tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post8629008064011934464..comments2024-01-24T04:02:06.466-05:00Comments on Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity: Francis Turretin's Attempt to Justify Penal SubstitutionKen Pulliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-29150680131359002692010-06-06T17:45:59.119-04:002010-06-06T17:45:59.119-04:00If a Christian "sins" against me (e.g. R...If a Christian "sins" against me (e.g. Runs a red light and crashes into my car causing me pain and suffering) am I allowed to demand a "Blood Sacrifice?"<br /><br />Or is there a theology that only God can demand a "Blood Sacrifice?"<br /><br />Since all "sins" against God are really just emotional in nature (i.e. I cannot physically or financially harm God) can humans as a society institute "Blood Sacrifices" for emotional suffering?<br /><br />I'm curious . . .Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03562922818694517439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-87554045189669667172010-06-06T08:28:06.755-04:002010-06-06T08:28:06.755-04:00J.S.,
I am critiquing the defenders of the PST w...J.S., <br /><br />I am critiquing the defenders of the PST who did interpret the atonement in a legal sense. Whether other ancient civilizations did or not is not directly applicable to what the defenders of the PST are saying. <br /><br />There is a lot of study that needs to be done to ascertain all the reasons why primitive peoples felt the need to sacrifice animals and humans to their god(s). This would have to do though with a background study of the whole concept of sacrifices and what I am focusing on is the attempt to defend the justice of the PST by those who adhere to it. Since it was never really systematized until the time of the Reformers, those are the people I am concentrating on.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-50216894768934421472010-06-05T22:44:27.126-04:002010-06-05T22:44:27.126-04:00There is plenty of precedent in history for humans...There is plenty of precedent in history for humans offering up the innocent to appease their gods' wrath. This may not be PST, exactly, but PST isn't about transferring guilt in any modern jurisprudential sense, either. I just don't see how one can critique PST without having an understanding the ancient mindset about divine justice and retribution.<br /><br />I think that you've identified <b>one</b> possible rationalization for animal and human sacrifice (i.e. as a costly signal to the deity). But that's too narrow and simplistic to offer sufficient explanation, IMO. I don't think there is just one answer. Some cultures would use prisoners as human sacrifices, or even bred a specific underclass of people to be used in sacrifice. Presumably in these cases, at least, the people felt that the deity wanted blood. <br /><br />Speculation about motivations normally reveals more about us than about the thing we're speculating about. Looking for historical clues is better, and real-world experimentation even better. We have some historical clues about some of the mindsets: a) bribery of the deity, b) costly signal to show sincerity, c) blood offering to expiate the wrath (e.g. throwing human sacrifices into a volcano). But I think we need more than that.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-58385898019607087182010-06-05T19:31:24.238-04:002010-06-05T19:31:24.238-04:00J.S.,
I think the animal sacrifices and the human...J.S.,<br /><br />I think the animal sacrifices and the human sacrifices were not a case of penal substitution. I think they were offerings to the god(s) of what was considered valuable to the offerer. IOW, it was to show the love and dedication of the worshipper and they hoped that on the basis of the sacrifice the god(s) would show them favor. I don't think there was any concept of a legal transfer of guilt to the sacrifice. In my opinion, that idea came in somewhat with Paul but was elaborated in the teachings of the Reformers and those who followed them.<br /><br />A human sacrifice was the highest form of sacrifice because of a person's child was his most vaulable possession. Thus, for God to give his own son was the highest of all possible sacrifices.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-12533834964036473352010-06-05T14:32:10.603-04:002010-06-05T14:32:10.603-04:00You keep pointing out that retribution against an ...You keep pointing out that retribution against an innocent, and even retributive justice, is unjust by modern standards. I think you are right about this.<br /><br />The bigger question, though, is <b>why</b> did people previously consider these to be just? I tried to research this question a couple of years ago (I trying to understand animal sacrifice back then; not PST), but I didn't find anything particularly satisfying.<br /><br />Human sacrifice and retributive justice were common in bronze age and early iron age. The humans to be sacrificed as propitiation to the gods often needed to be pure and blameless, virgins, etc. The Carthaginians even sacrificed babies.<br /><br />To us, these practices seem insane. But the prevalence of this mode of justice in ancient times suggests that it made perfect sense to them. And considering how geographically and culturally dispersed the practices were, it's implausible that they all came from a single source culture. It seems clear that the practices emerged spontaneously in several different places at different times. This fact suggests that there was an internal logic that appealed to human nature of that time. I wonder why?JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.com