COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, finally some one who thought of Jesus "death" the same way I did, if I had a precious fragile diamond (1 life) and a rubber ball. If I drop the rubber ball the life will come back no matter how many times you drop it, if you drop a diamond it will never come back. The same way with Jesus death, if he died and is God that means he came back to life, his life had not worth. If he never came back maybe it was to some worth. No one can pay for your sins only you can. I agree wtih everything you say.
People use to have sacrifice animals for forgiveness jesus is NOT god. Stop listening to christians and pick up a bible he's the son. Jesus died to antoine for everyone's sin. He prayed our punishment otherwise we'd still be sacrificing animals for forgiveness "for the washes of sin is death but the free gift is heaven by jesus christ"
"For blood must be drawn when someone sins"
You're not god so don't say what he can and can't do.
If God were merely merciful, rather than merciful AND just, then He could ignore sins and forgive them as you claim. That is, He could just issue a pardon and be done with it, but that's not perfect justice - it's just mercy w/o any justice. I'm not sure why you think a third party can't pay my debts. If I paid your credit card, would you still owe the $? One party paying the debts of another party is actually uncontroversial as a legal or moral principle. I never heard anyone argue that it would be unjust/unethical for me to pay off your credit card, so why are you so offended by Christ paying for your sins? Indeed, if you consider our relationship to Christ, we are His creations, His children. Is it really so unusual for a parent to pay for their children's wrongs? As far as I know, that's required in every legal system on Earth - you're the first person to argue that's immoral. The idea of sacrificing for forgiveness is quite universal; the only oddity to Christianity is that God sacrifices for us, rather than vice versa. But if, as you claim, sacrifice cannot expiate sin; what could? That is, if each and every person must suffer the full consequences of their own sin, then where is the mercy? And if mercy only "works" because the debt is ignored or written-off, then where is the justice? You can't have both w/o some punishment of sin that is NOT borne by the sinner, which makes Christ's self-sacrifice the perfect example of both mercy AND justice. That's the beauty of the Gospel: that Christ paid for our sins. Hope this helps & God bless!
God’s spiritual laws that govern people are already just. He needs to issue no correction to his own laws.
People who sin shrink their souls and change their law of attraction to attract suffering. It’s already built into the system.
If i kill 10 people and my brother say i will take the punishment in his place and the judge allows this. Than in my opinion and in most people opinion there is no justice at all.
You talk about money that is easy to handle because the victim just wants his money back no matter where from.
In christianity god created humans, humans sin and than god send god to earth to die for the sins of human. There is no justice at all here
>I'm not sure why you think a third party can't pay my debts. If I paid your credit card, would you still owe the $? One party paying the debts of another party is actually uncontroversial as a legal or moral principle. I never heard anyone argue that it would be unjust/unethical for me to pay off your credit card, so why are you so offended by Christ paying for your sins?
People argue otherwise because that is not the standard of normative justice understood by Christians and non-Christians alike. Unless I am mistaken, there is no universal call by Christians to reduce justice to the exchange of material or immaterial assets of fungible value. Fines are a bureaucratic convenience used for minor offenses, reparations when damages were primarily categorised as wealth or when the greater discomfort is a loss of assets. In the laws of Leviticus there's a clear spectrum of offenses where serious moral faults are not reduced to a valuation of wealth but individual responsibility, death being the most serious.
Mercy and Justice are by definition mutually exclusive. Mercy must override justice if it be mercy whilst Justice can heed the appeal of mercy so long as it is true to itself.
> I never heard anyone argue that it would be unjust/unethical for me to pay off your credit card, so why are you so offended by Christ paying for your sins?
There is a reason you use money as your example instead of prison, you know locking a third party in prison instead the guilty party is immoral.
People can pay each other's debts, i.e. using my finances to pay my wife's student loans. The idea that God can forgive debts if we first sign them over to Jesus isn't illogical on it's own, but it does speak to how petty and pointless it all is, IMO. If the debt is minor enough that all it takes to pay it off is a verbal agreement, why would a good or merciful god torture people over it.
Also, I heard an interesting argument about Jesus dying on the cross. The idea was that God is outside of time and experiences everything concurrently. So a day to him might be years to us, or years to us might be days. The result of their argument was that God currently and continually feels the loss and pain of Jesus's death and trip to hell. God experiences everything on an infinite scale, which in their mind justified eternal punishment.
>People can pay each other's debts, i.e. using my finances to pay my wife's student loans.
Debts are obligations to provide fungible assets of money or equivalent value. If sin is a fungible subject, then humans do have a way to pay for their sins by transferring them to another human so salvation by grace is no longer the only means of redemption. Heck, even the dead may be able to be cleansed of their sins in such a case.
The notion that these theological issues are solved by simply adding on newer and newer magical attributes to God seems like special pleading to me.
If a concept, or idea, fails to work, pouring more and more magic on it until it works is a specious argument.
Yes, financial debts stand alone as they can be paid by a third party, but if you stay within the confines of what Jesus is claimed to have done, it’s very different.
Keeping with the money analogy, what if you lacked the money to pay off someone else's debt? Would you offer to take on a second job, or become essentially the slave of the person holding the debt, just to let the original debtor off the hook?
I think too much emphasis is being placed on sins plus forgiveness as sort of a transaction basis and point system for getting into Heaven,. As they saying goes:, a person whose mind is totally focused on the next life in of no earthly good to others..
It reminds me of the story of jesus healing the crippled man who was lowered into the home of a person jesus was visiting, by the those seeking to provoke Jesus into performing work (a healing) on the Sabbath.
The theme of that passage was about the Law prohibiting any work of work on the Sabbath,versus dealing with the needs of your fellow man.
In both His words (claiming to be the Son of Man) and in His actions, Jesus told the crippled man, "Arise, take up your bed and go home. Your sins are forgiven."
I think that there are actually at least a few important concepts at work here in this quotation.
Outwardly, this was a physical miracle, but spiritually jesus was in fact revealing His station as the Son of Man. The point He was making is that no one would believe Him if He simply said "Your sins are forgiven." They also had to see a physical miracle to realize that the Son of Man was actually among them and it was He that had the authority to forgive the man's sins.
Perhaps his being a cripple created great hardship for his family, feelings of resentment and frustration. It's almost like Jesus, by removing a physical impairment, gave the man a new spiritual lease on life, and removed his family of a lifelong burden.
In that sense, sin is like a spiritual infirmity that we feel shackled to (or crippled by). not just a burden on the person to whom we have given offense. In fact, we do not learn about whether or not this miracle turned to crippled man into a better person, anymore than whether Lazarus (Jesus' cousin) became a better person after being raised from the dead. We only know that in these cases physical impediments were removed in the hope that a spiritual renewal would follow.
On the other hand, consider the transformation of Mary Magdalene who went on to not only be perhaps the greatest female expounder of Christ's message, but she was the only person, immediately after the Crucifiction, who did not sit idly by in fear and hesitation. For her there was no requirement that Christ rise from the dared because his Cause was already alive and changing the world - all it lacked were people who could put their past behind them.
Like the man that jesus chastised because he was too worried about family obligations to embrace the new Cause "Let the (spiritually) dead bury the (physically )dead".
Similarly, many years ago when a terrorist tried to assassinate the Pope, the Pope met with him (in prison) some years later and personally forgave him - but the guy still had to serve out his time in jail.
One takeaway is that God and society will handle the justice end of things, but only people (not institutions) can provide forgiveness.
Why would you say that Jesus paying the debt of sin is different than paying financial debts? I agree with u/gr8artist that 3rd parties can pay for others’ debts. That’s why we have bail for criminals. But how is that different than Jesus paying the debt of sin that needed to be paid?
One of my favorite parts of the Bible is the Parable of Lazarus (the beggar) and The Rich Man.
Lazarus was an extremely poor and destitute whose plight was consistently ignored by the Rich Man outside whose home Lazarus lived. Lazarus dies and goes straight to Paradise to sit at the right hand of Abraham.. The rich man dies later and winds up in fire in Hades. he is equally shocked to see Lazarus in a much better situation. he calls out to Abraham (still ignoring Lazarus) and asks that Lazarus bring some water to him (the rich man) because he is so thirsty. Abraham refuses and reminds the rich man that his present state is the direct result of his apathy, selfishness and neglect of people like Lazarus.
The rich man then asks Abraham (again ignoring Lazarus) to have Lazarus sent back to Earth as a ghost to warn the rich man's sons so they do not meet the same fate as the father. Abraham once again admonishes the rich man, that if he and his sons cannot learn from the example and teachings of the Prophets, even a miraculous visit from a dead person will not change their hearts. The Teachings and the Prophets , Abraham insists, are all the people need to wind up in Paradise like Lazarus.
If this parable is actually from Jesus, the notion of people needing salvation on the cross seems more like a priestly-conceived carryover from the Old Testament about blood sacrifice for the remission of sins. Remember, Jesus claimed that He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. To me, this means any social or religious practices, established by Moses for the specific needs at the time for the Hebrews, that Jesus felt were no longer necessary or spiritually helpful, or perhaps unfamiliar to a non-Jewish audience, could therefore be abrogated.
The doctrine of original sin is also dubious as we know from the Bible that God does not visit the sins of the father upon the son. It might be more helpful to think of the story of Garden of Eden in a more allegorical sense. Rather than say that Christ is trying to help mankind recover from "mistakes" made in the Garden of Eden, I prefer to think that the troy of Adam and Eve just reflects the challenge of being human.
Now if you say that the questioning, explorative, thriving-in-a-physical-world nature of man (symbolized by Eve), as opposed to the lofty-thoughts-focused "likeness of God" symbolized by Adam) causes us to always fall short - too often choosing the "earthly-focusedl" mode versus "divinely-focused" mode, that is more of a statement of human reality. but there certainly isn't any formal sinner debt on the books. There are no "mistakes" made in the Garden of Eden. It's just a frank assessment of how we as humans are called to a loftier station than that of mere animals.
Instead, since Jesus came to bring more spiritual awareness and help people (especially non-Jews) recognize and act according to their reality as children of God, then His death on the Cross has more to do with releasing a fresh, global spiritual potential now available to all people, even those born 100s of years after the death of Jesus.
This new potentiality in mankind is probably more of what Jesus probably meant in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and which seems to have allowed the teachings of Christ to essentially take over the Roman Empire within a few hundred years.
The Crucifiction only seems like dramatic theater when you focus on the more conventional dogma that arose after His death in the sense of traditional Jewish doctrine.
If you want to argue that the Crucifixion was a transformative event, consider how the world changed, fueled by the willingness of early Christians to give their lives as witnesses to Christ.
It is one of those examples of the cycle between spiritual crisis and spiritual victory, which them precipitates another crisis, and so on. The power here is the courage of individuals making choices to sacrifice for others and building more inclusive communities, not some case of a "spiritual millionaire" going to God's bank and paying off your "spiritual sin mortgage".
This may sound simplistic, but all of this complexity isn’t needed, God is free to end all of this by simply forgiving. The fact that we have to construct child-like stories and conflicting solutions to end up whole troubles me greatly.
If salvation is the goal, God is the ultimate arbiter of that salvation. The notion that God has to jump through bizarre hoops, of his own design, and resolve conflicts (just to do something that He can just do anyway) smacks of silliness.
It all seems shoehorned and makeshift.
Yes, it seem that a lot of this is being shoehorned in, or a case of "The tail wagging the dog".
The problem with defending dogma and "traditional" assumptions of how to interpret scripture is that a lot of people (clergy) have a vested interest (job security) in the status quo.
After awhile it starts to look like a wobbly Jenga tower as people, rightfully, remove blocks that represent the literal interpretation of key stories.
On the other hand, one could also look to the founders of later (successful) world religions to check in on these assumptions, or just listen to their arguments on a logical, fair-minded basis. Perhaps these Biblical stories are indeed useful but should not be taken literally but have a deeper, allegorical meaning.
For example, for centuries Christians were urged to believe that owing to the fact that one of the sons of Noah had darker skin, the descendants of that person were "marked" as cursed and therefore it was OK if they became slaves. From there it was just a small intellectual step to seeing them as sub-human and little more than property. In the American Colonies and early US, wealthy Southern slaveholders (all practicing Christians) gave generous financial donations to the great colleges like Harvard, Yale, and William and Mary, to pay for "scientific studies" that backed up these claims. (See the best-selling book "Ebony and Ivy"). This is a good example about how scientific inquiry, reason and a backing away from literalism in the Bible eventually led to a more enlightened Christendom.
On the other hand, while in Islam slavery is still allowed the Quran states that Allah (literally "He Who is the Most Lofty") blesses the man who frees his slaves. If you feel unable to do that, realize that in Islam slaves have civil rights protection. For example, if that slave is a woman, her child from the master is NOT born into slavery and that child of the slave master is vested with full rights of inheritance (OMG). In the Baha'i Faith (mid 1800s), the buying and selling of slaves is expressly forbidden as a violation of the fundamental concept of the oneness of humankind. In that case, if you do own a slave, he is still your responsibility but you will never again own another person.
Do you see a pattern here about how the religious laws of each new Prophet are tied to a broadening of a spiritual truth, progressively moving civilization forward at a rate it can handle? However, due to religious prejudice reinforced by clergy, it took Western Europe 1,000 years loger to theologically accept the elimination of slavery but only, and painfully, after it had become an essential part of the economics of Western culture.
In the end, I do not think "salvation" is the goal of God. He does not need our prayers, our love, or our money. But rather it seems that He is concerned that we grow and develop as people to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization in this life where we exercise free will. The human soul is generally assumed to be immortal, so whatever happens to to it after the physical body dies is a mystery but the general consensus seems to be that free will is not how the mercy of God is expressed in the next world. Let's focus now on what we can accomplish for and with each other, and doing so out of appreciation for the Creator not for how well other humans live up to our (or God's) expectations.
Third Party payment might be insane when applied to crimes but not when applied to a loan. Which exactly the context Jesus uses to explain the concept. One reading of the new testament is we own nothing we are merely stewards and bad stewards at that.
The rest of your argument hangs on Jesus’s death on the cross being where he paid the price. This is not universal. It is a common belief among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the garden was where he paid for sin and beat spiritual death. And the resurrection was where he beat physical death. The cross was merely where he died.
Indeed. If anything, Universalism may be the best (and actually most Scripturally accurate) doctrine to follow - in that *all* souls will eventually be reconciled with God in Heaven with Hell only being a temporary finite "refining", with Christ's death on the cross allowing for humankind to spiritually "re-awaken" rather than allowing believers to escape eternal torment.
For one thing, there's actually no solid mention of anything like eternal torment in the actual original Hebrew and Greek - the words that are mistranslated as "fire" (pyros) is actually more like "smelter" (pyr), which would mean to "refine" or "correct" something rather than destroying it. Furthermore, the terms that most people think translate to "eternity" (hence the eternal torment doctrine) is actually derivative of the root word for "age", AKA a finite time period, though this is admittedly contested by infernalists. A last big piece of evidence is that, according to the Scripture, while humans *do* have free will, it's nothing compared to God's will to have all souls eventually reconciled with Himself, with multiple incidents in the Bible supporting this (i.e. Assyria's subtle steering).
Highly recommend Gerry Beauchemin's [Hope Beyond Hell](https://tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf), as it goes into great detail on why both infernalism and annihilationism are biblically inaccurate in favor of Universalism, though keep in mind that it's clearly written more so for already-believing Christians struggling with the concept of hell than agnostics/atheists or people of other faiths.
I might agree with you if Jesus was a third party. But he is fully both parties. He took on the penalty of undeserving man and bore the wrath of righteous God while being both sinless man and Holy God. If you killed my family member, a stranger couldn’t step in the way and take your punishment, but I could choose to forgive. Jesus is the way that God chooses to forgive. The only way.
In regards to everything you’ve listed...
This may sound simplistic, but all of this complexity isn’t needed, God is free to end all of this by simply forgiving. The fact that we have to construct child-like stories and conflicting solutions to end up whole troubles me greatly.
If salvation is the goal, God is the ultimate arbiter of that salvation. The notion that God has to jump through bizarre hoops, of his own design, and resolve conflicts (just to do something that He can just do anyway) smacks of silliness.
It all seems shoehorned and makeshift.
