PREMISE

As I have expressed many times, I believe revelation from God, if real, is never a complete representation of the divine mind because man’s consciousness is essentially, and in final analysis exclusively a cerebral process; even if there were a spiritual input in this process, the essence of it remains a product of the brain. Thus, the process through which man comes to a consciousness of the divine impressions necessarily taints the revelation with the frailties and subjectivity of the human mind, is limited by, and never can exceed the creative potential of the brain.

From my point of view, if God really exists, and man’s ability to understand Him increases as he evolves toward greater goodness and order, then it must follow that we should see doctrine change and develop based on our evolved knowledge and understanding. If God represents absolute truth, then we must necessarily understand Him more as we evolve as a race. Our understanding of Christ’s atonement must also increase in time. Since the core of the atonement concept has to do with man becoming one with God (at-one-ment), then we should expect our view of this process to evolve as our understanding of man increases.

Perhaps a non-ego-threatening example could be the following: consider a 5 year old trying to reason about the implications of the atonement (the nature of God, the nature of man, notions of transference, etc.). Of course its easy for us to imagine the child’s understanding definitely increasing with the passing of the years, as personal development occurs. Along the same lines we can view our race as in an infant stage, trying to understand God, and the process of atonement. We understand more as we develop.

Early Christian View of the Atonement

The Early Christian view of the Atonement was profoundly linked to the Hebrew concepts of guilt and sin, banishment from the presence of God, and atonement through the shedding of blood.

Judaeo views on the atonement focus on the aspect of at-one-ment as reconciliation and pacification. We see rites aimed at calming the wrath of divinities throughout world cultures. The Adam and Eve drama are central to the Israelite view. Man is fallen from his state of paradisiacal glory (Garden of Eden) and is banished from the divine presence and is condemned to die (cherubim with flaming sword). The serpent (evil spirit) is to blame for this fall because he tempted our primeval parents and caused their fall from beatitude. Man, as a consequence, becomes carnal, and sensual. The fall of man makes him a different creature, incompatible with the divine. On a personal basis, every man inherits the effects of the fall (fallen nature) and is banished from the presence of God and is mortal. Sin is viewed as something that will bring divine displeasure. The point is that the concept of at-one-ment was limited to reconciliation and not exaltation of man’s nature.

Jews viewed their people as in a covenant relationship with Jehovah. Moses had institutionalized specific rituals through the medium of an organized priesthood. The latter would offer the sacrifice for the atonement of the sins of the people every year on the Day of the Atonement. The following is an excerpt from the LDS Bible Dictionary in regards:

The Day of Atonement was the 10th day of the 7th month. The directions for its observance are given in Lev 16; 23:26-32; Num. 29:7-11; and Exodus 30:10. The day was kept as a national fast. The high priest, clothed in white linen, took a bullock as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering for himself and his house; and two he-goats as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering for the congregation of Israel. He presented the bullock and the two goats before the door of the tabernacle. He then cast lots upon the two goats. One was to be for the Lord for a sin offering. The other was for Azazel (the completely separate one, the evil spirit regarded as dwelling in the desert), to be sent away alive into the wilderness. He then killed the bullock, his own sin offering, and, taking a censer full of live coals from off the brazen altar with two handfuls of incense into the Holy of Holies, cast the incense on the coals there, so that the cloud of smoke might cover the mercy seat and, as it were, hide him from God. He then took of the blood of the bullock and sprinkled it once on the east part of the mercy seat (as an atonement for the priesthood), and seven times before the mercy seat (as an atonement for the Holy of Holies itself). Then he killed the goat, the congregation’s sin offering, and sprinkled its blood in the same manner, with corresponding objects. Similar sprinklings were made with the blood of both animals (bullock and goat) on the alter of incense (Lev 16:15; Exod. 30:10) to make an atonement for the Holy Place. No one besides the high priest was allowed to be present in the tabernacle while these acts of atonement were going on. Lastly, an atonement was made for the altar of burnt offering in a similar manner. The goat for Azazel was then brought before the altar of burnt offering. Over it the high priest confessed all the sins of the people now expiated to the Evil One to convince him that they could no more be brought up in judgment against the people before God. Then the high priest took off his linen garments, bathed, put on his official garments, and offered the burnt offerings of two rams for himself and his people.

