remains open for whatever discussion you'd like to have on it (as do most of Rob's), subject to my comment policy. Here's my comment:

Serious points about the video, rather than silly ones, in no particular order:

The video doesn't summarise Christianity, it summarises evangelical Christianity. You won't find many universalists or liberals agreeing with it, and I think the Catholics would at least take a different slant on it. So I think it's a mistake to leave out the "evangelical" qualification when talking about TWTL, unless you really do think those people aren't Christians (which I don't think you do).

TWTL assumes the hearer is prepared to accept that God exists in the first place, and that reading the Bible the evangelical way is a good way to find out what God thinks. This isn't a problem if the intention is to summarise evangelical Christianity, but it is a problem if your intention is to persuade other people to believe it (which is usually what TWTL is for), because you're not presenting any evidence.

There's a difference between creating an inanimate object (like a mug) for a purpose and creating a person. People develop their own ideas about what their purpose is, and we don't accord their creators (parents) the absolute right to determine it. Of course, a Christian could respond that God is supposed to be much greater than human parents, but in that case he stands in relation to us as a parent does to a very young child, or to an animal. In that case, we'd accept his right to bring us up how he wanted, but the way he ignores some children in favour of others and his eventual decision to shove those who aren't his favourites in an oven when he's tired of being patient with them would then become a matter for the NSPCC.

Penal substitutionary atonement doesn't make an awful lot of sense. God is supposed to be so keen on justice that someone must pay for sin, but not so keen on justice that it matters whether he punishes the right person. Furthermore, in the Trinitarian understanding, Jesus is himself God, so the action of punishing himself starts to look like a game of solitaire. As gjm11 says, sin is so trifling that turning to Jesus can get you off, but so grave that an omnipotent God really has to send people to Hell if they don't turn to Jesus.

The video guy repeats the claim that we shouldn't wish God to deal with evil in case he zaps us right now, making God out to be about as clever as George Bush, with shock and awe the only thing in his toolbox. As we've discussed before, that argument doesn't hold up.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

but not so keen on justice that it matters whether he punishes the right person

I think this is a reasonable criticism of how penal substitution is often presented. It is (obviously) unfair to punish someone else for the crimes of another.

Luckily, that is not what Christianity claims. Christ is not an arbitrary substitute for people, but is a substitute for those who are "in Christ" and "have Christ within them". The exact mechanisms of what this means are mysterious, but the Christian claim is that there is a real identity between the Christian and Christ. Hence it is meaningful, and just, to speak of my sins being punished on the cross, as I am in Christ and he in me.

nlj21

[apdraper2000.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

A good metaphor for sins is "debts." In the case of a debt - this is very much on my mind because of the mortgage mess in the States - it can make a lot of sense for someone who is wealthy to pay the debt of someone who is bankrupt. It not only saves the debtor their house, but in the aggregate it can save the whole system from collapsing under the weight of its poor choices. The global economy does not care who pays the debts, but cares very much whether or not they are paid.