I should have posted this with the trilogy from earlier today, but quite frankly, I was too tired to hunt this old post down and add it then. So here it is now...
Atone v. Expiate
I think the Catholic church may have a monopoly on all words relatingto guilt and clearing of guilt, but that leads me to the obvious comparison of atone v. expiate. We always hear the phrase "atone for one's sins", not "expiate for sins" (despite the references listed--I think they're wrong. These words must have a unique meaning, and therefore, cannot be used interchangeably.). So atone has the religious overtone from the theological Latin meaning of being "at one", which should leave expiate to cover all non-religious usages. Therefore, to expiate for a wrong is making restitution to the wronged individual (a compunction which leads to expiation) and which coincides nicely with the Latin origins about to make good. A prison sentence can hardly be considered expiation since expiate also requires that it be done voluntarily, otherwise, it's not really making good, since otherwise it doesn't change the intent or perception of the individual who did the wrong. Atone would be to seek forgiveness by an act or deed from a third-party that may or may not be the wronged individual, assuming the wrongful act was against a religious organization. But that still leaves us with the quandary: why use expiate when atone has so much more meaning, and used in a non-religious connotation gives greater emphasis (remember, these are not malapropisms!)? I think I would choose to swap them just to make the point: to expiate a sin diminishes the act being amended (while contraception may be a sin, more individuals tithe to expiate their guilt than actually change their habits) and to atone for a wrong elevates it to a sarcastic proportion (woe unto those who do not atone for the wrongs of failing to watch what they eat!), but the best of all would be the extreme context: to expiate for a wrong in a religious context (for swearing in church, he had to rake all the leaves on the grounds to expiate his sin), while atoning for a sin in a non-religious context (breaking her mother's favorite vase, she was grounded for a week to atone for her crime/sin). And since I'm not Catholic, I'll just stick with atoning. I'll deal with my sins later...
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have a slightly different sense of these two words. I find expiate to equate more or less with "extinguish" -- when you expiate your sin you wipe the slate clean. When you atone for your sin, or wrongdoing or bad dietary habit, you offer up something equal in goodness to the bad you have done, and though the bad is still on the balance sheet, it is neutralized.
I have a slightly different sense of these two words. I find expiate to equate more or less with "extinguish" -- when you expiate your sin you wipe the slate clean. When you atone for your sin, or wrongdoing or bad dietary habit, you offer up something equal in goodness to the bad you have done, and though the bad is still on the balance sheet, it is neutralized.
Atonement means that the Lord Jesus' death is the way ("I am the way...", Lord Jesus says) whereby God gives absolute/complete forgiveness (since no absolute forgiveness given before Christ) to all offenses/sins a soul has done against God and man; if and only if, man expiates for his sins ("...no one can enter until he pays the last penny...", Lord Jesus says) by believing and obeying the Truth of our Jesus Christ ("I am the Truth...", and, "...that whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life", the Lord says). Thus, the Way and the Truth is that man must expiate for his sins before he can be atoned or given absolute/complete forgiveness.
Post a Comment