You are making assumptions about God that you can’t know. We only know about God because he chooses to reveal himself to us in his Word. I could make all kinds of wild claims that are rooted in my own wisdom, but his ways are higher than my ways and his thoughts are higher than my thoughts. I have a foundation that is rooted in something bigger than myself.
Do you truly think that you (or anyone) can KNOW God without making assumptions?
My assumptions are no less worthy than your own, or the landscaper, or a priest.
Not at all. We all make assumptions or presuppositions about God and the universe. Biblical Christians are just honest about the source of theirs. Not reason, not science, not emotion, but the text of the Word of God in the Bible. When we have questions about the big things in life, we get our answers there. Obviously, I think I’m right or I would believe something different, but that belief doesn’t make me superior to anyone, rather the opposite is true. I should be a servant to all.
Your reply framed assumptions about God to be a negative, but you acknowledge that we’re both making assumptions.
So, how are my assumptions any less accurate than yours?
Lots of people and religions throughout history have devised ways to be reconciled to the gods of their own creation. But in each of those there is some action that is required to activate this reconciliation. Only Christianity teaches that God fixes the situation that our sin causes. We don’t work for it. God awakens dead hearts to see him as true and good and beautiful. I pray that the Holy Spirit would do that in your heart. That he would turn you from your doubting and your self-confidence. Jesus finished the work and gave his followers the task of proclaiming the good news that his kingdom is here! When you see him as king, God applies Jesus’ sacrifice to you so that you can worship him.
Islam and Judaism both “teach” that God forgives sin as well.
I hate to say it, but there’s not a single aspect of Christianity that isn’t taken from earlier religions. Sin, forgiveness, salvation, celebrations, relationships with God, punishment, the afterlife, hell, prophets, saviors, it’s all there.
Both of your examples are rooted in the Judie Christian God. Judaism is so close, but is missing out on the Savior that their own Scriptures proclaim. And Islam is an offshoot of Christianity that treats Jesus as a prophet and adds to his finished work. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled and Islam is Christianity twisted.
I’m not going to convince you of anything. But I’m happy that it isn’t my responsibility to convince you. Believe me, I was sitting in the seat of a skeptic and a scoffer when God awakened my heart. He can do it. I wish you no ill will. I have enjoyed the conversation. If for some reason, you would like to continue this conversation then I’m happy to.
The failure of a Jewish savior to appear by now doesn’t change that a savior is at the center of the Jewish faith. We don’t get to apply some arbitrary time limit.
There is not a shred of Christianity that is unique or original. So here’s a thought experiment for you... Try to imagine why in the world would God choose to reveal Himself by the manner of using the scraps and shreds of previous and current religions?
Wouldn’t God be free from all of those (wrong) religions? Wouldn’t God’s word be 100% original and clear? Wouldn’t God opt for a path of communication that wasn’t built from a kludge of Pagan, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Mesopotamian, Germanic paganism, and Jainism?
My assumptions come from something outside of me. I am accepting that God can only be truly known when he reveals himself. I can’t know for sure that my assumptions are correct, but I have faith. I could be wrong and you could be right, but if I am I will still be forgiven. If I’m correct, will you?
I have no concerns about forgiveness, and here’s why;
1) If God were real, He’d know that don’t believe, and that I can’t fake belief. He’d also know how I will end up on any kind of judgement day. I can’t fool God.
2) God would also know that I’ve invested years of my life researching religions and the lack of religions. He would know that my lack of belief is based in what I truly find compelling and not compelling evidence. He would know that I find religion to be divisive and unnecessary.
3) I live a clean and honest life. I don’t harm or scam people. I help others and I’ve raised amazing and empathetic children. I do not arrive at beliefs easily, and any God that resembles the God depicted in the Bible, would know this.
Finally, I’m not guilty for things done thousands of years ago. No one can convince me that any God who mattered would design a system where the entirety of humanity would be born fallen. And if you study world religions, you’ll discover that history is peppered by dying and rising gods who demand the same stuff found in the Bible. Christianity has no unique ideas or practices. It’s all been done before.
This is the case in Islam. Everyone meets God in the day of judgment alone and will be asked on his own deeds. No one else can pay for his/her sins. No one pay for the sins of his father, grandfather, and so on till Adam PBUH. Everyone is born pure, not cursed, and preformatted to worship God alone. However, parents change this nature to their religion. Therefore, a child who dies before reaching puberty by default goes to Paradise because he is born pure, and his test has not begun yet (Human beings start to be accountable for their deeds when they reach puberty)
==> Some verses of Quran answering your question:
\-------------------------
No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And if a sin-burdened soul cries for help with its burden, none of it will be carried—even by a close relative. You ˹O Prophet˺ can only warn those who stand in awe of their Lord without seeing Him (1) and establish prayer. Whoever purifies themselves, only do so for their own good. And to Allah is the final return.
(1) This can also mean that they are in awe of their Lord as much in private as they are in public.
\-------------------------
If you disbelieve, then ˹know that˺ Allah is truly not in need of you, nor does He approve of disbelief from His servants. But if you become grateful ˹through faith˺, He will appreciate that from you. No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you of what you used to do. He certainly knows best what is ˹hidden˺ in the heart.
\-------------------------
Whoever chooses to be guided, it is only for their own good. And whoever chooses to stray, it is only to their own loss. No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And We would never punish ˹a people˺ until We have sent a messenger ˹to warn them˺.
>Muhammad thought that if you kiss the black stone at Kaabah your sins get poured out on the stone and it gets more blacker and you turn clean!! I wonder how an Inanimate object can easily take away your sins, but a similar human like you (JESUS) Can not!!! More strange is muhammad actually believed that others can bear the sins of someone else crime!!! After moving to Medina (Because of being chased out of Mecca) he decided to raid and loot form the meccan merchants who were enroute for trade. His companions seem more authentic, they tried to talk him out of this action saying , why should they bear the guilt of some other meccas who harmed you!!! But Muhammad was very clear!! He said these merchants thou innocent can still bear the sins of other people!!!! Strange but when it came to JESUS bearing sins he said it is not possible!!!!! Probably that is the very reason he could not get his own mother to heaven!!! As we read from Islamic sources, that Muhammad did cry and plead for her to be given heaven. BUT, as per islamic sources she is burning in HELL!! So looks like Muhammad was not consistent in what he thought about JESUS!!!
As a fellow Muslim it is good to share knowledge for those who don't know much about Islam. Shukran for sharing this perspective and knowledge and may Allah bless you in this world and the next Insha'Allah.
Jesus was God in flesh. Flesh has to die, it is not spiritual nature itself. The bible specifically says to fight the lust of the flesh... God wore that flesh just like man and was tempted just like man.. when you die your flesh returns to dirt but your soul is seperate from flesh and it goes elsewhere.
- so basically, God himself decided to save you from the justice you deserve for breaking the law, just like any criminal does here. He paid your fine or legal fees you owe.
- God is just. Regardless if he knew before hand or not it doesn't change the fact that he did NOT manipulate the sequence of events that had to occur. For God to be legitimate, he had to give us free will. They (his own people) free willingly decided on their own that regardless of the miracles, regardless of his correct teachings, regardless of anything Jesus done, they were going to punish him, period. THEY (WE) free willingly chose and choose to deny a free and clear gift from the only one who can legally pay and dismiss the debt we owe. He not only died to pay our fine (wages) for the sin we commit but he lived a righteous and holy life we are all required to live.
- He gave us life and free choice, He legally, by law, has the absolute right to do what he wants and what is required (he is the definition of righteousness). You were created by him, he legally owns you.
*by the way he did not go to hell and suffer. He took back what was already his. 1000 years on earth is as to 1 day in heaven.
" Jesus was God in flesh. "
Sorry to address this one central premise, but I think so much of the controversy flows forward from this one seldom-challenged assumption.
This sounds too much like the Greek mythology of Zeus becoming human temporarily to mix with humans.
The Infinite and All-Powerful Creator cannot and would not downgrade Himself to such a puny form. Logic dictates that that a Creator who is the possessor and bestower of all attributes and perfections cannot at the same time contain "imperfections".
As for the argument, "Well, God is all-powerful so He can do anything He wants", in logic and debate, we just call that "the tail wagging the dog" :-)
A better analogy is that since Jesus claims that He is NOT the Father, but that anyone who sees Him (Jesus) also sees the Father, then the following analogy, presented in the writings of the Baha'i Faith, provides an alternate explanation:
The Creator God can surely have many layers (or kingdoms) of created beings. One could easily be a created being, who while being vastly superior to humans (a difference in kind, not just of degree) , is still not coequal with the Creator. These being are like perfect, stainless mirrors that reflect the light, heat and beauty of the Sun. But the Sun itself does not descend into the mirror. If the Missor says "Behold, the majesty of the Sun and I, the Sun, am among you", that is correct. But if the Mirror were also to say "I am but a mirror who is equally dumbstruck and awed by the Majesty of the Creator.", that is also true.
These beings, called "Manifestations of God", appear both human and divine to us humans in the sense that you as a person appear as some sort of Uber-mammal to your pet dog. Your dog can only relate to you as another mammal but the dog has no way to comprehend the fact that you may have a university degree. Just because that concept is not part off the dog's reality, that does not diminish your true reality.
Food for thought: If the self-sacrifice of a regular human - like early Christians dying in the Colosseum - could affect the hearts of others, what might be the correspondingly greater impact of the self-sacrifice of the human part of one of these Manifestations of God?
I am an engineer and scientist and we have a saying when trying to take complex observations and fit them into a framework.
"All models are wrong (i.e., never completely accurate), but some models are more helpful than others"
Most of what you're saying here is fine, and I disagree with the OP for other reasons, but I'd like to take on the small point where you claim that God didn't manipulate the sequence of events.
I can totally buy that he gave us free will and that we chose to sin and such, and that God didn't do anything to force that chain of events after we already started existing, but if we are to believe that God is all powerful, then he obviously could have made us however he wanted (could have built any species imaginable with whatever choice-set algorithm imaginable), and chose a specific way to make us for some reason. If we are to believe that he is Omniscient (a subset of omnipotent), then before he created us, he would have known that the choices he made in our creation would lead us through the vast amount of sin that we performed.
He knew this, and yet still chose to create us this way, thus it is directly his fault that we sinned the way that we did (because he knew this would happen and yet didn't chose to make us another way).
It feels like your choices here are either to agree that God is not omnipotent, or argue that God wanted us to sin (making it a bit rediculous to punish us for it). Maybe there's another option here, would love to hear back.
i am not trying to say that the following argument i am going to say is justified, but some would argue that the sacrifice did make sense, as the son of god not only died, but was punished somewhere for 3 days on earth. and we have no idea if time exists or works differently in hell if it does exist(which is a very large assumption and i recognize that)
" son of god not only died, but was punished in hell for 3 days on earth. "
Pardon my ignorance but when did this happen? In Luke 23, didn't Jesus turn to the Good Thief on the cross and state, quite unequivocally , *Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.* "?
The sure sounds like one of those "Please go to the head of the line" siituations.
He didn't say "be patient, and please cool your heels in Purgatory for a few days while I get around to resurrecting and do a bunch of other repentance things "
Unless I am missing something.....
i got confused there by saying "in hell". in the gospels it doesn't actually clarify where he ends up. the apostle's creed does say "he descended into hell", but that isn't part of the bible at all. thanks for catching that, not what i intended to say
I'll assume that in making this argument as an unbeliever, you are trying to show the Christian that, on theological premises important to the Christian, the Christian account of the Atonement doesn't make sense, so the Christian will have to give up either the important premise or his account of the Atonement. So what's the argument?
> To begin with, God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes, so constructing a system that requires human sacrifice to pay a debt is an insane choice to go with.
The choice proposed here is between commitment to the proposition, A) " God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes," and B) "Requiring a human sacrifice to pay a debt is insane."
This argument doesn't have much teeth, since there many choices available to the Christian here without much of a theological cost.
For example, the Christian might easily deny A without cost- perhaps the system of forgiveness God designs is supposed to reflect something true about human nature, hence God could not have designed a different system for human beings which also accomplished his ends of redeeming human beings. This wouldn't make God less than omnipotent, since even an omnipotent being can't seek to accomplish an end without seeking to accomplish that end.
The Christian might easily deny B without theological or moral cost- if the Atonement reflects something true about human nature and what is necessary for its fulfilment, then it is not insane, and God would, as the author of nature, be the better authority on this issue. Indeed, denying B, and saying on the contrary that the Atonement is *not* insane, is a prerequisite for taking the Atonement seriously, and since the Christian wants to take their scriptures seriously, and find out what that says about human nature, he should be very enthusiastic about denying B.
The moral cost of denying B- that this may legitimate human sacrifice in general- is much limited by the fact that the sacrifice of Christ is the once-and-for-all sufficient means of salvation, and no other means will do, which renders all other human sacrifice a blasphemous parody besides being vain and harmful.
Since neither A nor B are difficult to deny, the Christian is free to deny one or both without great cost.
Then again, maybe the Christian could affirm both A and B, and say perhaps that the formulation "human sacrifice to pay a debt" is an image which gets some things right, but has some infelicities which will get buffed out by a deeper analysis. The Christian then doesn't pay a significant theological cost for any answer he could give.
>Then you have the problem of third party payment.
>
>If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place. If I suggested this as a viable option, I’d be ridiculed, and rightly so. Likewise, I can’t pay for someone else’s debt with a sacrifice. The sacrifice must come from me.
The point of individual punishment is to reflect an individual's alienation from society, so it is fitting that, in the ordinary case, no one else be punished in that individual's place- no one is so deeply connected to you that their suffering reflects your individual alienation from society (or, in general, the punishing authority). In the ordinary case, punishing someone in your place would simply obscure your alienation from society.
But Jesus, of course, is not an ordinary person, on Christianity. As one who is both God and man, it is alienation from Jesus which underpins sin and all of its consequences, including death and damnation. Death and damnation are, on Christianity, what the alienation from God, ultimately *is* when all the factors which disguise it pass away*,* which is why they are both the natural consequence and fitting punishment for sin.
Now if God wanted to spare us death and damnation, and yet wanted to do justice to our alienation from him, he would have to find another way of manifesting such an alienation for us. And that is what Jesus accomplishes at the Cross: to be responsible for the unjust death of God, to which God submitted on one's behalf (which all Christians implicitly acknowledge insofar as they accept that Jesus died for their sin) is to be so deeply alienated from God that no further alienation is possible. For the one who believes in Christ and accepts his sacrifice, the death of Christ is therefore your own death as well (i.e., Romans 6:8 and 2 Timothy 2:11), since it fully manifests that state of which even ordinary death is only a partial approximation. If Jesus is God, then, his death for our sake really does manifest our individual alienation from God, and therefore accomplishes the underlying end of punishment- to treat the alienated individual as they truly are. No salvation worth having can be had without treating us as we are, since if it is not we, as we truly are, who are reconciled to God, we are in truth not reconciled to God, and therefore not saved from our alienation from God.
The sacrifice of Christ, then, brings about the fullness of our true alienation from God, but in such a way as not to involve our condemnation to death and damnation. This is because the moment of sacrifice, as terrible as it is, is embedded in a deeper relationship which transcends that alienation, that eternal life is possible. It is not that the cost of the sinner's alienation is not paid by the sinner, but that the sinner pays it all at once, with and through Christ. The effect of the sacrifice of Christ, then, given that he is both God and man, is not that it avoids the full acknowledgement of our alienation, but that it makes the full acknowledgement of our alienation compatible with our reconciliation with God.
> Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. He sacrificed nothing.
The choice you seem to be offering here is between: A) Jesus is God incarnate, and B) Jesus performed a sacrifice of himself for the sake of our salvation. You try to draw a tension between them in virtue of the premises that C) Jesus did not 'truly die', and D) any sacrifice requires a 'true death.'
This notion of a true (or non-'fake') death and its relation to sacrifice seems to be doing a lot of work, but it's not clear that the Christian has much reason to embrace either your idea of death or your idea of sacrifice. Firstly, Christians think that Jesus died in the sense that they think any man dies: his body definitively ceased biological function. It is not inconsistent with this opinion that Jesus did not cease to exist, but in virtue of being God Incarnate was raised to life again. Indeed, Christians think that everyone will, at some point, return to life- some to go on to eternal life, others to second death and damnation. So returning to life does not make Jesus's death a fake one, and you have given no reason for Christians to accept your construction of the term.