2000 years ago, the emerging Christian view substituted the symbols of Jewish ritual with actual individuals and events. It is proposed that the symbols portrayed in ritual were prophetic representations of future events pertaining to the advent and passion of the Messiah.

The concept of man varied among Christians. The general view was that man is free to listen to the Good News (Gospel), and to choose to embrace Christ’s atonement unto salvation. (Some would argue that Paul did not believe in free-agency but rather in predestination, and even if this attributed position were authentic, it does not appear to be the general consensus of the NT writers, and runs counter to the ideology expressed by Christ as reported in the Gospels). Essentially, man’s actions were considered to be the fruit of choice, for which he had responsibility.

The early Christian idea of atonement seems to NOT be identical to the Jewish tradition of reconciliation. Christians proposed that man would inherit the Celestial Kingdom of God, become a joint-heir with Christ, and that, through the resurrection, man would become of a different nature, in the image of Christ, a SON OF GOD.(1 John 3:1-3) THE ATONEMENT IS, THUS, A PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION WITH THE GOAL OF PRODUCING AN ETERNAL TRANSFORMATION OF MAN’S NATURE.

Through the at-one-ment man enters into a fellowship with God (1 John 1:3). Christ is viewed as the means of purification from personal weakness and sin. Atonement and reconciliation involves overcoming personal weakness and purifying oneself as God is pure. It is arguable as to whether or not early Christians viewed man’s weakness as an effect of the fall of Adam, as the result of personal choice, or both. It can be safely said, however, that redemption focuses on exalting man to a higher level of existence, rather than simply pacifying divinity.

The rituals of Christianity center on identification of the initiate with Christ. Baptism (taking the death and burial of Christ and being reborn), communion (unification with Christ through his sacrificed body and blood ). Perhaps it is worth saying that many hidden rituals (not only Gnostic) focused on identifying the initiate with Christ, making of him an anointed one (messiah), a king and priest, one with Christ.

Early Christians saw Jesus as both the Priest and the Sacrifice entering into the Holy of Holies of Heaven to offer himself as a sacrifice for the “sins of the world,”(Hebrews) that they might be spotless and acceptable to the Father. Salvation is to be “sinless” and “at-one” with the Father through Christ.

The modern LDS view of Christ in this context is identical. I think this idea is incomplete and misleading.

DEVELOPMENT

Today, when we consider the issue of the atonement, or the unification of man with the divine, we cannot but consider our modern knowledge of man: physiology, neurology, psychology, etc.
The concepts of choice, free-agency, and consequent responsibility today are very different than what they were even 50 years ago. IMO, partial understanding of “at-one-ment” with God implies at least a minimal understanding of the divine, but this process would also require a knowledge of what man is, so as to differentiate his current status from what he should be...

There are some theological points and opinions that I would like to discuss with the members of this board.

1) What is God supposedly like?

2) What is man like? The fall of man.

3) What can atonement mean based on what we know of point 1 and 2?

4) a. What is sin? b. Is man responsible for sin? c. Is sin the only thing that keeps us away from God?

5) What is the consequence of sin?

6) Is Jesus the equivalent of the “goat of Azazel” upon which the sins of the people of Israel were transferred? What exactly is supposedly transferred: guilt, responsibility, punishment..., or nothing?

7) The sacrifice of Christ is supposedly a ransom. Who is being paid? The advent of determinism.

8) Could God simply forgive the repentant soul without the need of a ransom sacrifice? Why the suffering? How does this relate to omnipotence?

10) Perhaps the crucial question is: what does the atonement of Christ teach us?

There can be many more questions, and everyone is free to add more.
_________________________________________________________________________________

1) What is God like?

Knowing whether or not God is part of the Universe or not; whether He is made of matter or not, etc., is of partial interest in this discussion. What really matters is knowing at least partially God’s character.
Of course, our understanding of God is limited by our frame of reference, so we can know him only in part, and this premise is valid ONLY if God is not entirely supernatural, in which case we cannot know him at all.

