Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: What does it mean that Christ died for us? [an attempted answer]
Message-ID: <195@unc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 19:17:11 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.195
Posted: Tue Mar 12 19:17:11 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 02:20:25 EST
References: <topaz.925>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.religion:5975 net.religion.christian:419
Summary: 

In article <topaz.925> hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) writes:
>[...]
>A lot of religious language is metaphorical or symbolic.  There is nothing
>wrong with this.  It often says a lot concisely.  However it is also easy to
>get misled.  There were certain early Christians who took seriously the idea
>that Christ's death was a payment.  However in my opinion no one ever came
>up with a convincing identification of who it was that had to be paid off or
>why.  While this language is still used in the liturgy, I don't think you
>will find many Christians who seriously maintain that Christ died to pay off
>God, or the Devil, or anyone else.  

Doesn't this contradict the fundamentalists' viewpoint that the Bible
must be taken literally?

>Quite frankly, I think we have to reject the idea that when the man Jesus
>was dying in the cross, he was thinking individually of every one of the
>billions of people who God intended to save through him.  This would require
>Jesus to have more than a conventional brain.  Hence the idea is heretical.

Sounds reasonable to me.  However, I think most Christians do indeed
assume that Jesus had more than a conventional brain.  I assume you
are speaking for one of the more liberal denominations.

			Frank Silbermann
			University of North Carolina