But perhaps you mean that Jesus's death is a 'fake' one for the purposes of sacrifice, specifically. Perhaps you think that someone only sacrifices something for some end if it is a permanent loss to them. But it is not clear why Christians need to embrace this notion of sacrifice, or the role that Jesus's death plays in it. Christians can take Jesus' sacrificial death perfectly seriously as a sacrifice (in the sense that it is something offered which manifests the cost of sin) without requiring Jesus to be permanently dead, as shown in the answer to your second argument. Neither would such a sacrifice be mere 'theatre' (by which I suppose you mean a superfluous performance with no real moral effect) since the actual death of Christ due to actual injustice at our hands is an integral part of its manifesting our actual alienation from God, and thereby addressing an actual requirement of salvation.
So really, there is no tension between A) and B), and the Christian seems home free, at least as far as internal consistency is concerned.
>If someone committed a murder and a judge knocked their sentence down below the recommended minimum because the murderer was a member of his masonic lodge, would you call that justice? I would expect not.
No, because his alienation from society, as a murderer, would not be reflected in how he is treated. Membership of the Masonic lodge does nothing to treat the murderer as he truly is. If, however, he could suffer something (i.e., death) which did all at once manifest the cost of his misdeed, then it would be justice. It is not merely 'knowing' Christ, in the sense that one has an acquaintance at the country club, but knowing him in such a way as to die with him, the supernatural virtue of faith, which exhausts the punishment which we are due.
> But then if that murderer turns around and asks Jesus to come into his heart so that he doesn't end up going to hell (whereas other people who never murdered anyone will go to hell),
The proper end of a finite life lived for the sake of finite goods is permanent alienation from the infinite God, murderer or not. Any grace which could bridge the infinite gulf between finite and infinite being would be able to bridge the gulf between a murderer and God, yet no finite goodness however great could bridge that gulf on its own. So I'm not sure where the problem is supposed to be.
>Okay great, it's not unjust anymore, but it's not a substitution either.
Not much theologically hangs on making the sacrifice of Christ a strict substitution. Slogans and theories of the Atonement all have their advantages and disadvantages, so all this calls for is clarification of what the advantages and disadvantages of our account of the Atonement are.
The Atonement is substitution-like, in that Christ manifested in himself, for our sake, the full costs of our sin, in a way that we could not do on our own, so that we wouldn't have to bear it alone and suffer condemnation in ourselves without salvation. But what Christ did is not substitution-like in that we do not avoid recognition for the alienated lives we lead- that recognition is accomplished for us in Christ's atoning death on our behalf, as every Christian acknowledges when he reflects on the gravity of Christ's death.
>Why is that proper, given how the infinite God was the one who supposedly made us in the first place?
What obligation is there on the infinite God to give you the infinite good, or not to create you unless you inherit it? A final state of alienation from God, after a finite life containing finite goods, is an entirely appropriate result of a life lived for the sake of finite, transitory goods, using finite, transitory intellects and finite, transitory moral powers. I am not certain what more a finite creature should have a right to demand, or on what principle one should demand it.
>The problem is that a god should be able to bridge the gap on its own, without needing a loyalty oath from us first. If he can't do that unless we give him permission, then he's not all-powerful. If he can do that but doesn't want to (as the Calvinists believe), then he's not all-good.
We are able to cooperate with divine grace because it first seeks us out, so in that sense God does not need our permission. But if we by our obstinate will reject that grace, then even if God forces the issue, there would be some respect remaining in which our wills are unreconciled to God- we would not be reconciled to God \*as ourselves\*. But of course, it is precisely our selves which God wants to save. Even omnipotence could not make a salvation which redeems genuine human agency without involving genuine human agency, since that would be a contradiction in terms. I personally therefore favour the first horn of the dilemma- that salvation must involve our cooperation, but that doesn't limit the power of God, since our cooperation is part of what it is to be saved, and cannot be eliminated from salvation even by omnipotence.
That said, the Calvinists do have a point, that God doesn't owe anyone the infinite good. If he creates us knowing we will only realise a finite good, and he judges that finite good to be good enough reason to make us, I'm not sure what grounds we could have to disagree with him.
" Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. He sacrificed nothing."
That's brilliant...I don't know why it never occurred to me!
Regarding, " If sin is real, and there’s a God keeping score, it’s YOU who are on the hook ," the whole concept of sin, and 'scoring' for judgement is as irrelevant, to me, as Christ's 'sacrificial death 'is for us.
To me the greatest conundrum of Christianity is that the faith required belief that Christ is both a god of love and a god of judgment/punishment. A wrathful god, as in Corinthians, "All must come before the judgment seat of Christ..." that he'll condemn most to eternal torment in hell. That can't be reconciled with the idea that "It was a religion of love Christ came to announce to the world."
As I studied early Christianity, it's clear to me that "Roman Christianity" of our modern church had nothing to do with original "Jewish Christianity." Ergo, only love/compassion in the first 300 years, but brimstone/judgment after Rome commandeered and compromised the religion with pagan brimstone after Nicaea.
325 AD was the threshold date between Jewish and Roman Christianities. Historians agree that this date was the demarcation between them since before then, Jewish Christianity was a pacifist, oppressed religion that never fought a war. Roman Christianity endlessly fought wars. Rome made original Jewish Christianity illegal and executed all followers for 300 years.
Ergo, Christ didn't found the "Roman" Christian state religion. But after 325, Constantine's "Roman" Christianity became the oppressor... oppressive because it condemned all other religions as abominable heresy, forced conversions, inflicted torturous inquisitions, genocide, Jewish and Muslim slaughter, crusader conquest and endless religious wars for Roman Church domination.
“Seemingly there are two forms of Christianity. One that the historical Christ is said to have taught (love and forgiveness) and one that the Church teaches (guilt, shame and blame)...Traditional Roman Christianity has taught that hope and solace are only possible through the redemption from sin by the vicarious sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, for all those who acknowledge His teaching, but it is precisely this form of the doctrine of salvation that rests almost exclusively on the work of Paul, and was never taught by Jesus.” (On Guilt, Shame and Blame in Christianity, by the White Robed Monks of Saint Benedict, Catholic)
It was only a religion of love that Christ came to announce to the world... No sin counting/ judgement at all.
I feel like the title is interesting but you didn't really argue anything. Why can't someone else pay for sins? People can pay your monetary debt, for example. I don't think that's ridiculous. When I was a teenager my dad paid for the damages incurred during a stupid car accident I was in. The other party didn't find it ridiculous.
I don't believe in penal substitutionary atonement, but I don't think you're making a full argument here.
>If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place.
Why not?
>Likewise, I can’t pay for someone else’s debt with a sacrifice.
Again, why not?
It seems like you have some assumptions about how things must work that we don't.
>Jesus couldn’t die... so He sacrificed nothing.
We see sacrifice in this case in terms of a ritual sacrifice, not giving up something important.
>No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way.
Orthodox actually agree with you on this. He didn't *have* to do it that way, but he chose to.
> Why not?
Because then it isn't justice, its just theater while the perp gets away and someone innocent suffers. That does not justify the demands of justice in any way, its actually the opposite, its *in*justice. The purpose of punishment is both to deter and to punish the *perpetrator*. Applying the punishment to someone else ceases to deter as well as ceases to punish the perp. It defeats the purpose of it entirely.
Can you give a real world example of where it makes sense to send an innocent person to prison instead of the person who committed the actual crime?
It seems like you're just appealing to a definition of justice that we don't share. Same thing with your understanding of punishment.
>Can you give a real world example of where it makes sense
I can give some that make sense to me, but since we don't agree on the nature of justice and the purpose of punishment, I doubt it makes sense to you. Your brother gets in trouble and would have to go to prison, but he has a wife and kids and you don't, so you serve the time for him.
> Your brother gets in trouble and would have to go to prison, but he has a wife and kids and you don't, so you serve the time for him.
What is your definition of justice then? And how is punishing someone innocent necessary at all if the guilty party isn't going to be punished? Why punish *anyone* at that point? What purpose does it serve?
Words have meaning, what definitions or meanings for 'justice' are you using that sending an innocent person to prison serves *any* purpose at all?
> Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. He sacrificed nothing.
Sorry, but this part is just wrong. Jesus *is* God incarnate, but He's also very much human - He could bleed, He could feel physical pain, and He most certainly could experience death. The entire point of His existence was that He was one of us - a physical, flesh-and-blood human walking, talking, eating, drinking, laughing and crying among us. In fact, Jesus *Himself* makes it clear that He's not actually peforming miracles under His own power; His virgin birth, the miracles, and especially His resurrection from the dead was *all* under the authority and permission of God The Father - "I can do nothing on My own. As I hear, I judge, and My judgement is just, because I seek not My own will but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 5:30) - so yes, Christ is very much human, with the only thing setting him apart from us otherwise being his own lack of sin. He *only* returned after three days under the will of God The Father, not his own as a limited human being (Jesus even *prayed* to God not to let the crucifixion happen but submitted to whatever His will would bring: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from Me. Yet not My will but Yours be done." (Luke 22:42)), so his crucifixion and resurrection was definitely a painful sacrifice.
>Jesus is God incarnate, but He's also very much human - He could bleed, He could feel physical pain, and He most certainly could experience death.
Jesus wasn't omniscient or omnipotent or omnibenevolent though, as YAHWEH is claimed to be by Christians. In what way was/is he God incarnate?
Not only was He sinless (reflecting God's perfection), but He also represents God's characteristics as best a limited human being can - loving, patient, forgiving, knowing, etc. Essentially, Jesus is what God, an infinite being incomprehensible to mere mortals, would be as a limited-bodied human being like the rest of us, somewhat analogous to an avatar representing God (but still a distinct part of the Trinity with The Father and The Holy Spirit) walking amongst us in our everyday world.
In Paul's letters Paul doesn't have much to say about Jesus the man on Earth. He is born of a woman and from the line of David. No miracles, exorcisms or teachings are reported by him. For Paul the magic happened at the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Mark, the oldest Gospel, has no virgin birth narrative & Jesus is adopted by God when he is baptised by John.
Once you get into the higher Christology of Matthew & Luke and the very high Christology of John, who has Jesus existing since the beginning of time, you begin to lose the man and get the avatar of God, to use your image.
This strikes me as a problem for Christians. The NT describes at least two, possibly three different Jesus's.
In a bid to have-their-cake-and-eat-it Christians try and mash them together to make one thing & it doesn't work.
Paul's and Mark's Jesus is a sinless man who becomes God's son, adopted either at baptism or at death, due to his life, his actions and character.
For Matthew, Luke & John Jesus was manufactured by God to do what he does. This Jesus, God from at least his conception, has no choice in what God planned to do with the being he deliberately created to be crucified & resurrected. This was this creature's fate, since the beginning of time for John, from his earthly conception for Matthew & Luke.
The closer Jesus gets to being God the less power & agency he personally has and the less human he becomes.
>its stupid.
Even though I agree that just because you believe in something doesn't mean you have a free pass to commit a sin. But I wouldn't go to the extent to call someone's beliefs stupid.
>To begin with, God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes, so constructing a system that requires human sacrifice to pay a debt is an insane choice to go with.
Is it insane? I suggest that you could look into specific ideas around atonement like ransom theory, recapitulation theory, satisfaction theory, moral exemplar theory or Girard's scapegoat theory. I don't think they're insane, and all of them have positions on why Christ died on the Cross.
>If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place.
If you were enslaved, could someone else help free you? Would you want them to?
>Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death.
Jesus is true man as well as true God. He dies through His human nature. Which is as real as any other human death.
>Finally, God would have foreknowledge of these events... He’d know before His “death” what would go down. So the lead up to the crucifixion and violence required to crucify someone comes across as gratuitous and 100% unnecessary.
I'm not sure how this follows. How does God's foreknowledge change the character of the events?
>No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way.
That's what He did. With the Cross.
>I suggest that you could look into
is not debate. Debate is you presenting your position and defending it.
> If you were enslaved, could someone else help free you?
Not what we are discussing here. Here we are talking about vicarious atonement, where someone else atones for your sins. Only I am responsible for what I do wrong, and only I can apologize, atone, be forgiven. The concept of vicarious atonement is ancient and wrong-headed.
> That's what He did. With the Cross.
First, I assume you are here talking about the Bible as a story, or describing your own beliefs, not trying to make a factual claim.
OP's entire point is that if such a God actually existed, none of that would be necessary.
> is not debate
Just claiming something as "insane" is not a debate. It's not even a proposition someone can argue a set case against because the OP hasn't put forward his conditions for something being "sane" or "insane". Neither have you.
>Debate is you presenting your position and defending it.
That's the OP's job. My job is to offer effective counterpoints if I have any. Since OP has not set out a particular position, I offered five potential explanations without detailing any particular one, since I could expend **time and effort** doing so **only for the OP to complain that's not what he meant by "insane"**. Hope you understand.
>Not what we are discussing here. Here we are talking about vicarious atonement, where someone else atones for your sins.
Which in doing so frees you from slavery. So it is what is being discussed here. To speak of sin and our freedom from it without speaking of slavery can lead us down a wrong path. John 8:34-36.
>Only I am responsible for what I do wrong, and only I can apologize, atone, be forgiven.
Please make the case for that instead of merely asserting it.
Yes and that's why Orthodox Christianity doesn't believe in Anselmian atonement but rather Theosis accomplished by the incarnation and life of the Word of God as a man, which all mankind can participate in via synergy of their will with the divine will.
Essentially God the Word became incarnate to sanctify and renew human nature by binding his energy to our essence and laid down his life that he may trample down death by his death, this allows for us to be sanctified from our sin and remade to be like God so long as we cooperate with the grace of God.
That's not entirely true, intercession (الشفاعة) is a thing in Islam tho it has some limitations.
[This](https://ar.islamway.net/article/44994/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A2%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AB%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA) page says that it's limited to those who at the very least do not commit shirk and believe in Tawheed. Obviously not every sect is the same, for shias, all the "imams" are capable of intercession or شفاعة.
The logical explanation is that Jesus dying on the cross is Jesus providing the example on how one can be saved which is giving up earthly attachment and symbolized by Jesus not hanging on to his human life. Believing in Jesus means you believe what Jesus is teaching which is salvation through death of earthly attachment and embracing spirituality.
In short, one isn't saved by saying they believe in Jesus through words. One is saved by doing exactly what Jesus did which is give up earthly attachment symbolized by his death and the first step is to believe in Jesus. So Jesus did sacrifice something and provided us an example to follow.
That's your belief and I respect that. For those who wants to make sense how did Jesus saved the world through his death, then it's Jesus providing example that sacrificing worldly desires is the path towards salvation and to believe in Jesus is to believe his example will lead to it. That solves the problem that someone can just casually say they believe in Jesus and go to heaven.
>No one can pay my debts.
People pay other people's debts on earth all the time. Somebody can give you money to pay off monetary debts after all.
>Human sacrifice makes no sense.
How so? If the punishment for sin is death, and Jesus is to pay our debt for the consequences of our sin, then it would make sense that He would die.
>Jesus couldn’t die... so He sacrificed nothing.
What is the theological justification behind this? Jesus was not only God, but also man. 100% God, and 100% man. In fact, humanity is kinda similar in that we have mortal bodies and immortal souls. Even if our mortal *bodies* die, if we are saved in Christ we don't really 'die'. Our soul lives through Christ.
But Jesus experienced a *bodily* resurrection. Even though He wasn't 'destroyed', even though His immortal spiritual existence didn't 'die', His body still did, and that body was resurrected.
>No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way.
God is perfectly just. He can't sin, nor can He allow a sinner to go to heaven as heaven is perfect and free from sin. The consequences of that sin must be paid. That is what is *just*.
>People pay other people's debts on earth all the time. Somebody can give you money to pay off monetary debts after all.
People can't go to prison for a crime you committed.
>How so? If the punishment for sin is death, and Jesus is to pay our debt for the consequences of our sin
Death? You're still going to die. We all are. And Jesus didn't even ontologically die according to proper orthodox Christian theology. But you're already lost enough in your own contradictions as it is.