The understanding of God is based on the premise that God is knowable, and that we share a common reality. If God’s reality is supernatural then defining his character makes no sense, and the atonement becomes an unknowable tenet of faith, at least until we enter into the reality of God in the next world.

Since it seems that every person in this world defines God differently, let me give you my partial definition.

God and man share the same reality (Universe). God is the embodiment of all truth, meaning that he knows every physical law. God cannot lie. Everything God does has as its objective the fostering, and preservation of life, and the conditions that bring it about and maintain it, throughout time. God is perfectly just, merciful, loving. God does not destroy intelligent life, he enables it to evolve. God is the embodiment of every principle fostering order in a Universe that tends spontaneously toward chaos. This is my partial understanding of his characteristics. It is evident that, though I do not believe we know much about God, I believe God is not supernatural, but rather part of reality as we know it, as we can, and ever will be able to define it. These definitions are obviously more a mental representation and exercise than reality. My understanding of any sentient being that would incorporate such qualities is limited, and belongs more to the realm of imagination than anything else... Whether or not any being that is self-aware can also be powerful as we define God is impossible to conceive based on our corresponding references in the spectrum of organic evolution on our planet.

2) “What is man like? The fall of man?”

Following are a few comments on my understanding of some scientific principles.

We know much more about man, and what triggers his actions, today than what was known in the past. We understand the impact of conditioning; the impact of genetically transmitted instincts on behavior, the relation of these two, etc. Considering what we know, the idea of Christ as a sacrifice for sin seems a bit outdated unless we define these concepts based on our current understanding.

To say that an all-knowing God would require a sacrifice for the sins of mortals is, to say the least, odd. An all-knowing God knows that man does what he does based on conditioning. He also recognizes the fact that man has specific behavioral instincts that are genetically transmitted, and that reside deep within human sub-conscious programming. He is also aware of the reality of organic evolution.

Man is a free-agent in the sense that he is able to re-condition his deterministic-type mind based on projections of outcome. What this means, in essence, is that we normally have the cognitive ability to evaluate and infer the possible consequences of a specific choice (even if we are conditioned to make that choice), and, by postulating (projecting) probable results, we can actually choose to override our programming and re-program our brain so as to act differently, with the prospect of producing a more reasonable outcome. This “veto power” of the brain (Libet) can manifest itself in less than a second. It is evident that this computing system is completely deterministic, though it may not be entirely knowable. Our veto power is regulated by our programming as to what is desirable and what is not. Our consciousness’s veto power is definitely highly influenced by our accepted moral code.

The outcome of our cerebral computing is also determined by what evolutionary psychologists call cognitive modules (Cosmides, Tooby, Pinker), or instincts. Basically, the idea is that instinctual behavior is programmed into the genes that code for the structure of our brain. Upon development of the brain, the circuitry of the brain has plastic aspects (programmable) aspects, and hard wired aspects (modules, instincts). The latter are genetically transmitted behavioral tendencies (reflexes, instinctual responses, analytical tendencies, etc.).

It is not clear as to how the multitude of hard wired cerebral circuits causing genetically transmitted instinctual behavior work. There seem to be more instincts than what our genome can code for. It has been thought that every genetically transmitted trait must find a corresponding gene to code for its synthesis individually and separately. This may not be the case. It is possible that the development and functioning of these cognitive modules may be determined by multiple levels, or combinations, of physical programming: genetic as a fundamental base; but in combination with genes, there may be other layers of input channels determining the hard-wiring of this complex circuitry in the brain that we are not aware of yet, and that constitute a multi-layered type organization connecting brain and body through the nervous, endocrine, and circulatory systems. In essence, we may not need a single gene for every hard-wired cognitive circuit (module), but perhaps a single gene in combination with varying other systems, whose primary function could be completely different, that in combination could produce a multitude of manifestations that are transmittable. Martin and I somewhat recently discussed this fascinating possibility. He brought to the discussion some interesting points on parallels with data communication in modern technology. This would definitely explain the transmission of such a high number of cognitive modules (brain circuits) that would not find a specific gene coding for them. Cosmides and Tooby suggest over 200,000 such transmittable circuits, way too many for the human genome to code for individually and separately. Or also a very plausible solution is offered by Steven Pinker in “How the Mind Works” where he argues the unnecessary individualized, specialized module, and proposes rather a more powerful solution of a module as a general software type hardwired program able to resolve a multitude of analytical problems. Pinker’s book, along with “The Language Instinct” is a must for anyone wanting to understand the direction of modern cognitive science.

