Talk:Ransom theory of atonement/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
The classical view of atonement?
"The ransom view of the atonement, sometimes called the classical view of atonement,[1] "
The reference given to ransom view being called "the classical view of atonement" is attributed to Religioustolerance.org In general it is not really legitimate to quote another web page as a source. Specifically, the Religious Tolerance entry on the Atonement is plagued with factual errors and is a bad source of information.
The term "classical view of atonement" in fact comes from Gustav Aulen and his book "Christus Victor". So the "classical view of atonement" according to Aulen is the Christus Victor view which is related to, but not the same as the Ransom view. Because of this the first sentence of this article is inaccurate and unless someone objects, I suggest it be removed.Sharktacos 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- You pinpoint Religioustolerance.org as a weak source, I pinpoint Robin Collins. "Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory" as also an extraordinarily weak source misrepresenting the classical (??) ransom theory by completely ignoring the trinity mysticism. If it was the classical theory. This article needs better sources (except The Catholic Encyclopedia that should be counted as acceptable). Said: Rursus (☻) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
GET RID OF THE SATISFACTIONIST AGENDA!
Why is the section on Anselm here? It doesn't belong here, it belongs in the article on his Satisfaction theory. Is there a section heading on the Ransom theory in the article on Satisfaction theory? No! So why is there a Satisfaction theory blurb appendisized to the Ransom theory article like it's Marguerite's prison death scene at the end of Gounod's Faust?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.134.108 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, but there is a section almost as long discussing the Moral Governance view. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC: Satisfaction theory section
Currently the Satisfaction theory section is a substantial portion of the article, but seems out of place. It is not properly sourced, but before doing the work of sourcing it I would like to see if people feel the section is out of place (and should be removed) or if it is necessary (and should be kept & sourced) ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Survey
- Remove - Section is spurious and not directly relevant to the subject of the article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
The Satisfaction theory is not directly pertinent to the Ransom theory article, and since Satisfaction theory has its own article I see no reason to retain this spurious information here. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was pleading with you to get rid of it last year, and now you are petitioning to get rid of it. That is irony. --173.32.134.108 (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd hardly say that you were PLEADING with me, you made one comment, I made one comment, and then you never responded. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was all over and my argument failed so I backed off. Why are you now agreeing with what I said? --173.32.134.108 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you for getting it removed, though. But again why your change of heart? --173.32.134.108 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)