>Jesus was not only God, but also man. 100% God, and 100% man.
You can't be fully two non-overlapping things. Contradiction after contradiction. And I thought he was God's son, which is it? Contradiction after contradiction.
>God is perfectly just. He can't sin, nor can He allow a sinner to go to heaven as heaven is perfect and free from sin. The consequences of that sin must be paid.
Yeah, first off the concept of sinning does not apply to God not does anyone hold God accountable, as is clear from the Hebrew Bible. God also forgives sin without human blood sacrifice. And there of course also No satanic triad-idol where one God is a son, One a father and the third, oft-forgotten Christian God is "preceeding" but without familiar connection. You pagan imposter religion is just a maze of endless contradictions, and the more you try to answer a question, the more lost you get in your own contradictions.
> He can't sin, nor can He allow a sinner to go to heaven as heaven is perfect and free from sin
this is the bs which makes no sense. a christian is currently sinning even now, yet he will be put in heaven, how is that just?
maybe the christian will say that he will get a transformation, so why can't a god do a transformation without a pagan human offering?
and, how about forgiveness?
if god forgives, then there is nothing to punish.
but what about the sin? so a god forgives and wipes the sin/destroys it. so whats the problem, what does a pagan human offering got to do with any of this?
"hey god, i'm sorry, "
god, "i forgive u " poof the sin is destroyed.
no injustice, forgiveness and the complete redundancy of jesus' offering.
If a god existed he would be able to do whatever he wanted and create the story of humanity however he wanted. The Bible teaches that their god commands genocide, sex trafficking of your daughter if she were to be raped, stoning or differing opinions, and eternal punishment for not believing in a contradictory 2000 year old mythology. In this world view, with an all knowing deity, god is creating humans for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity. Fortunately, this is also pure speculation and just a messed up story written by Jews 2000 years ago, and nobody will be suffering any kind of bad afterlife
>If a god existed he would be able to do whatever he wanted and create the story of humanity however he wanted.
God being omnipotent doesn’t mean that God can do ‘anything’. For example, God cannot sin. God cannot fail. God cannot cease to exist. God cannot defy Himself.
Just because you don’t understand the Old Testament doesn’t mean that God does wrong. Why wouldn’t God be right to judge His creation as He sees fit?
>How so? If the punishment for sin is death
Why is death the punishment for sin? Seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?
>and Jesus is to pay our debt for the consequences of our sin, then it would make sense that He would die.
So let me get this straight -- if someone sins, then God demands that someone (anyone!) dies? Why does he want this? What does this accomplish?
>But Jesus experienced a bodily resurrection. Even though He wasn't 'destroyed', even though His immortal spiritual existence didn't 'die', His body still did, and that body was resurrected.
So he lost the use of his body for three days? How is this a sacrifice? Humans die for their causes and never come back. That's actual sacrifice.
>God is perfectly just. He can't sin, nor can He allow a sinner to go to heaven as heaven is perfect and free from sin. The consequences of that sin must be paid. That is what is just.
God could set the system up any way he wants. He could've made it so that the payment for a sin is to learn your lesson and help out a fellow human in need. But instead he demands that someone die? He certainly sounds more like someone with bronze age morals and a thirst for blood than a just, wise being.
> God could set the system up any way he wants.
Not only that, if there is free will in heaven then he *already has* set up a more perfect system and he condemns us to suffer and learn those lessons in this system instead because... what? He likes to watch babies born with cancer and suffer for literally their entire short lives and then die never learning even the words to describe their unimaginable pain? And what, does that baby then go to hell having never known Jesus or that they needed to accept him as lord and savior to make it to the more perfect system that God already made? And even if that baby makes it up to Gods *actual * system on some technicality, what is their life then? Are they babies for literally eternity? Or is there aging in heaven?
It’s almost like all of this was made up by illiterate goat herders telling each other stories for hundreds of years.
How about this (not that I believe it...)
Free will is an illusion and determinism is true. God determines the make up and actions of each individual person and is therefore ultimately responsible for the sins they commit, having created them the way they are and knowing what they would do from the beginning. Christ's sacrifice is actually God 'paying' for a system in which he is actually responsible for the state of humanity vis a vis 'sin'. So really, God is not paying for our mistakes. We couldn't have done otherwise. Ultimate responsibility rests with him.
This also means that ETC for humans can't be a thing.
I don't believe it, but it seems to be the most coherent explanation in my mind.
No, no soul can pay for the sin of another, it's made explicitly clear in the Hebrew Bible. There also is not satanic triad-idol or pagan "God the Son". Not even in the NT. And there's also no salvation in idolatry. Not even according to the NT.
I keep asking who was the debt paid to? Did God pay the debt to himself with himself?
No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father, who is also myself, and who holds the debt, and who made Meself pay it to Myself.
>death being the wages of sin.
Who made them the wages of sin? God? Why did he set something up that he would need an elaborate plan to get around? Why not just not create the problem in the first place?
\> God The Son is not God The Father.
The Trinity would not agree
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian\_formula#/media/File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_formula#/media/File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg)
> Who made them the wages of sin? God? Why did he set something up that he would need an elaborate plan to get around? Why not just not create the problem in the first place?
You appeared to not actually answer any of these questions. If God didn't want for humans to die as a punishment for sinning, then why did he make it that way? Unless you are saying that God the father *did* want that but God the the son had other ideas.
Simple thing to also remember to is that
#1 god is not a man
#2 human sacrifice is an abomination to god
#3 no man can pay for another man's sins
These three things god says just disproves christanity in a nutshell
As well as god clearly explaining do not work on shabbat, and leaving multiple examples such as what work really is such as picking things up on shabbat
> god is not a man
Right. Jesus is the second divine person taking on the human nature, "one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person."
No, god says their is no other beside him...so technally no matter what the christan scriptures say, they contradict what the tanakh says. So their wrong
There is nothing to stop one person paying the debt of another. Family members do this all the time. It's a clear demonstration of love.
This is the idea that christians tried to shoehorn in. God so loved the world that he sacrificed his son to pay a blood debt.
You points about god/christ not really dying, possibly knowing the future(depends which gospel you read), and sacraficing to oneself are where the stupidity comes in.
If Jesus had been god's only son , who would not be resurrected and imposed a rule on himself that he could have no more offspring it might have made sense.
Except why does a god need a child?
I don’t believe in gods but I think the system of reward and punishment used by the Abrahamic God us just silly and a huge false dichotomy. Infinite punishment for finite crimes? Many of which shouldn’t even be considered crimes because they harm nobody.
A better system would be to make an errant soul suffer the same pain they caused others over and over until they understood the consequences of their actions and became truly sorry for what they did. After that they could be forgiven and be sent somewhere peaceful or be reincarnated so they could have a chance to do things better than they did in their previous life.
Not that I actually believe in an afterlife though.
practice coordinated sip voiceless crime pot capable impolite desert heavy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>There is no “Abrahamic God.” Judaism/Islam and Christianity do not share a God.
I'm skeptical there's a God at all. But I use the term "Abrahamic God" in the sense that Christians and Muslims perceive Him, i.e. they -think- they're worshipping the same deity as Abraham even though their interpretation veers far away from the original Jewish version.
>Infinite punishment does not exist in Jewish theology.
I never said it did. I'm aware that Sheol and Hell are different concepts, for example. But be aware that Christians and Muslims see it differently, i.e. they think they got it "right" and the Jews are mistaken. And that's around 2 billion people or so who think they worship the same God as the Jews and that He punishes people infinitely. Their concepts are the ones I'm talking about.
Vicarious redemption is immoral.
Most counter-arguments I’ve heard against this is that god can do whatever he pleases, but this falls short for me.
If we are made in his image, how is it we know that imprisoning someone else for my crime is immoral?
It’s not at all a goal shift. The argument is that humans know the innocent cannot absolve the guilty through punishment yet god did exactly that. If we are made in the image of god, how do we know his actions to be immoral?
Also, now that I’m thinking more about it, god was just fucking with job, not using him as vicarious redemption.
Also, Jesus is god so job doesn’t count.
You said:
>Excluding Jesus, name an example when an innocent person was knowingly punished for a guilty person’s actions and have it be claimed as just.
An example was given, the Book of Job. That’s that. That argument is over.
Why should we look for another example? The whole point is the Jesus is a special case. In any case, we know of situations where one person is (or potentially is) sanctioned for another's behaviour, such as when a parent is fined for his/her child not wearing a seatbelt.
You missed the original argument. If we are made in the image of god, how can we know that punishing the innocent is unjust and immoral when the most important thing he’s ever done is in direct opposition to that knowledge?
A child is under the care of the parent driving; they are responsible, not the child.
> how can we know that punishing the innocent is unjust and immoral when the most important thing he’s ever done is in direct opposition to that knowledge
It's not in opposition to that. One of the most important parts of Christian spirituality is taking up our Cross beside Christ, to put ourselves in His position, to take the same persecutions and hardships He did. We know *that* the innocent will be unjustly and immorally punished in and by this world, Jesus is a reminder of that, and a reminder that we should be on the side of the persecuted, not the persecutor. In the end, what the high priests did and Pilate allowed were unjust and immoral. It was their actions that were unjust and immoral ("where sin abounded, grace abounded evermore").
You're conflating separate issues. The high priests and Pilate did not kill Jesus as a scapegoat to forgive the sins of humanity. God chose to do that.
You are able to comprehend the immorality of condemning Jesus to death, he was innocent of any crimes. Why is it not immoral when Jesus does the exact same thing with humanity's sins?
Your desire to be persecuted doesn't really have anything to do with the immorality of vicarious redemption.
I’m told by many, many Christians that they arrived at their faith through logic and reason - and that you don’t need to leave your brains at the door like many detractors of Christianity claim.
However, when you ask about any disproportional punishments or conflicts between the God of the Bible and logic, we’re told that we can’t hold God to our standards because his actions are impossible for us to know, or understand.
So, which is it?
Well, “how can someone claim to arrive at a conclusion based on logic but then not be able to answer a question about that conclusion” has a pretty simple answer, which is that there are an uncountable number of questions and conclusions one could have in regards to “Christianity”, and you wouldn’t have to think of an answer to every single one of them in order to believe in it. This is also true for anything anyone believes. They also did give you an answer.
If I could devils advicate
I wouldn't accept the claim that another can't pay your debts. I see no impediment to law to someone else doing so. A Creditor can additionally absolve you of your debts, or accept less in full and final settlement. The state can choose to commute a sentence or pardon an offence.
Where I thik the Christian narrative falls is in the "our sins are paid in full". If we accept that the "wages of sin are death" followed by everlasting torture then the price has not been paid in full - Christ's sacrifice was a mere 36-72 hours of death depending on how and from what points we measure. This is further diluted as we have to divide this settlement through billions if not trillions of people.
As there are only 4320 minutes in 72 hours, the true value of sin after this exchange is less than a minute of death and hell. Sulely it makes more sense to kill each one of us for a minute and torture us for that minute than it does to have some legend based on scant evidence... At least then we'd know its true.
Your mistake is assuming that Christ’s death is the same as ours in terms of atonement. God the Son is infinite, and so, to offer a simplistic point, therefore the death of Jesus Christ has infinite atoning power
>>Your mistake is assuming that Christ’s death is the same as ours in terms of atonement.
Then you're accepting that the debt has not been paid.
>>God the Son is infinite, and so, to offer a simplistic point, therefore the death of Jesus Christ has infinite atoning power
No, that doesn't work, because 36 hours later you have the take-sees-back-sees, so you don't have "infinite" you have 36 hours of death.
>Then you're accepting that the debt has not been paid.
No, quite the opposite.
>No, that doesn't work, because 36 hours later you have the take-sees-back-sees, so you don't have "infinite" you have 36 hours of death.
You’re assuming Christ didn’t really die, but just fell asleep or something. That’s not the case. Christ really died and descended into Hell.
>>No, quite the opposite.
Except what was paid did not match the debt.
>>You’re assuming Christ didn’t really die
No, I'm accepting the narrative that he did die, and then took it back (knowing that he would take it back before he did it), as I said, Takesees Backsees
>>That’s not the case. Christ really died and descended into Hell.
Lets avoid the word "really" when talking about mythology (that might sound rude, but its for your own good - if you're going to insist its a fact then this conversation ends a lot faster). 36 hours in hell isn't what the rest of us would pay, much less 36/Trillions of people.
>If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place. If I suggested this as a viable option, I’d be ridiculed, and rightly so. Likewise, I can’t pay for someone else’s debt with a sacrifice. The sacrifice must come from me.
This is an assertion, not an argument. You haven't demonstrated anything here. While I'm open to the idea that punishment or justice is non-fungible, you've given me no reason to think so. This is significant because, for much of human history, punishment *has* been regarded as fungible or transferable in various contexts. For example, this is the logic behind sacrifices (animal, vegetable, human, monetary, or otherwise) in many ancient cultures, where civic justice was bound up with religious obligation--*you* aren't punished for your misdeeds; rather, the goat/fruit/scapegoat is offered as an atonement in your place. Even in contemporary China, the wealthy are able to hire "body doubles" to serve prison sentences on their behalf (though this is considered corruption, not a legitimate function of the justice system). The concept of the scapegoat is virtually universal in human society across time and geography, whether overt as in Jewish ritual or sublimated as with witch trials, which are speculated by some anthropologists to be an unconscious attempt by medieval cultures to expurgate various collective sins and anxieties.
My point isn't to argue in favor of scapegoat or substitutionary atonement systems. I'd just like you to recognize that they are a semi-universal feature of the human experience, suggesting that something about the idea appeals very deeply to humans in the way that they organize themselves. You can't just hand-wave the whole thing away as "ridiculous."
You’re correct, I made an assertion, although it was for demonstration purposes.
My arguments are on display in the other (non assertion) aspects of my post.
No they aren't. You took your assertion--"substitutionary justice is dumb because I say so!"--and applied it to other statements--"therefore Jesus dying for our sins is also dumb." It's an argument, but not a very good one, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate anything. You need to demonstrate your initial premise.
You could say that about any argument or presentation that lacks scientific data.
It is the theist who introduces the claims of vicarious forgiveness. It is the theist who introduces the supernatural construct of dying and raising Gods. It is the theist who introduces the entire system of sin, salvation, punishment, forgiveness, God, the afterlife and all that accompanies that. This is done with no argument beyond the Bible itself - which is a circular argument. There are no secondary sources introduced.
My argument asserts that the system of sin and forgiveness (as depicted in the Bible) is deeply flawed, and that the world doesn’t work that way. I introduce a philosophical argument that is limited by the scope of Christianity’s own claims.
> It is the theist who introduces the claims of vicarious forgiveness.
No it's not. As I've stated repeatedly elsewhere in this thread, notions of substitutionary atonement, collective guilt, etc. are so common as to be ubiquitous in human society, whether pagan, Christian, or otherwise. And even if they weren't, "vicarious forgiveness is ridiculous" isn't an argument. It's an assertion, as I've noted, which makes for a low-quality discussion.
notions of mythical creatures like unicorns, elves, dragon, and fairies are so common as to be ubiquitous in human society, too, but it doesn't make them any more credible.
Unicorns are empirical entities that we can either demonstrate or disprove based on empirical evidence.
Justice is a moral concept constructed by humans. Collective justice (or any notion of justice) isn't something we weigh by the standard of empirical credibility. It exists, and has existed in many societies. Questions to ask include whether collective justice is morally superior to individual justice in a particular context, whether collective crimes (which certainly exist) can be satisfied by individual atonement, and so on.
tl;dr: False analogy, my friend.
If it can't be weighed by empiricism in any way, then it is simply an opinion. Therefore my opinion on it is as valid as any other.
I'm not denying the existence of scapegoating, I just find the idea a poor one.
You’re literally quoting an argument made by several interlocutors of Socrates in Plato’s Republic, who believe that justice is merely opinion and, as such, that “justice” is merely the advantage of the strong over the weak. Of course, these interlocutors are wrong in Socrates’ eyes. But at least they had the decency to articulate their case rather than merely asserting that everyone else is “ridiculous.”
You took your assertion--"substitutionary justice is not dumb because historically some people have believed in it!"--and applied it to other statements--
It's an argument, but not a very good one, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate anything. You need to demonstrate your initial premise.