Pertaining to the fall of Adam and Eve, it is obvious that man descends from bi-pedal ape-like predecessors. This is not theory, this is science. We have archaeological data, and we have genetic data to confirm this reality. If God is real, He knows these things too, though the men that revealed his word did not. The Garden of Eden drama is an extremely effective way of expressing the idea that man is very different from God, and puts the responsibility of human weakness on the participants and events pertaining to the fall, rather than on evolutionary history. This is evidently symbolic, incomplete, and essentially not true.

Bruce McConkie was correct in saying that the idea of evolution effected the idea of atonement because of the essential aspect of the Garden drama becoming symbolic rather than historical. Evolution is really not the center of the dispute, rather the issue is whether or not we will ever understand the atonement, if indeed we consider it true. McConkie’s was simply a way of saying that he wasn’t willing to abandon his religious view in light of scientific discovery. He would rather keep myth if useful rather than modify his religious view consequent to further light and knowledge as revealed through science (though perhaps he didn’t consciously reason this way) . His ideas in “Mormon Doctrine” on evolution are a good snapshot of human frailty. Of course, McConkie’s ideas are not a representation of LDS doctrine, though their impact on the Church membership’s perception of truth is incredibly pervasive, and unfortunately damaging.

A real God would know the reality of evolution, genetic predispositions, conditioning, etc., and though the men through which we received our religious tenets (prophets, apostles, etc.) did not know these things, and consequently gave us a rendition of the concepts of sin, atonement, fall of Adam, etc., that were understandable to them, yet, with our knowledge today, a doctrinal expansion, incorporating modern understanding, is important IMO. We should stop speaking of the fall of man except to express a symbolic concept regarding man’s nature as a product of evolution, but certainly not from a historic aspect.

3) What can atonement mean based on what we know of point 1 and 2?

It is my opinion that the atonement is just what the word says: a process of unification. To understand the atonement we must consider both what God is like (see above) but also what man is like.

I will conclude hopefully having expressed my ideas in regards to what I think the atonement is about.

4) a) What is sin? b) Is man responsible for sin? c) Is sin the only thing that keeps us away from God?

The main point is to figure out if it is sin as an event that keeps us from God, or if it is sin as a characterization of our nature that does.

a) What is sin?

Is sin an event or a condition? Does being in sin mean that one has committed sin (events), is it a description of his or her nature, or both?

Sin is a theological concept. Its definition is based on the parameters that characterize the theological view. As I will try to demonstrate, the concept of sin is radically changed as our paradigm shifts from a non-deterministic point of view to a deterministic one.

I am of the opinion that commandments are a validation of the already inherent tendencies in man of behaving in a certain way. In other words, because men have specific behavioral tendencies , the commandments of God act as a form of validation for good behaviors, and of condemnation for bad one’s. If analyzed the commandments reflect inherent character traits of humans. These traits at times are latent, at times active in a person’s behavior, but they are present. If they are not present in humanity’s nature, they are not present in the canon of scripture.

This is significant in that it tells us that God’s moral code is based on what humans are like, and thus can change as humans evolve. This means that our consideration of sinful behavior will also change in time.

The word sin is charged with all sorts of human interpretations. The New Testament seems to define sin as an active defiance of God; action, or the lack of action, in defiance of God’s commands. What this means is that without the knowledge of God’s will, man would be sinless. However, 1 John says that all men are sinners. Why the contradiction? How can that be? Do all men know God’s will? If they do not know God’s will how can they be sinners? In my opinion John focuses on man’s nature and calls it sinful. This is significant because it tells us that “sinful” does not only pertain to events in defiance of God, but also to the “natural state of man.”

