Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (40405)	12/4/2001 3:56:27 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I thought Neo got it essentially correct. Could you explain his error in your own words? Nice try but no cigar Neo.

To: Greg or e who wrote (40405)	12/4/2001 4:03:29 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

There is nothing in what you quoted contradicting anything I said. I know the word "propitiation", and how it is used. I am talking about the internal logic of the situation. The perpetrator is not punished, and the sins are laid on the Suffering Servant as an act of mercy for those who in fact transgressed. The claim to justice is odd, since, an innocent suffers for the guilty, and the claim to propitiate God is odd because God (as the Son) somehow suffers for us....so He seems to be propitiating Himself, as it were. Thus, it is hard to see the need to go through the exercise on the grounds of vicarious atonement. Simple forgiveness would seem to suffice, as in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Did the Father require that anyone suffer in his stead, or did he welcome the son with open arms?