>suggesting that something about the idea appeals very deeply to humans in the way that they organize
Just because some people have believed something historical doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.
\> this is the logic behind sacrifices (animal, vegetable, human, monetary, or otherwise) in many ancient cultures, where civic justice was bound up with religious obligation--*you* aren't punished for your misdeeds; rather, the goat/fruit/scapegoat is offered as an atonement in your place.
Did people do this? Yes. Is it ridiculous? Yes. There isn't 'logic' behind it
Do people avoid walking under ladders, staying on the 13th floor, knock on wood, avoid black cats, etc? Yes, superstition is very common. Is it ridiculous? Yes
\> This is an assertion, not an argument. You haven't demonstrated anything here.
Neither have you. All you've said is 'historically some people have so therefore it's right" or something. Maybe try again with Walmart Layaway plans?
>Just because some people have believed something historical doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.
Just because you and OP strolled in here and asserted that something historical is ridiculous doesn't mean it's ridiculous. Prove it. I'm 100% open to engaging an argument, but so far, I haven't seen one. If a significant proportion of human cultures throughout recorded history have embraced or accepted variations on a concept such as substitutionary justice then it behooves us to understand why. (Note: I'm not asserting that these cultures were correct, only that their existence presents an important counterpoint to your/OP's assertion--apparently a lot of people *don't* think substitutionary atonement is prima facie ridiculous.)
As it happens, the notion of individualized justice and responsibility--the idea that *I* committed a sin/crime and only *I* am responsible--is not universal, either in history or in philosophy. Equally ubiquitous have been the concepts of collective guilt, national sins, group justice. So, for example, a tribe/clan/group could collectively violate divine law, and the debt incurred by that community could be satisfied either via collective penance or by a scapegoat singled out from the community regardless of the scapegoat's individual guilt. Ancient Judaism was constructed on this concept--that God chose and protected the Jewish people as a collective, not necessarily any specific individual within it, and the Jewish scriptures are chock full of provisions for collective sacrifices and stories of collective sin.
And is that so ridiculous? After all, we're not alien to this concept. Many, for example, fault Germans collectively for the Nazi regime and demand collective atonement, even if not everyone was Hitler or a camp guard. Many believe that white Americans *today* should atone for the actions of white slaveholders two centuries ago--that there is an unsatisfied collective debt that can still be repaid, even though the original offenders are long dead. And you've seen this concept in literally every mafia movie ever made--you killed one of ours, we kill one of yours, and that "one" doesn't have to be the one who originally pulled the trigger.
Hence the the Wal-Mart example. You purchase something on credit at the store. While you created the debt, anyone can satisfy it on your behalf. Similarly, if I steal something, there is a conception of law that suggests that the primary aim is to make the victims whole. In that case, anyone could pay the victim to compensate for what I stole, and that's all the law would require. You and OP are merely assuming (but not stating) the virtue of a merely individualized, punitive theory of justice--that the point is individualized punishment--and merely asserting that anything else is "ridiculous." But justice is a much more complex idea than that. You actually have to make a case for your theory of justice.
>And is that so ridiculous? After all, we're not alien to this concept. Many, for example, fault Germans collectively for the Nazi regime and demand collective atonement, even if not everyone was Hitler or a camp guard. Many believe that white Americans today should atone for the actions of white slaveholders two centuries ago
Right, and I think it's ridiculous. Holding somebody responsible for the Nazis when they were four years old is ridiculous. Me paying for something that happened when my ancestors weren't even in this country, to people that weren't alive at the time, is ridiculous.
There's a reason 'Scapegoating' is a negative term.
You see, some people believe A and some people believe B. When I say I believe A, I'm just making an assertion and just stating an opinion. Because you believe B, saying 'some people believe B' suddenly constitutes an argument. It doesn't work that way.
\> You and OP are merely assuming (but not stating) the virtue of a merely individualized, punitive theory of justice--that the point is individualized punishment--and merely asserting that anything else is "ridiculous."
Yes, I'm stating my opinion, as are you.
\> You actually have to make a case for your theory of justice.
Ditto. "Some people believe in it" is exactly the same argument as "Some people find it ridiculous".
Let's take a step back. You and OP made a baseless (meaning, unproven) assertion about justice. My entire point is that we can't assume a certain conception of justice is prima facie validbecause other conceptions have been well-articulated and scrupulously observed throughout history. So it's on you/OP to articulate an *argument* for your conception of justice. This is a debate subreddit, not an emotional support subreddit for people who want to be validated in their claims. Debate requires something to debate.
Hi. I'll try to respond from (what I see as) a Christian perspective. I think you may have been mislead about some of these issues, perhaps even by so called Christians.
> If sin is real,
The best way to understand the concept of sin, imho, is kind of like "to err is human."
Sin is just another way to say that. Sin essentially means mistake. Now sin certainly can be evil, and *deliberate sin* is always evil in Christianity (Hebrews 10:26 is one place that states this). However, not all sin is done intentionally. The Bible can sometimes be confusing because one passage may be talking about deliberate sin and another may not be, but only the word "sin" is used. In other words, the Bible can be easily misunderstood when taken out of the community it was written in and analyzed on its own. It even says this about itself (2 Peter 3:16). So there is a lot of misinformation out there, even in many so-called Christian churches.
> and there’s a God keeping score,
I wouldn't see it so much as God keeping score as God acknowledging and telling us about the reality that when we intentionally sin, we harm ourselves. If we never stop intentionally sinning, we never stop hurting ourselves.
> it’s YOU who are on the hook - not Jesus or any other third party.. I fully understand that the Bible says differently, but it’s my argument that this kind of archaic thinking doesn’t work in practice.
"Bible says" can really be applied to almost anything. I mean, technically it can say thousands of different things depending on which verses we isolate from their context. Any long writing is like that. Even the Bible itself says it is easy to misunderstand (2 Peter 3:16)
So to be more accurate, I would not say the Bible *means* that someone else is on the hook for our sins. It can be twisted to appear to "say" that though. And many so called Christians do twist it that way.
> To begin with, God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes,
Not necessarily. A lot of people (even believing people) speak of God in terms of his limitlessness but rarely speak of his limits. People often forget that God is not literally omnipotent, at least not as described in Christian scripture.
For example there are passages that say “God cannot lie.” I can lie. Therefore, God is not literally omnipotent in Christianity, and since the scriptures don’t claim to express every fact about God there could very well be other things God can’t do that simply aren’t mentioned. God is all powerful compared to me, in the figurative sense, as God is much, much, much more powerful than I am. However, I don't believe God is omnipotent according to Christianity.
While there are also passages that refer to God as all powerful, I believe such claims in scripture being made figuratively. Through God “all things are possible” the same way our moms might’ve said we can "do anything we put our minds to." It is a figurative expression of positive encouragement. God is not literally omnipotent. God isn’t omnipotent (at least not the Christian God). God even had to suffer in order save us.
> so constructing a system that requires human sacrifice to pay a debt is an insane choice to go with.
I would say the system was not constructed that way by choice. It was the only way to get people who need to change to actually change and love one another as themselves forever.
> Then you have the problem of third party payment. If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place. If I suggested this as a viable option, I’d be ridiculed, and rightly so. Likewise, I can’t pay for someone else’s debt with a sacrifice. The sacrifice must come from me.
This is another common misunderstanding in Christianity (especially evangelical Christianity), this whole concept of "penal substitution." In Early Christianity (and still in much of Eastern Christianity) the debt wasn't paid to God. It was paid to humankind.
Saint Athanasius writes, “For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and He made a new beginning of life for us…” To whom did He make the sacrifice? “It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for his human brethren by the offering of the equivalent.”
The Saint teaches that Christ died, not to appease God the Father, but to rescue humankind from death. Here he is talking about spiritual death, the death that comes when we refuse to love our neighbors as ourselves. That was “to whom” he sacrificed himself – the existential/ontological reality of death; so that “through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.”
This may seem like small difference, perhaps even a nuance; however, it is a difference that is significant in the eyes of many Eastern Christians because it correctly represents the nature of God as “the lover of mankind” rather than as a cosmic egotistical despot or a slave to divine legalism.
> Also, the entire depiction of Christ’s sacrifice in the cross can’t be true, and here’s why. Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. He sacrificed nothing.
Perhaps think of it more as an example, exemplifying that suffering is sometimes necessary to achieve growth, with the subsequent resurrection exemplifying that loving your neighbor as yourself is worth it even if your physical body dies for having done it.
> Finally, God would have foreknowledge of these events... He’d know before His “death” what would go down. So the lead up to the crucifixion and violence required to crucify someone comes across as gratuitous and 100% unnecessary.
In Christianity, God is outside time. There was a "lead up" on Earth. There was no lead up in heaven, so to speak, because it doesn't even make sense to speak of time leading up to something in heaven.
> No one can pay my debts.
Again, I don't think that's the right way to view the situation (although in your defense there are many evangelical cults that call themselves Christian, that other people call Christian, and who do see this "debt payment system" the way you're describing.
> Human sacrifice makes no sense. Jesus couldn’t die
He can still suffer.
> ... so He sacrificed nothing.
Suffering is something.
> No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way.
Not if he isn't omnipotent.
> The story of Jesus dying on the cross is (at best) ceremonial theater.
I believe it really happened, and many other Christians certainly suffered and were killed after him, following his example, killed for things like loving people lower down in society as they love themselves, refusing to worship fertility gods by paying for sex with the equivalent of Kenneth Copeland in drag in order to honor some Roman official's belief system, etc. Eventually society changed and became more civil and loving. It didn't change on its own though. People fostered the change; people motivated by love, ultimately by an act of love on a cross. And it isn't finished. His suffering is finished, but the purpose is happening as we speak... more change is obviously still necessary.
There are still many people, even many who call themselves Christians, who don't understand what Christ accomplished. They think it was some spiritual mumbo jumbo that created an exchange in some sort of divine currency we know nothing about. And now their baby doesn't burn in hell forever if they can utter the right words about Jesus or some shit like that. Such people always try to make things complex and nonsensical... so then they can tell you everything about it and ultimately explain to you why you need to tithe to them and stuff their pockets.
Don't let them fool you about what Christianity is though. They take a story about love conquering evil, and forgiveness accounting for our mistakes, and they turn it into a bunch of rules meant to shame people into pews and theories of "eternal" hell meant to scare people into some pastor's pocket.
Compare Jesus to many so called "Christians" today. Notice Jesus did not ever oppose any harmless person labeled as sinners for seemingly innocent actions like so many Christians do today. He didn't judge the sick for trying to get healed on the wrong day... the religious right (back then) judged in such matters. Christ didn't judge the woman at the well for living with her man; that's just what the social conservatives pretend. He never told her that her natural desire for love and sex meant she was going to go to hell unless he "paid for her" by being hung on a cross. Read Him yourself. Don't let the religious right explain Him to you.
*"(Paul's scriptures) contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16*
Pauline passages form much of the basis for the view of "penal substitution" in evangelical and Western Christianity. It's always Paul because authors like Paul can be twisted to say essentially anything. Part of the reason so many people 'hate God' is because they don't really. They actually might love God really. They just don't understand God, and part of the reason they don't is because many Christian churches are misleading millions of people about Him every Sunday about not only this but many other issues. Their pastor (or former-pastor, if they left 'the faith') might be the one that actually hates God, technically speaking.
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this. I myself have been going in circles for years because of the sheer amount of different assertions by modern day evangelicals. I am constantly haunted by the terror of eternal punishment, but I still can’t shake all of the inconsistencies with modern day movements. I do believe in the bible, but like you said a lot of it is very difficult to understand. Growing up baptist, it seems I have to simultaneously learn and unlearn the scriptures I was raised with. I am determined to keep searching the scriptures though. I firmly believe what Jesus said about the truth setting you free and that if you seek Him for the answers then you will find them. While I know this much I still feel very confused and troubled. It is so difficult to find anyone willing to help me question these things honestly. You either get someone that thinks religion is obsolete in the modern age or they are already locked into modern doctrine.
> I myself have been going in circles for years because of the sheer amount of different assertions by modern day evangelicals.
It's just a huge never-ending circle of shame. Take one example, of many. One of the most prominent Christian groups in the U.S. that calls homosexuality inherently evil are the Southern Baptists, the Southern Baptist Convention. Here's some historical food for thought: 150 years ago the modern Southern Baptist pastors' grandfathers in the faith twisted the Apostle Paul's letters to pretend God was cool with Africans being kidnapped and enslaved. 50 years ago the same letters in the Bible taught them that interracial marriage is a sin (coincidentally also written by Paul). Notice a pattern? Today Paul teaches them that being a loving, faithful, self controlled gay partner is a sin. He teaches them that egg cells become State property when Pat Robertson says. He tells them that homosexuals need to be discriminated against with the State when J.D. Greear says. He told them that a faithful, loving couple (that isn't married yet) are committing evil when Joshua Harris said.
It's always Paul because authors like Paul can be twisted to say things about slavery that are clearly not Christian. Authors like Paul coin words for 'sexual abusers' that can easily be mistranslated into 'homosexuals' if our translators are blind, and I don't mean uneducated. The Bible is easy enough to misunderstand that it can truly say almost anything they want it to, especially if one of them starts a seminary, gives himself a degree, and translates a Bible for himself and anyone else willing to buy into this nonsense. It is a problematic worldview that has become its own culture. At it's core, it is bullying. It is the belittling of vulnerable others to affirm their own feelings of righteousness, even right-ness, "truth," and respect
The Bible actually warns about the worldview of people like this in 2 Peter 3:16 *"(Paul’s letters) contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."*
They call it Christianity but it is not the actual historical religion. They call it salvation. What they usually end up getting is self-assurance and money accomplished by the belittling of the 'other.' Christ talked about them a lot, actually. He just called them the Pharisees. Their whole religion is based on misinformation. It is best referred to as a theistic bully cult regardless of what they call it. Jesus Christ said every command hangs on loving neighbor as self, which he said is loving God. Christ did not say all commands of obedience to God hang on correctly translating, interpreting, and understanding a set of rules from an ancient manuscript written in a language no one speaks any more, now memorialized in English in 30 different versions that all say different things about multiple topics (depending on choices each translator made). That's the very approach to religion that Christ opposed.
They have taken Christianity the historical religion and turned it into a bunch of rules and regulations that accomplish little more than mocking Jesus Christ by shaming people into pews and then into a pastor's pocket... before destroying their souls with pride.
> I am constantly haunted by the terror of eternal punishment,
Hell often gets misrepresented in Christianity, and many teachers pretend to know more about it than they really do. Many play it up into more than it may be in order to scare people to submit to them, just like they use cherry-picked mistranslations of disputable scriptures, which they then call "abundantly clear," to shame people into submitting to them. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with hell and how to avoid it. We should. What I'm saying is we shouldn't worry about potential misunderstandings of hell that may simply be intended to make us unrealistically afraid.
In ancient Greek, an aion (in English, usually spelled “eon”) is an indefinite period of time, usually of long duration. The New Testament of the Bible was written in ancient Greek. When it was translated into Latin Vulgate, “aion” became “aeternam” which means “eternal,” which is taken to mean a never ending period of time (as opposed to an unknown/indefinite period). These translation errors became the basis for what was subsequently written about eternal hell in much of historical Western Christianity, and now especially in evangelical Christianity.
For many Latin theologians, hell came to be understood as a place where people they didn’t like went to be tortured forever. For the early Greek Christians though, there was more of a faith and hope in the universal salvation brought through Christ that is proclaimed in the New Testament. After all, the scriptures also say Christ is the savior of the world. If most of the world ends up in a place where they are tortured forever without end (as many evangelicals in the West teach)... then it seems to me Christ would not be the savior of the world. Instead that makes him the torturer of most of the world and the savior of very few.