Theologically speaking, if all men are sinners, then they are considered so because they must be defying some sort of divine revelation. What revelation would that be? The only possible answer must be the instinctual goodness in man. Since all possess naturally these character traits leading to goodness and love, as well as those leading to evil, man is inherently responsible, and unavoidably a sinner by nature.

Those who have faith usually see God as the source of these natural tendencies toward good, and some evil entity as the source of evil tendencies. There are certainly physiological and psychological responses to goodness, the question is whether or not God was the cause of their emergence. Is the conscience in man of divine origin, and is it a constant ongoing communication from God to man, or is it perhaps a constant emergence of programmed cognitive modules? Did God create our conscience, was it the conscience in man that caused God to initiate validation of these traits in the form of revealed commandments, or was the validation of subjective spiritual experience (revelation) a culturally powerful tool to reinforce certain instincts and culturally acceptable behaviors (memes)? We know for sure that there is a correlation between focusing on mastery of certain cognitive tendencies (meditation, altruism, sacrifice, etc.) and mystical experience. Those who focus on “good behavior” often feel an increased sense of spirituality, whether or not this result translates into faith is based on culture, but the underlying genetic predisposition seems obvious, and must have been an adaptation reinforcing social ties in hunter-gatherer populations in the past.

In any case sin is conceptualized as being proportional to man’s understanding of God. I can accept this only in the sense that God is the embodiment of all goodness and love, and hence the more one knows Him, the more one is responsible. On the low end we find the simple instinctual tendencies in man, on the other a complicated and complex set of moral codes aimed at validating these already inherent human traits.

b) Is man responsible for sin?

Because I view responsibility as inherently linked to understanding, and because sin is a theological concept involving man’s state of being in comparison to God’s, I MUST say no. Man is ruled by determinism. Even when man exercises his “veto powers,” as discussed above in reference to free-will, his ability to re-condition himself is based on his projections of outcome, thus on experience, or conditioning. Is man free then? Only in the sense that he can re-condition himself based on the fundamental drives of his psychological makeup. Will he lean toward basic tendencies of good or evil? It depends on his experience and how this harmonizes with his inherited drives. I believe that 100%. I do not believe man’s behavior defies determinism. This is why I know the concept of a permanent hell cannot harmonize with the characteristics of a just God.

This is not to say that man is not responsible for his actions. Even considering the deterministic nature of man’s behavior, accountability is still an essential part of our growth process as humans. We cannot do without it and function properly as individuals and as a society. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO GOD THINGS ARE DIFFERENT! The idea of an omnipotent being measuring man according to an imposed standard, a standard that may be beyond the individual’s ability and psychological makeup to implement, with this required compliance yielding eternal consequences to be met out at certain deadlines (death, judgment, etc.) is troubling at best. In essence, the whole conceptual machinery of the Gospel as interpreted by Christianity is starkly outdated and contrary to justice as I understand it.

This all points me to one possible and acceptable concept behind the atonement: that it is a process of becoming. Everything in God’s plan, including the purported hell, must work toward the ultimate end of the evolution of intelligence in order for God to fit the description we give him.

c) Is sin the only thing that keeps us away from God?

God’s revealed objective is to assist man in his evolving toward the divine nature, and this requires man’s overcoming not only of problematic behavior, but also of any aspect of his existence that is less than perfect. For this reason I believe the atonement is much more than the overcoming of sin (events). It must include the concept of transformation of nature. This is where religion shoots off into the imaginary with concepts of resurrection, sanctification, etc... I say imaginary because they are not rational concepts and are purely faith based assertions that by some are accepted as objective truth.

5) Is Jesus the equivalent of the “goat for Azazel” upon which the sins of the people of Israel were transferred? What exactly is transferred: guilt, responsibility, punishment?