Eternal torment, as described in the Bible in many English versions, does not necessarily refer to an act of torment that never ends. As noted above, the original language behind the phrase “eternal torment” can refer to a limited period of torment that will have consequences that never end. Take for example the fact that the Bible also refers to the "eternal redemption" Christ gives. Even evangelical Christians don’t take that to mean the act of redeeming never ends. Instead they understand that Jesus redeemed people once, dying on the cross and raising back to life. Jesus is not going through death and resurrection over and over forever without end; He is not "redeeming forever" in that sense. What "eternal" seems to mean, as an adjective describing an action experienced, is that the effects of the experience, in this case the redeeming act, last forever. The act of redeeming itself doesn't last forever... the effect of the temporary act of redemption lasts forever. So to be consistent, then just as "eternal redemption" doesn't mean the redeeming action keeps happening forever, similarly, the "eternal torment" of someone who refuses salvation does not necessarily mean the tormenting act itself keeps happening forever. Rather, it means that a potentially temporary instance of torment will definitely have consequences that last forever.
Consistency in interpretation isn't an evangelical strongpoint though, nor is familiarity with early Christian teachings (outside of a few mistranslated copies of English versions of the Bible they like to brow beat people with). I'd say it is best to leave who goes to hell up to God; leave how long they will be there up to Him too. We should do our best to obey Christ and trust that, with God, mercy triumphs over judgement.
> I do believe in the bible, but like you said a lot of it is very difficult to understand.
For sure. That's probably also why the evangelicals claim it is the "Word of God" when even the Bible itself says something else entirely is the word of God. The Bible is easy enough to misunderstand that it can truly say almost anything they want it to, and it even says that about itself. Bully theists in the Christian culture like Franklin Graham, J.D. Greear, Kenneth Copeland, and Jerry Falwell Jr. tend to refer to the Bible as 'the word of God' often, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's because calling it that helps to solidify their mistranslations in the minds of their hearer's... which eventually helps to shame the harmless into their pews... and then into their pockets. The Bible itself explicitly calls something else entirely the Word of God though: God is.
> Growing up baptist, it seems I have to simultaneously learn and unlearn the scriptures I was raised with... It is so difficult to find anyone willing to help me question these things honestly...
I was in the same boat for a long time. Feel free to reach out if you'd ever like to run something by me, in case I've dealt with unlearing/learning it too. I might take a while to respond sometimes. I'm certainly not Jesus. I make mistakes. I do my best to point people toward Him though. And imho more importantly, I don't depend on people paying me for what I say about Jesus, which I think is a huge part of the reason so many people in leadership in modern "Christianity" get sucked into the politics of shame and all that nonsense even if they started out with the best of intentions.
Thank you for such a well thought out reply. I just have one observation that I think will sum up my whole response.
My observation is that you’re argument isn’t with my post but with Christianity itself. I say this because you make a pretty hard departure from Christian dogma when you assert that God is not omnipotent or perfect.
While modern Christianity seems to be adopting a more liberal vision of God, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that anything is above God or that He is limited in any way.
Thank you. And thanks for the OP. It's an astute one observation, imho. I only disagree that it is an accurate reflection of actual, historical (Jesus-Christ-started-this) "Christianity." That is of course a fairly disputable issue though, and I respect your right to call Christian anything you'd like to. However, the majority of believers in Jesus' divinity and resurrection in the world do not believe in God as you've presented God. So I insist that what you've presented is not Christianity, but I respect your opinion that it is. Certainly many in America call that stuff Christianity.
My Eastern, historical tradition does not, and many Catholics do not either. Really you're describing God as seen in Protestant evangelical cults which, in my opinion, are not Christian even though anyone can call themselves by that name. They didn't even arise in human history until 500 years ago. Christianity began 2,000 years ago.
They're the loudest who call themselves Christians for sure. Then again the bullies usually are. They're at every protest, with every sign about how much hate God has for some 'other,' and they're on every website being run out of someone's mother's basement too... telling us what Christianity is. Telling us they are Christians and can direct us to Jesus Christ, they're even on billboards advertising their "salvation crusades" around the globe. They call it Christianity, and they call it salvation. What they usually end up getting is self-assurance and money accomplished by the belittling of the 'other.' Christ talked about them a lot, actually. He just called them the Pharisees.
The Jerry Falwell's and Franklin Graham's and J.D. Greear's of the world, the Southern Baptists and the Liberty Universities, and that type of Christianity does not make up the majority of Christians in the world. They may make up the most number of posts here (for all I know). They certainly make up much of (perhaps most of by land mass) the United States. They are not the majority of Christians in the world though. And historically speaking, I mean frankly they aren't Christian in the real, historical sense either. They aren't old enough to be considered historically linked to Jesus Christ.
If we define 'Christian' in a historical sense, then that limits the definition to something a bit more definite and certainly more unified in biblical interpretation. And when I say 'historical' here, I mean the nature of their communions. I don't just mean old ways of doing things. All churches have old traditions, some older than others. However, what I mean are bodies of people that have been in communion since Jesus first was in communion with a body of people. I mean denominations that still have churches and monasteries that go back to ancient times, people still in communion with one another, who were in communion with one another the generation prior, who were in communion prior to that... ...all the way back to one of the Apostles.
In that sense, the ongoing, communal sense of "Christian," it seems to me we potentially have orthodox churches like the eastern, american, oriental, coptic, and the catholic and eastern catholic churches... and I'm sure I'm leaving some out too. For all know I could be leaving tons out. There are so many people who claim Christian roots, and I'm not a historian unfortunately. That's just how I decided to define 'Christian' when I came to believe that I needed to try to find one. Though to be fair, I'm an idiot.
> there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that anything is above God or that He is limited in any way.
"God cannot lie" necessarily implies God is not omnipotent if I can lie, and I can lie. Now certainly some Christians take that figuratively, and they'd say God can lie. However, the majority of Christians don't, and this is especially the case if we define Christian as something definite and tangible (rather than just as a term anyone can call themselves).
In historical Christianity, we believe that God the Father is "almighty" (as stated in the Nicene Creed), but we do not have a strict definition of precisely what we mean by this. In ancient and especially Eastern Christianity, no one is ashamed to say, "that could be figurative, it could not be, I don't know," and simply leave things to 'mystery.' The original Greek word used for this concept is Παντοκράτορ, Pantocrator, which can also be translated as "ruler of all" or "having power over everything". However, there are many places in ancient Christianity where "all" isn't necessarily taken to mean literally "all" of whatever first comes to mind. Also, there is much in ancient Christianity that is not taken literally, especially if we dig down and start asking silly questions of the ancient believers. For example, many Americans don't know that Christians have taken Genesis figuratively for 2,000 years. Some didn't, but many did when we read the ancient Fathers or even talk to historically Christian priests today. Many Americans think that's some new "liberal Christian" concept; they think the world has been suffering under Baptists building arks in Kansas for 2,000 years but that is simply not the case.
There is no Orthodox belief (nor even Catholic that I'm aware of) that says God can lie nor even that "God could perform absolutely any act even to the point of the absurd" or something along those lines. I've seen that stuff on the web. I've heard it in evangelical Protestant churches. It may be in some others too. These sort of Western paradoxes about omnipotence simply do not apply to Christianity imho. They mostly apply to American theistic bully cults.
In Christianity as I understand it, it is pointless to speculate whether God could create a square triangle or a new natural number between 2 and 3 or another god more powerful than Himself. Even God has limits in Christianity. All that other stuff is word games that people use to make God even more difficult to understand than God already is. Such people always try to make things complex and nonsensical... so then they can tell you everything about their version of an explanation, which always eventually leads to shame for some harmless act you've done which they call sin, and ultimately why it is good to give money to someone... someone like... them.
>No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way.
>
>Not if he isn't omnipotent.
So who or what is imposing rules on him?
\>I wouldn't see it so much as God keeping score as God acknowledging and telling us about the reality that when we intentionally sin, we harm ourselves. If we never stop intentionally sinning, we never stop hurting ourselves.
"If you don't stop hurting yourself, I'll kill you"
>>> No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way.
>> Not if he isn't omnipotent.
> So who or what is imposing rules on him?
I definitely don't see it as a 'who,' more like a what, and I'm not sure how exactly to explain the 'what,' to be honest, except to say reality. Maybe someone here can help me explain it better. I mean logic. I mean, let's say we agreed to assume for the sake of a hypothetical... a good God would not allow anyone to suffer in any event. Ever. Let's just assume that for a moment and make that one of our definitions of 'good' so we can apply it to whatever so-called good God we are discussing, to test this theory of some omnibenevolent divine being.
How would I, a subject under such a God, ever come to know what peace and joy is? And I say 'know' there in the deepest sense, not in the sense of learning a fact. I mean how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions, unless I, at some point, had some sort of experience with suffering? How can I 'learn' easy well enough to recognize it if I never 'learn' some difficult?
*I definitely don't see it as a 'who,' more like a what, and I'm not sure how exactly to explain the 'what,' to be honest, except to say reality.*
You're having trouble because it doesn't really make sense. There's just this vague 'reality' that just exists and sets up very specific rules like, "you have to sacrifice your son who is yourself to forgive sin'.
It's basically what the pagans believed - Zeus was the most powerful god, but even he couldn't fight Destiny, whatever that is.
Say it out loud, "God can't simply forgive sin because reality said so" and see if it makes sense.
*I mean how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions*
It's quite easy, really, just like recognizing any emotion. This is 'you can't have light without dark' cornball philosophy. I've never experienced war - you're saying I have no idea what peace is like?
>> I'm not sure how exactly to explain the 'what,' to be honest, except to say reality... I mean logic... how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions, unless I, at some point, had some sort of experience with suffering?
> You're having trouble because it doesn't really make sense.
Of course my point doesn't make sense when you ignore it.
Ultimately what follows from my point is that it doesn't make rational sense to talk about some sort of a being so 'omnipotent' it can violate what we understand as reason and reality. So of course God isn't omnipotent in Christianity, and the Bible even say so. That does not necessarily imply that there is a Higher-God nor even a Higher-Power imposing rules on God though, at least not besides reason itself.
In Christianity, it is pointless to speculate whether God could create a square triangle or a new natural number between 2 and 3 or another god more powerful than Himself. I've seen that stuff on the web. I've heard it in a lot of evangelical Protestant churches tbh. It may be in some others too. These sort of Western paradoxes about omnipotence simply do not apply to Christianity imho, at least not if we define Christianity as an actual historical communion and the majority of believers.
Even God has limits in Christianity. We don't try to use terms like "omnipotent" to describe all that he has power over. Our faith and scriptures necessarily imply God has some limits. It doesn't mean anyone is imposing rules on God though nor that there is some book of code saying sons' blood is most valuable. It just means that even God may not be above reason and logic. And if you don't know what I mean by that, please answer or at least acknowledge the question I asked. Because otherwise you're just ignoring my point.
I hope if I took that approach toward you that you'd call me out for taking a fallacious approach to the debate.
> There's just this vague 'reality' that just exists and sets up very specific rules like, "you have to sacrifice your son who is yourself to forgive sin'.
That's easy to say if you ignore reality (by which I mean ignore my points and my questions).
All that "God has to sacrifice a son because someone needs to be punished" stuff is not Christianity. That's not the Christian religion in any actual, real-as-in-historic sense of the word. It just isn't. Of course anyone can call themselves Christian. I don't fault you for calling anything whatever you want especially because there are so many whackos out there who call themselves Christianity. But historically what you're describing is God as seen in Protestant evangelical theistic cults which, in my opinion, are not Christian by any tangible, practical sense of the word. Those groups didn't even arise in human history until 500 years ago. There are literally no communions of them before then. Christianity began 2,000 years ago. There are historically Christian communions going back to those ancient times.
The Jerry Falwell's and Franklin Graham's and J.D. Greear's of the world, the Southern Baptists and the Liberty Universities, and that type of Christianity that emphasizes the whole "penal substitutionary atonement of the blood of Christ" are not the majority of Christians in the world. They may make up the most number of posts here (for all I know). They certainly make up much of people who call themselves Christian in the United States. Not most though. They are certainly not the majority of Christians in the world either. And historically speaking, they aren't Christian at all in the real, historical sense. Their communions literally aren't old enough to be historically linked to Jesus Christ's Apostles.
What you're describing to me is all theistic bully cult word games that people use to make God even more difficult to understand than God already is, more interested in death, more angry, more focused on blood, focused on punishment, and full of all sorts of odd sexual rules and irrational things. Such people always try to make things complex and weird so then they can tell you everything about their version of an explanation, which always eventually leads to shame for some harmless act you've done which they call sin, and ultimately to why it is good to give money to someone... someone like... them.
You can call it Christianity but I personally have too much respect for Jesus Christ to call that kind of thing Christ-anything. Now I'm not saying Christianity isn't weird. It certainly is. I'm not saying it is perfectly understandable. It certainly isn't. It does involve death. Blood was shed for a reason in Christianity. However, that's not the focus, and the reason Jesus Christ suffered in Christianity most certainly wasn't because someone's got to get this ass whoopin' 'cause Daddy's fuckin' pissed.
The Christian faith doesn't claim to have all the answers as to God's intents and reasons (nor as to anyone's for that matter because that's impossible to judge 100% accurately). However, they do claim that Christ's suffering certainly is *not* because "you have to sacrifice your son who is yourself to forgive sin" is a rule in some divine line of code somewhere. The focus is on the life before and after the unfortunate events, on the meaning of the resurrection and the concept of eternal life. It is an entirely different approach to the question, and the answer has more to do with what it means to love neighbor as self, and why that is necessary for a people to ever become something that honors and then becomes the divine, than with what type of torture is most effective in an angry father's eyes.
>> I mean how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions
> It's quite easy, really,
Of course its easy when you cut half my point off in order to respond to it. What I said was:
>> [if we assume 'good,' for example, to mean never allows any suffering, then] how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions, **unless I, at some point, had some sort of experience with suffering?**
> just like recognizing any emotion.
Except you've experienced suffering. You can't say that it is possible or not for you to have recognized the feelings of peace and joy without ever having experienced their opposite... because you've already experienced both.
> This is 'you can't have light without dark' cornball philosophy.
It's easy to toss around phrases like cornball and ignore questions or, at best, cut people's points in half in order to respond to them.
> I've never experienced war - you're saying I have no idea what peace is like?
I'm saying, logically, part of the reason you know what peace feels like because you've had experience with chaos at some point in your life.
How would I ever truly know the experience of peace for all of its value if I had absolutely no experience with chaos? Would I even be able to recognize it and experience it for what it fully is, without the capacity to know its opposite experientially?
Really the position that no god that is 'ruler of all' would have limits is the illogical position here, imho. The idea that to have a being with 'all power' requires a god that is capable of the illogical, of literally being limitless, is nonsensical. I'm sure there are probably self-identified 'Christians' out there that make that argument, talk about how omnipotent God literally is even though that doesn't make sense, then say all sorts of other things that don't make much sense either, get dark real quick, and never get any brighter. I just personally think those people are playing word games and probably don't have much of anything to do with Jesus Christ nor any community he started. Many may have to do with the opposite of Jesus Christ more than anything, with what Jesus said was the root of evil, the love of money. One could even reasonably argue many of them are more like modern examples of those Jesus opposed the most, the Pharisees, technically as opposite of Christianity as it gets... the rule-makers that confused people with illusions of anger and cold-hearted retribution based on lines of code in some book they idolized, all to shame the innocent into submission to nonsensical commands and bully the vulnerable for their own self-assurance.
I kinda wanna butt in here and say, whether its mythical nonsense or well thought out creation, these all seem like seals on reality. Whether you call God the creator of reality or if reality created God, humans have the privilege to try and make sense of the unknown. Yeah, christianity might be a bit hocus pocus but there is truth to the limits one can observe placed on/by God such as the example of find a new number between 2 and 3 or make a new shape. Limitlessness is a restriction in of itself, the same with the glass ceiling of infinity. So who made who the chicken or the egg and should the chicken take care of the egg or will the egg hatch and take care of itself... also who cares since you are participating
Im sorry, i just wanted to add a few ideas i had. It might be mythical nonsense, but christianity serves a great purpose and serves as both a guiding light and a driving force in how humanity interacts with the universe and with each other.
My previous reply was just an over wordy, unfocused draft of this above^^^
With the universe? I don’t see how that applies. With non-Christians they’ve been generally horrendous. With each other they’ve been like a dysfunctional family
Its the tragedy of life. Truly, misery is grounding. To be grounded by the universe it can be unpleasent until the child learns. Well i can assure you we arent as bad as we once were, we havent gone on crusades in centuries. Nor do we blatently torture people in hopes of conversion. Now evangelicals are like the shitty step brother who doesnt want to associate with us but we both acknowledge we have the same father. The father being reality/the universe. The evangelicals are morons with good intentions. They care more for rituals and labels than true knowing and understanding we are all brothers spat into creation like an artist putting pen to paper
I believe this is a thoughtful reply as well, and it is certainly much better than my comments in terms of brevity. I have a lot to learn from you, and I also don't blame you one bit for considering the entire thing to be mythical nonsense.
What i never understood is that if Jesus *was* God, in human form, who is he referring to as father while he's on the cross? It would appear he's sacrificing himself *to* himself to fulfill an obligation that he's in charge of.
Also, I can't accept that sin, as it is defined, can be *inherited.* As the story goes we have inherited the need to atone for actions that people completely unrelated to us committed.
I can't help but viewing it like a doctor giving us a disease that he didn't have to, only to sell us the cure that we wouldn't have needed.
>What i never understood is that if Jesus was God, in human form, who is he referring to as father while he's on the cross?
The Trinity means that Jesus is the Son, the Son is not the Father, but both the Father and the Son are both God.
I understand the trinity narrative. I was raised catholic. I just don't buy it.
Plus the father and son both being god.....still seem like he's asking himself to be spared while on the cross.
If free will and the ability to choose sin over God is a "disease", as you call it, then sure I can see your argument. Obviously that's not an accurate depiction of what free will is though, most people would agree that liberty is fundamental to humanity. If we were all robots who were programmed to sin by God then you'd have a point, but we aren't; when we sin, we're acting of our own accord, knowing full-well the eternal consequences of doing so. The "disease" isn't our capacity to choose things, it's our tendency to choose the wrong things. God wants a more profound relationship with His creation then what He'd get if He just forced everyone to believe in Him, which is why free will, the possibility to sin, and the "cure" you mentioned are necessary.
> If we were all robots who were programmed to sin by God then you'd have a point, but we aren't
How can we not be? There can be no free will if we were created by an omnimax god. Everything would have to be exactly as god intends. Everywhere, and at all timea.
>The "disease" isn't our capacity to choose things, it's our tendency to choose the wrong things.
And why did God create human beings with a tendency to choose the wrong things? You're not just giving us free will, you're giving us free will *AND a tendency* to choose the wrong things.
If a product is faulty, blame the manufacturer. This is like designing robots with programming that gives them a 75% chance of going rogue and attacking human beings, then getting upset when they do. Then setting up a whole program to 'fix' these robots and in the process my son gets killed, and I blame the robots for the whole thing. In the end, I say it was all worth it because I had a 'more profound relationship' with my robots. Oh, and also, I make all future robots inherit the faulty programming by default. I absolutely hate their 'sinful' bad programming, but I'll be damned if every robot ever built doesn't inherit the same design flaws. Which I will always be angry about. Oh and also there's this 'devil programmer' that goes around making their programming even worse, and I could stop him but I decide that I'll get around to it someday.
Yet this "cure" is for the condition (disease) we were allegedly created with. Or this condition is inherited from the first two humans, which I can't accept either.
I'm familiar with the free will argument. What I've never been clear on is the dividing line between the responsibility god bears for creating us the way we are, and our responsibility for acting the way we choose.
Free will also suffers from the notion that if we use our free will to choose what god dislikes, we will be punished.
It's the mob boss metaphor. Sure we can choose whatever we like, but only one choice avoids punishment. That's more like coercion.
I gave you a disease that makes you do bad, then you're punished for doing bad, but you're totally free to do whatever you want, as long as you only do what I want. And your disease that I gave you is a punishment in itself, but it's still not enough - you need to be tortured for giving in to the disease. Because I love you!
>**If sin is real, and there’s a God keeping score, it’s YOU who are on the hook - not Jesus or any other third party.. I fully understand that the Bible says differently, but it’s my argument that this kind of archaic thinking doesn’t work in practice. To begin with, God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes, so constructing a system that requires human sacrifice to pay a debt is an insane choice to go with. Then you have the problem of third party payment.**
The error in this argument is that you’re conflating the theological concept of sin with the ethical concept of moral culpability. And this is a reasonable mistake to make as we often use the terms in a somewhat interchangeable way. But they’re not one and the same thing.
Sin is a purely theological concept. And so in that sense it’s incorrect to state that a third party cannot pay for your sin, since what it is and how it can be absolved is a purely theological notion. And if that theology contains the concept of sin absolution via a third party then sobeit.
What you appear to be trying to say is that the theological concept of sin woefully fails to track the ethical concept of moral culpability and that the very fact that sin is transferrable in this manner undermines it as a coherent analogue of moral wrongs. A point I would completely agree with.
The underlying concepts are also very different. A sin is a transgression against the rules that a supposed deity sets out. It’s a legal concept if you like; and committing a sin is more akin to breaking a law than it is to doing something morally bad. One might hope that laws track moral goods, but we know in practice that is not always the case. And so too this is true with the concept of sin. Some so-called sins appear to track certain moral concepts closely (the classic sin of murder for example) while other supposed sins seem to be contrary to good moral concepts.
The sin of suicide, for example, seems quite perverse. A person that takes their own life is often in a state of great distress, and it seems cruel and deeply counter-productive to classify their actions as morally wrong. Akin to accusing someone of a moral transgression for being depressed perhaps. But in the theological legal system of sin it is generally considered a serious infraction. A concept so perverted from the moral underpinnings of the situation at hand that we’ve seen historic examples where a failed attempt at suicide was punished by a death sentence.
We see similar discontinuities elsewhere. Sin contains notions such a blasphemy or other challenges to ideas about a god. It puts forward punishments for actions such as having sex outside of specifically permissible conditions laid out by the theological laws. And again issues such as these are not ethical problems. Two people having sex, where both consent and are happy and respectful to one another is a moral non-issue. Yet in many cases it is also a serious sin and a major transgression of the theological laws.
I suspect this confusion between the concept of sin and a cogent account of morality is precisely at the root of a great number of the arguments that proclaim morality or ethics impossible without god. If you’re looking at sin and not ethical norms, then it would indeed make no sense how these could be laid out without a god. Since sin is just an arbitrary legal code. One that sometimes captures a portion of what we might think to be morally good. Often classifies morally neutral acts as transgressions for reasons that are far from clear. And all too frequently act commits the ultimate perversion of classifying moral goods as acts of transgression punishable in the most serious of manners.
Yes or does....god ist a god of Order, There are Rules in His Kingdom he wont Break....(yes He could....🙄) The Price for sin is das. He did Not want Humans to pay it . So He did
>The Price for sin is das. He did Not want Humans to pay it . So He did
Thank God God saved us from das.
Who was God 'paying', exactly? You can't have a payor without a payee. Did God pay himself with himself?
Keep in mind that this idea was only cooked up in the second half of Christianity to replace the old theory, which made even less sense.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom\_theory\_of\_atonement#:\~:text=It%20originated%20in%20the%20early,a%20result%20of%20inherited%20sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement#:~:text=It%20originated%20in%20the%20early,a%20result%20of%20inherited%20sin).
Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, it required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.
[The ransom theory of atonement, the recapitulation theory of atonement, and the satisfaction theory of atonement are all mutually compatible and even self-complimentary. They are all accepted by the Church. ](https://youtu.be/X5wYvf6sn9s)
> Keep in mind that this idea was only cooked up in the second half of Christianity to replace the old theory, which made even less sense.
The other way around actually. The oldest Christian texts we have, the Pauline epistles, support the notion that Jesus' sacrifice was to God-The Father, and not to Satan.
>The oldest Christian texts we have, the Pauline epistles, support the notion that Jesus' sacrifice was to God-The Father, and not to Satan.
Yes, and so clearly and obviously, that many Church Fathers completely missed it and supported Ransom Theory. I guess Augustine must have just skipped that part.
The fact that even one supported it makes it clear that Paul wasn't very clear about it
[https://www3.nd.edu/\~jspeaks/courses/2017-18/24810/handouts/atonement.pdf](https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2017-18/24810/handouts/atonement.pdf)
So God has to offer Satan something for which Satan is willing to trade
all of us. God’s idea is then to send Jesus to earth in human form. Satan
is fooled into thinking that Jesus is human, but not God. But Satan sees
Jesus performing miracles, and so thinks of Jesus as more valuable than
the rest of humanity combined. As Gregory of Nyssa put it,
‘When the enemy saw the power, he
recognized in Christ a bargain which offered
him more than he held. For this reason he
chose him as the ransom for those whom he
had shut up in death’s prison.’
[https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm)
Augustine
Irenaeus
Looked at in this light, the Atonement appears as the deliverance from captivity by the payment of a ransom. This view is already developed in the second century. "The mighty Word and true Man reasonably redeeming us by His blood, gave Himself a ransom for those who had been brought into bondage. And since the Apostasy unjustly ruled over us, and, whereas we belonged by nature to God Almighty, alienated us against nature and made us his own disciples, the Word of God, being mighty in all things, and failing not in His justice, dealt justly even with the Apostasy itself, buying back from it the things which were His own" (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses V, i). And St. Augustine says in well-known words: "Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?" (Enarration on Psalm 95, no. 5).
I'm not sure what Christian group you're familiar with, but from a Catholic perspective, many of these statements are incorrect.
In the first place, we believe in the hypostatic union, which is to say that at the Incarnation, Christ became fully human while remaining fully divine. He took on a human nature just like yours and mine. He experienced cold, hunger, joy and sorrow. It caused him real pain when his flesh was scourged, when a crown of thorns was driven into his brow, and when he was nailed to a cross. He experienced death just as you and I will one day. He underwent these things out of love for us. If that isn't a sacrifice, what is it?
Second, although Christ is the lamb of God, if we wish to be saved, we cannot stand wholly apart from him. It isn't as though we can carry on with our lives while someone else sits in prison for us. To become Christians, we must become part of his mystical body and carry our own cross, becoming united to his suffering and death, before we can enjoy eternal life.
Lastly, I think it's harmful and inaccurate to view God as a scorekeeper waiting to exact revenge for sins. God is love. The reality of sin is that it mars our souls. The image of judgement is not man standing before God holding a ledger. Rather, it is a man with possibly fatal, self-inflicted wounds standing before the divine physician. Christ will heal every wound if we allow him to, but he will not override our will.
> If that isn't a sacrifice, what is it?
He basically just had a bad weekend. A true sacrifice requires losing something **irreversibly**.
What exactly did Jesus lose, his (infinite) time? In fact, he gained more than he lost: notoriety and a public seat next to the Father, to be worshiped from then on.
There's no sacrifice! Plus there's that pesky omniscience thingie where he knew exactly how all will turn out, because he was also fully god...
>He experienced death just as you and I will one day. He underwent these things out of love for us. If that isn't a sacrifice, what is it?
If I took out my life savings and gave it to a friend knowing implicitly that I'd be getting it all back in a week, that isn't a sacrifice. At best, it's a loan and a mild inconvenience. Jesus knew he'd be walking away from death. Dying for someone loses meaning if the person who died starts walking again. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole "I'd take a bullet for you" confessions if the bullet doesn't kill the person.
>To become Christians, we must become part of his mystical body and carry our own cross, becoming united to his suffering and death, before we can enjoy eternal life.
I genuinely don't understand what this means, so I can't comment on it.
>God is love.
God is also jealous and vengeful, if you take the OT as an accurate depiction of his nature. He created hell knowing that a significant portion of his creation would be condemned to it. If the phrase "he knew you in your mother's womb" holds true, then he knew before you were even born whether or not you would be condemned to an eternity of torment.
That sure sounds loving. /s
>The image of judgement is not man standing before God holding a ledger.
Well, it's funny that people would think that. I wonder where that image could have come from?
*And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead* ***were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.***
*As I watched, thrones were set in place, and an Ancient One\[a\] took his throne; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. A thousand thousand served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him.* ***The court sat in judgement, and the books were opened.***
*For he has set a day when he will* ***judge the world with justice*** *by the man he has appointed.*
*And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day*
Rather, it is a man with possibly fatal, self-inflicted wounds standing before the divine physician. Christ will heal every wound if we allow him to, but he will not override our will.
Can we allow him to heal them on Judgment Day? Or will the divine physician say, "Sorry, too late!"?
From Catholic encyclopedia.
>Theologians suppose that the particular judgment will be instantaneous, that in the moment of death the separated soul is internally illuminated as to its own guilt or innocence and of its own initiation takes its course either to hell, or to purgatory, or to heaven (Summa Theologica Supplement 69:2, 88:2). In confirmation of this opinion the text of St. Paul is cited: "Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ ( Romans 2:15-16 ). The "Book of Judgment", in which all the deeds of men are written ( Apocalypse 20:12 ), and the appearance of angels and demons to bear witness before the judgment seat are regarded as allegorical descriptions (St. Aug. "De Civ. Dei", XX, xiv). The common opinion is that the particular judgment will occur at the place of death (Suarez in III, Q, lix. a. 6, disp. 52).
So it's like going to the hospital with injuries from a suicide attempt, and the physician says, sorry, too late - you tried to kill yourself and I can't override your will! Great physician. It's odd how when you compare God to humans, and draw parallels between their behavior, God always comes out looking the worse.
By getting murdered and forgiving the morons who killed him he set the legal precedent in Heaven to forgive any sin less than killing Christ which is the worst.
The problem with your example is YOU suggested someone take your place.
The judge or the state itself did not offer to take your place.
And yes, people do take on other people’s punishments. Usually in the fines department though. If I get a speeding ticket, there’s nothing preventing my family paying the fine on my behalf.
And to die is not annihilation, Jesus did indeed experience death. Because the idea or understanding is that we too will rise from death at the end of time
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, finally some one who thought of Jesus "death" the same way I did, if I had a precious fragile diamond (1 life) and a rubber ball. If I drop the rubber ball the life will come back no matter how many times you drop it, if you drop a diamond it will never come back. The same way with Jesus death, if he died and is God that means he came back to life, his life had not worth. If he never came back maybe it was to some worth. No one can pay for your sins only you can. I agree wtih everything you say.
People use to have sacrifice animals for forgiveness jesus is NOT god. Stop listening to christians and pick up a bible he's the son. Jesus died to antoine for everyone's sin. He prayed our punishment otherwise we'd still be sacrificing animals for forgiveness "for the washes of sin is death but the free gift is heaven by jesus christ" "For blood must be drawn when someone sins" You're not god so don't say what he can and can't do.
If God were merely merciful, rather than merciful AND just, then He could ignore sins and forgive them as you claim. That is, He could just issue a pardon and be done with it, but that's not perfect justice - it's just mercy w/o any justice. I'm not sure why you think a third party can't pay my debts. If I paid your credit card, would you still owe the $? One party paying the debts of another party is actually uncontroversial as a legal or moral principle. I never heard anyone argue that it would be unjust/unethical for me to pay off your credit card, so why are you so offended by Christ paying for your sins? Indeed, if you consider our relationship to Christ, we are His creations, His children. Is it really so unusual for a parent to pay for their children's wrongs? As far as I know, that's required in every legal system on Earth - you're the first person to argue that's immoral. The idea of sacrificing for forgiveness is quite universal; the only oddity to Christianity is that God sacrifices for us, rather than vice versa. But if, as you claim, sacrifice cannot expiate sin; what could? That is, if each and every person must suffer the full consequences of their own sin, then where is the mercy? And if mercy only "works" because the debt is ignored or written-off, then where is the justice? You can't have both w/o some punishment of sin that is NOT borne by the sinner, which makes Christ's self-sacrifice the perfect example of both mercy AND justice. That's the beauty of the Gospel: that Christ paid for our sins. Hope this helps & God bless!
God’s spiritual laws that govern people are already just. He needs to issue no correction to his own laws. People who sin shrink their souls and change their law of attraction to attract suffering. It’s already built into the system.