The goat for Azazel was a sort of messenger. The sins that were atoned for through the offerings in the Temple on the Day of Atonement were symbolically placed on the Goat for Azazel. The latter was sent out into the desert where Azazel was believed to dwell. Azazel apparently was an accuser of man in the presence of God, similar to the Satan of the Book of Job. The Goat served the purpose of testifying to Azazel that the sins of the people were atoned for and could no longer be brought up into the presence of the Father. Interestingly enough Azazel is one of the watchers in the Book of Enoch. An angelic being who was once a guardian of Heavenly things, fallen to earth, and become a damned spirit, imprisoned in “the pit.” Apparently the angelic role of Azazel, and his fallen state, dated back to the days in which the Pentateuch was drafted. I don’t know much about this.

The issue here is whether or not the Goat for Azazel bore the sins of the people. The answer is NO. The sins were atoned for through the goat sacrificed in the temple and through the burnt offering. At least this is my understanding. There is no concept of transference that I can see except if I view it with the lens of modern Christianity. The sacrifice in the Temple was an offering to pacify divinity. The atonement for sin was a consequence of the offering, a sort of gift to kiss and make up as it were... The idea that the animals carried the sins of the people are just not present in the scriptures as far as I can tell.

It is common belief today that Jesus took the sins of man and then paid for them. Is it possible to take the sins of another man?

What do the scriptures say?

Matthew 1:21 “Jesus...for he shall save his people from their sins.”
Matthew 20:28 “Son of Man came... to give his life a ransom for many.”
Matthew 26:28 “...blood which is shed for the remission of sins”
John 1:29 “... the lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”
Romans 5:10 “We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.”
1 Corint. 15:3 “Christ died for our sins.”
Galatians 1:4 “... who gave himself for our sins.”
Hebrews 9:12 “...by his own blood...obtained eternal redemption for us.”
Hebrews 9:28 “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many”
1 Peter 2:24 “...who his own self bare our sins in his own body.”
Revelation 1:5 “..washed us from our sins in his own blood.”
Mosiah 15:10 “his soul has been made an offering for sin.”
Alma 42:15 “God himself atoneth for the sins of the world.”
3 Nephi 11:11 “I have drunk out of that bitter cup... and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world.”

The questions are:
1) Did Christ actually become responsible for man’s sins?
I believe that is not possible. Responsibility is not transferable. The only way Christ could have been responsible for man’s sins was if he was involved in their causation in some degree. Since this is not the case, we cannot conclude that responsibility was transferred to Christ.

2) Did Christ actually become guilty for man’s sins?
That would be impossible for he could not be guilty without first being responsible. Guilt cannot be transferred.

3) Was there any transference to Christ?

The Gospels and the scriptures above state that Christ died for the sins of the world. It seems that he was punished for us. To quote Isaiah: “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53) Christians see the fulfillment of this prophecy in Christ, and hence, attribute theological relevance to these statements. It seems that Christ suffered for man. But what these scriptures DO NOT SAY is that guilt, responsibility, and consequent punishment were transferred to Christ.

These scriptures all indicate that Christ suffered for man, not in place of man. There is no indication that He suffered in place of man. That is an interpretation that has come to us through time. To say that Christ suffered in place of man would mean that our sin and consequent punishment was transferred to him. In fact, if Christ suffered for all men that would mean that no one will be condemned, for the “price” would be already paid.

The theological concept as I understand it is that Christ suffered for man and not in place of man. Without Christ man suffers in consequence of his sinful nature. Christ paid the penalty for sin that man would normally pay, but not because sin was transferred to Him. If my brother finds that I am overwhelmed in debt and pays off my bills, this does not mean that he became a debtor in my place Though he paid for me my debt was never transferred to him... he was not required to pay; he did it voluntarily. He had no obligation.

The BIG question becomes: what exactly is the debt? Who is being paid? Why the need for a ransom?

7) The sacrifice of Christ is supposedly a ransom. What is the debt? Who is being paid? The advent of determinism.

“Taking upon him the sins of the world” must be viewed by first defining sin. As was said above, man’s sin is his nature and conditioning; the dilemma of being radically different and separate from the perfection of God.

Hence the question: why is man’s imperfect nature, cognitive tendencies, and conditioning a debt toward anyone; and whom is this debt owed to?

Man is different than God. The deterministic nature of man makes his fallen reality a permanent one unless a transformation occurs. There is a symbolic “pit” dividing man from God, and it represents the divergence of their respective natures.

From the point of view of one who does not understand the deterministic nature of man’s existence, this divergence of natures could be conceived as having started because of a faulty choice on the part of man, so as to, theologically speaking, absolve God of responsibility for man’s condition. Hence, Adam is the man who, formerly in a godlike state, falls away from his original glory bringing sin and death into the world. Man is viewed as owing God for ruining the latter’s perfect creation, for causing it to fall into a chaotic situation that he couldn’t repair.

But once the deterministic nature of man is understood, not to mention the concepts of evolution, it is evident that the concept of “debt” must be re-evaluated. Man is not in debt for his nature, for he didn’t cause it. It is the product of evolution and conditioning that DETERMINES our objective effect on the reality of the Universe.

So, Christ took upon himself the sins of man according to the non-deterministic understanding of the people from the past. From a modern point of view this is not a tenable position.

If there is no real debt, why would there be need for a ransom? It must be understood that the idea of ransom is the most effective way to convey the idea of divine atonement to one who does not understand the determinism inherent in the reality of the Universe. Does the modern discovery of determination negate the atonement? Far from that! Atonement, redemption, ransom, all indicate an exaltation of state; a unification process with the divine.

“Christ took upon himself the sins of man and paid for them...” Modern theology should interpret this as meaning that Christ took the sins of the world, or the imperfect nature of intelligent life, the two natures, mortal and divine, as conceived in the person of Christ, and became a bridge between the two natures for all others. He becomes the conceptual exemplar and light for all intelligences to follow. Though mortal, and thus imperfect, he is viewed as rising above the limitations of humanity with the final triumph in the resurrection in which he inherits a fullness of the Father. The ransom is not from sinful events which are determined, but from sinful nature, which cannot be changed by man to harmonize with the perfection of God. This is not far from eastern religious concepts.

So is there a payment? There is no one to be paid. The justice of God requires payment only from a non-deterministic point of view. The LDS ideas of eternal progression are completely harmonious with this view. Though this idea of deterministic agency is modern, it does not change the essence of the concept of eternal progression which views all intelligence as progressing in time, and “damnation” as a passage point for an intelligence’s voyage toward perfection. It is clear from a deterministic point of view that permanent damnation would be a defacement of the character of a supposed perfectly just God. But most important to me, the traditional concept of atonement in Christianity with the division between saved and damned creatures is, in my opinion, a dangerous concept potentially dividing people and causing social problems between ideologically separate groups of people. We may not be in the condition of waging religious wars, witch-hunts, inquisitions, etc., as Christianity did in the not to far past, but the underlying ideological currents that determined and validated the emergence of these sociological phenomena have not disappeared. The embracing of determinism with its philosophical implications, besides rooting man in reality rather than not, is also essential to our evolution as sentient beings.

8) Could God simply forgive the repentant soul without the need of a ransom sacrifice? Why the suffering? How does this relate to omnipotence?

Could God forgive without ransom? Of course, so what!!! What will forgiveness do for us without transformation? With no resurrection, there is no atonement.

So why the passion of Christ? If the sinful nature of man is determined, why the suffering for sin? Christ did suffer, that is a scriptural fact. Why? How do we reconcile these events with determinism without invalidating the whole passion of Christ?

From man’s subjective standpoint mortality is interwoven with suffering, chaos, and decay, along with a possible sense of meaning, understanding, acceptance, and ultimately joy. These are all part of our genetic and psychological makeup. Suffering for the human condition is unavoidable. We can condition ourselves to learn how to make the best of our suffering and turn it into something useful for ourselves and those around us, but suffering will always be there. Some would say that pain is neither good nor bad, what is good or bad is how you “choose” to react to it. I think these are useful thoughts for us.

One view of the atonement could be the following: Christ paid for the sins of man by subjectively experiencing what we subjectively experience. There is a belief peculiar to LDS where it is stated that Christ experienced the pain and suffering consequent not only of sin, but also of the physical infirmities of mankind, that he might know how to succor man. This concept is eloquently expressed in D&C 88:6 and 18:11-12 -

Jesus Christ... He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth.

For, behold, the Lord your God suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain the of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him. And he hath risen again from the dead, that he might bring all men unto him, on conditions of repentance

These verses, IMO, give an interesting direction to understanding the atonement to a modern Christian. Christ suffered for man’s sins and infirmities, that he might become the light, or guide, in all circumstances of subjective experience. He experienced the subjective feelings of pain and suffering of humanity so as to attract the believer to him. Christ is envisioned as knowing what we experience so that WE can perceive him as the guide.

Through the descent of Christ into mortality to experience the subjective pain of all men, as also the providing of a solution to the objective reality of physical death and divergence in nature with God, Christ created a bond of oneness with all those who will accept his sacrifice.

In reality, an omnipotent being would know how to guide man to atonement, but it is useful for man to subjectively feel God coming to our level, and rising back to his pre-mortal divinity. He becomes the role model and exemplar for all men.

10) Perhaps the crucial question is: what does the atonement of Christ teach us?

Why is it written that those who don’t accept the atonement will be damned? Because accepting the atonement equals accepting the principles that governed the life of Christ as our guide through the mortal experience. Since Christ is the light, he also becomes the conditioning agent. He teaches us principles and shows us how to apply them. By studying Christ’s life, and defining his actions as the basis of a moral code, man’s best qualities are validated. Man learns to harness the potential destructive power of certain tendencies that left unchecked could be negative.

Accepting Christ means doing what He does. It does not mean accepting necessarily the belief system which gives metaphysical definitions of divinity. It has more to do with accepting the principles Christ embodies. The idea behind Christ’s atonement is BECOMING knowledgeable, or knowing through experience, about what it means to be like God. The focus is on “becoming.” The idea of HAVING knowledge of divine doctrine is useless without at-one-ment. The consequence is that one who does that which makes him more similar to God is far more at-one with Him, than the one who only intellectually knows the doctrine of Christ.

This puts a good atheist on much higher ground than a bad theist, and on equal grounds men in virtue of their actions rather than on their beliefs.

God, it seems to me, if He/She/It/Them truly exists, is in the business of revealing meaning and value to the subjective mind, with the objective of influencing the course of events for man, and of intelligent life forms in general so as to lead them to perfection in time. God is the embodiment of all truth, hence, as we progress and evolve as a species, the laws of God, will change and validate all the positive changes that occur in our nature, and perhaps this form of validation and pressure can create over eras specific changes in man’s inherited neural traits that will make us both more fit to survive and perhaps more united as a species.

CONCLUSION

The atonement of Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity. We see in Christ the redeemer of mankind.
In our modern days, knowing the realities of evolution, and the determinism defining human behavior, we cannot see man as an eternal debtor with God as previously viewed. We do understand that if God exists, man is a radically different life form in comparison to Him.

Modern science it seems to me imposes a philosophical re-evaluation of Christ’s atonement. Through his life Christ shows man the way, or in other words, he teaches us and provides us with basic conditioning principles that will help us evolve in time as individuals. These are the basic principles man needs today to live a meaningful and fulfilling life. They are a validation of pre-existing cognitive modules that emerged in the process of selection over biological eras of human history. These principles happen to be associated to positive psychological responses in humans which accounts for feelings of fulfillment and joy experienced by those, religious and non, who implement these principles.

The passion, death, and resurrection of Christ are meaningful in that they help us feel God close and understanding of our condition. By taking the pain of mankind Christ becomes the bridge between these two worlds, and the bond of oneness, understanding, and perhaps most of all, hope.

These above ideas are not my validation of the atonement or of religion in general. Recognizing the conceptual impossibility of reconciling traditional atonement beliefs with the modern scientific discovery of the deterministic nature of man’s cognitive makeup, this post was meant to give an alternative view.

I will explain in the near future how my ideas in regards to religion have recently changed.