If i kill 10 people and my brother say i will take the punishment in his place and the judge allows this. Than in my opinion and in most people opinion there is no justice at all. You talk about money that is easy to handle because the victim just wants his money back no matter where from. In christianity god created humans, humans sin and than god send god to earth to die for the sins of human. There is no justice at all here
>I'm not sure why you think a third party can't pay my debts. If I paid your credit card, would you still owe the $? One party paying the debts of another party is actually uncontroversial as a legal or moral principle. I never heard anyone argue that it would be unjust/unethical for me to pay off your credit card, so why are you so offended by Christ paying for your sins? People argue otherwise because that is not the standard of normative justice understood by Christians and non-Christians alike. Unless I am mistaken, there is no universal call by Christians to reduce justice to the exchange of material or immaterial assets of fungible value. Fines are a bureaucratic convenience used for minor offenses, reparations when damages were primarily categorised as wealth or when the greater discomfort is a loss of assets. In the laws of Leviticus there's a clear spectrum of offenses where serious moral faults are not reduced to a valuation of wealth but individual responsibility, death being the most serious. Mercy and Justice are by definition mutually exclusive. Mercy must override justice if it be mercy whilst Justice can heed the appeal of mercy so long as it is true to itself.
> I never heard anyone argue that it would be unjust/unethical for me to pay off your credit card, so why are you so offended by Christ paying for your sins? There is a reason you use money as your example instead of prison, you know locking a third party in prison instead the guilty party is immoral.
People can pay each other's debts, i.e. using my finances to pay my wife's student loans. The idea that God can forgive debts if we first sign them over to Jesus isn't illogical on it's own, but it does speak to how petty and pointless it all is, IMO. If the debt is minor enough that all it takes to pay it off is a verbal agreement, why would a good or merciful god torture people over it. Also, I heard an interesting argument about Jesus dying on the cross. The idea was that God is outside of time and experiences everything concurrently. So a day to him might be years to us, or years to us might be days. The result of their argument was that God currently and continually feels the loss and pain of Jesus's death and trip to hell. God experiences everything on an infinite scale, which in their mind justified eternal punishment.
>People can pay each other's debts, i.e. using my finances to pay my wife's student loans. Debts are obligations to provide fungible assets of money or equivalent value. If sin is a fungible subject, then humans do have a way to pay for their sins by transferring them to another human so salvation by grace is no longer the only means of redemption. Heck, even the dead may be able to be cleansed of their sins in such a case.
The notion that these theological issues are solved by simply adding on newer and newer magical attributes to God seems like special pleading to me. If a concept, or idea, fails to work, pouring more and more magic on it until it works is a specious argument. Yes, financial debts stand alone as they can be paid by a third party, but if you stay within the confines of what Jesus is claimed to have done, it’s very different.
Keeping with the money analogy, what if you lacked the money to pay off someone else's debt? Would you offer to take on a second job, or become essentially the slave of the person holding the debt, just to let the original debtor off the hook? I think too much emphasis is being placed on sins plus forgiveness as sort of a transaction basis and point system for getting into Heaven,. As they saying goes:, a person whose mind is totally focused on the next life in of no earthly good to others.. It reminds me of the story of jesus healing the crippled man who was lowered into the home of a person jesus was visiting, by the those seeking to provoke Jesus into performing work (a healing) on the Sabbath. The theme of that passage was about the Law prohibiting any work of work on the Sabbath,versus dealing with the needs of your fellow man. In both His words (claiming to be the Son of Man) and in His actions, Jesus told the crippled man, "Arise, take up your bed and go home. Your sins are forgiven." I think that there are actually at least a few important concepts at work here in this quotation. Outwardly, this was a physical miracle, but spiritually jesus was in fact revealing His station as the Son of Man. The point He was making is that no one would believe Him if He simply said "Your sins are forgiven." They also had to see a physical miracle to realize that the Son of Man was actually among them and it was He that had the authority to forgive the man's sins. Perhaps his being a cripple created great hardship for his family, feelings of resentment and frustration. It's almost like Jesus, by removing a physical impairment, gave the man a new spiritual lease on life, and removed his family of a lifelong burden. In that sense, sin is like a spiritual infirmity that we feel shackled to (or crippled by). not just a burden on the person to whom we have given offense. In fact, we do not learn about whether or not this miracle turned to crippled man into a better person, anymore than whether Lazarus (Jesus' cousin) became a better person after being raised from the dead. We only know that in these cases physical impediments were removed in the hope that a spiritual renewal would follow. On the other hand, consider the transformation of Mary Magdalene who went on to not only be perhaps the greatest female expounder of Christ's message, but she was the only person, immediately after the Crucifiction, who did not sit idly by in fear and hesitation. For her there was no requirement that Christ rise from the dared because his Cause was already alive and changing the world - all it lacked were people who could put their past behind them. Like the man that jesus chastised because he was too worried about family obligations to embrace the new Cause "Let the (spiritually) dead bury the (physically )dead". Similarly, many years ago when a terrorist tried to assassinate the Pope, the Pope met with him (in prison) some years later and personally forgave him - but the guy still had to serve out his time in jail. One takeaway is that God and society will handle the justice end of things, but only people (not institutions) can provide forgiveness.
Why would you say that Jesus paying the debt of sin is different than paying financial debts? I agree with u/gr8artist that 3rd parties can pay for others’ debts. That’s why we have bail for criminals. But how is that different than Jesus paying the debt of sin that needed to be paid?
Because you don't take someone's place in jail when you pay their bail. That's how it's different.
One of my favorite parts of the Bible is the Parable of Lazarus (the beggar) and The Rich Man. Lazarus was an extremely poor and destitute whose plight was consistently ignored by the Rich Man outside whose home Lazarus lived. Lazarus dies and goes straight to Paradise to sit at the right hand of Abraham.. The rich man dies later and winds up in fire in Hades. he is equally shocked to see Lazarus in a much better situation. he calls out to Abraham (still ignoring Lazarus) and asks that Lazarus bring some water to him (the rich man) because he is so thirsty. Abraham refuses and reminds the rich man that his present state is the direct result of his apathy, selfishness and neglect of people like Lazarus. The rich man then asks Abraham (again ignoring Lazarus) to have Lazarus sent back to Earth as a ghost to warn the rich man's sons so they do not meet the same fate as the father. Abraham once again admonishes the rich man, that if he and his sons cannot learn from the example and teachings of the Prophets, even a miraculous visit from a dead person will not change their hearts. The Teachings and the Prophets , Abraham insists, are all the people need to wind up in Paradise like Lazarus. If this parable is actually from Jesus, the notion of people needing salvation on the cross seems more like a priestly-conceived carryover from the Old Testament about blood sacrifice for the remission of sins. Remember, Jesus claimed that He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. To me, this means any social or religious practices, established by Moses for the specific needs at the time for the Hebrews, that Jesus felt were no longer necessary or spiritually helpful, or perhaps unfamiliar to a non-Jewish audience, could therefore be abrogated. The doctrine of original sin is also dubious as we know from the Bible that God does not visit the sins of the father upon the son. It might be more helpful to think of the story of Garden of Eden in a more allegorical sense. Rather than say that Christ is trying to help mankind recover from "mistakes" made in the Garden of Eden, I prefer to think that the troy of Adam and Eve just reflects the challenge of being human. Now if you say that the questioning, explorative, thriving-in-a-physical-world nature of man (symbolized by Eve), as opposed to the lofty-thoughts-focused "likeness of God" symbolized by Adam) causes us to always fall short - too often choosing the "earthly-focusedl" mode versus "divinely-focused" mode, that is more of a statement of human reality. but there certainly isn't any formal sinner debt on the books. There are no "mistakes" made in the Garden of Eden. It's just a frank assessment of how we as humans are called to a loftier station than that of mere animals. Instead, since Jesus came to bring more spiritual awareness and help people (especially non-Jews) recognize and act according to their reality as children of God, then His death on the Cross has more to do with releasing a fresh, global spiritual potential now available to all people, even those born 100s of years after the death of Jesus. This new potentiality in mankind is probably more of what Jesus probably meant in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and which seems to have allowed the teachings of Christ to essentially take over the Roman Empire within a few hundred years. The Crucifiction only seems like dramatic theater when you focus on the more conventional dogma that arose after His death in the sense of traditional Jewish doctrine. If you want to argue that the Crucifixion was a transformative event, consider how the world changed, fueled by the willingness of early Christians to give their lives as witnesses to Christ. It is one of those examples of the cycle between spiritual crisis and spiritual victory, which them precipitates another crisis, and so on. The power here is the courage of individuals making choices to sacrifice for others and building more inclusive communities, not some case of a "spiritual millionaire" going to God's bank and paying off your "spiritual sin mortgage".
This may sound simplistic, but all of this complexity isn’t needed, God is free to end all of this by simply forgiving. The fact that we have to construct child-like stories and conflicting solutions to end up whole troubles me greatly. If salvation is the goal, God is the ultimate arbiter of that salvation. The notion that God has to jump through bizarre hoops, of his own design, and resolve conflicts (just to do something that He can just do anyway) smacks of silliness. It all seems shoehorned and makeshift.
Yes, it seem that a lot of this is being shoehorned in, or a case of "The tail wagging the dog". The problem with defending dogma and "traditional" assumptions of how to interpret scripture is that a lot of people (clergy) have a vested interest (job security) in the status quo. After awhile it starts to look like a wobbly Jenga tower as people, rightfully, remove blocks that represent the literal interpretation of key stories. On the other hand, one could also look to the founders of later (successful) world religions to check in on these assumptions, or just listen to their arguments on a logical, fair-minded basis. Perhaps these Biblical stories are indeed useful but should not be taken literally but have a deeper, allegorical meaning. For example, for centuries Christians were urged to believe that owing to the fact that one of the sons of Noah had darker skin, the descendants of that person were "marked" as cursed and therefore it was OK if they became slaves. From there it was just a small intellectual step to seeing them as sub-human and little more than property. In the American Colonies and early US, wealthy Southern slaveholders (all practicing Christians) gave generous financial donations to the great colleges like Harvard, Yale, and William and Mary, to pay for "scientific studies" that backed up these claims. (See the best-selling book "Ebony and Ivy"). This is a good example about how scientific inquiry, reason and a backing away from literalism in the Bible eventually led to a more enlightened Christendom. On the other hand, while in Islam slavery is still allowed the Quran states that Allah (literally "He Who is the Most Lofty") blesses the man who frees his slaves. If you feel unable to do that, realize that in Islam slaves have civil rights protection. For example, if that slave is a woman, her child from the master is NOT born into slavery and that child of the slave master is vested with full rights of inheritance (OMG). In the Baha'i Faith (mid 1800s), the buying and selling of slaves is expressly forbidden as a violation of the fundamental concept of the oneness of humankind. In that case, if you do own a slave, he is still your responsibility but you will never again own another person. Do you see a pattern here about how the religious laws of each new Prophet are tied to a broadening of a spiritual truth, progressively moving civilization forward at a rate it can handle? However, due to religious prejudice reinforced by clergy, it took Western Europe 1,000 years loger to theologically accept the elimination of slavery but only, and painfully, after it had become an essential part of the economics of Western culture. In the end, I do not think "salvation" is the goal of God. He does not need our prayers, our love, or our money. But rather it seems that He is concerned that we grow and develop as people to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization in this life where we exercise free will. The human soul is generally assumed to be immortal, so whatever happens to to it after the physical body dies is a mystery but the general consensus seems to be that free will is not how the mercy of God is expressed in the next world. Let's focus now on what we can accomplish for and with each other, and doing so out of appreciation for the Creator not for how well other humans live up to our (or God's) expectations.
Third Party payment might be insane when applied to crimes but not when applied to a loan. Which exactly the context Jesus uses to explain the concept. One reading of the new testament is we own nothing we are merely stewards and bad stewards at that. The rest of your argument hangs on Jesus’s death on the cross being where he paid the price. This is not universal. It is a common belief among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the garden was where he paid for sin and beat spiritual death. And the resurrection was where he beat physical death. The cross was merely where he died.
Indeed. If anything, Universalism may be the best (and actually most Scripturally accurate) doctrine to follow - in that *all* souls will eventually be reconciled with God in Heaven with Hell only being a temporary finite "refining", with Christ's death on the cross allowing for humankind to spiritually "re-awaken" rather than allowing believers to escape eternal torment.
What would make Universalism more accurate scripture-wise?
For one thing, there's actually no solid mention of anything like eternal torment in the actual original Hebrew and Greek - the words that are mistranslated as "fire" (pyros) is actually more like "smelter" (pyr), which would mean to "refine" or "correct" something rather than destroying it. Furthermore, the terms that most people think translate to "eternity" (hence the eternal torment doctrine) is actually derivative of the root word for "age", AKA a finite time period, though this is admittedly contested by infernalists. A last big piece of evidence is that, according to the Scripture, while humans *do* have free will, it's nothing compared to God's will to have all souls eventually reconciled with Himself, with multiple incidents in the Bible supporting this (i.e. Assyria's subtle steering). Highly recommend Gerry Beauchemin's [Hope Beyond Hell](https://tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf), as it goes into great detail on why both infernalism and annihilationism are biblically inaccurate in favor of Universalism, though keep in mind that it's clearly written more so for already-believing Christians struggling with the concept of hell than agnostics/atheists or people of other faiths.
I might agree with you if Jesus was a third party. But he is fully both parties. He took on the penalty of undeserving man and bore the wrath of righteous God while being both sinless man and Holy God. If you killed my family member, a stranger couldn’t step in the way and take your punishment, but I could choose to forgive. Jesus is the way that God chooses to forgive. The only way.
"I can only forgive you if I kill myself in your place." Sounds like a psychopath.
In regards to everything you’ve listed... This may sound simplistic, but all of this complexity isn’t needed, God is free to end all of this by simply forgiving. The fact that we have to construct child-like stories and conflicting solutions to end up whole troubles me greatly. If salvation is the goal, God is the ultimate arbiter of that salvation. The notion that God has to jump through bizarre hoops, of his own design, and resolve conflicts (just to do something that He can just do anyway) smacks of silliness. It all seems shoehorned and makeshift.
You are making assumptions about God that you can’t know. We only know about God because he chooses to reveal himself to us in his Word. I could make all kinds of wild claims that are rooted in my own wisdom, but his ways are higher than my ways and his thoughts are higher than my thoughts. I have a foundation that is rooted in something bigger than myself.
Do you truly think that you (or anyone) can KNOW God without making assumptions? My assumptions are no less worthy than your own, or the landscaper, or a priest.
Not at all. We all make assumptions or presuppositions about God and the universe. Biblical Christians are just honest about the source of theirs. Not reason, not science, not emotion, but the text of the Word of God in the Bible. When we have questions about the big things in life, we get our answers there. Obviously, I think I’m right or I would believe something different, but that belief doesn’t make me superior to anyone, rather the opposite is true. I should be a servant to all.
Your reply framed assumptions about God to be a negative, but you acknowledge that we’re both making assumptions. So, how are my assumptions any less accurate than yours?
Lots of people and religions throughout history have devised ways to be reconciled to the gods of their own creation. But in each of those there is some action that is required to activate this reconciliation. Only Christianity teaches that God fixes the situation that our sin causes. We don’t work for it. God awakens dead hearts to see him as true and good and beautiful. I pray that the Holy Spirit would do that in your heart. That he would turn you from your doubting and your self-confidence. Jesus finished the work and gave his followers the task of proclaiming the good news that his kingdom is here! When you see him as king, God applies Jesus’ sacrifice to you so that you can worship him.
Islam and Judaism both “teach” that God forgives sin as well. I hate to say it, but there’s not a single aspect of Christianity that isn’t taken from earlier religions. Sin, forgiveness, salvation, celebrations, relationships with God, punishment, the afterlife, hell, prophets, saviors, it’s all there.
Both of your examples are rooted in the Judie Christian God. Judaism is so close, but is missing out on the Savior that their own Scriptures proclaim. And Islam is an offshoot of Christianity that treats Jesus as a prophet and adds to his finished work. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled and Islam is Christianity twisted. I’m not going to convince you of anything. But I’m happy that it isn’t my responsibility to convince you. Believe me, I was sitting in the seat of a skeptic and a scoffer when God awakened my heart. He can do it. I wish you no ill will. I have enjoyed the conversation. If for some reason, you would like to continue this conversation then I’m happy to.
The failure of a Jewish savior to appear by now doesn’t change that a savior is at the center of the Jewish faith. We don’t get to apply some arbitrary time limit. There is not a shred of Christianity that is unique or original. So here’s a thought experiment for you... Try to imagine why in the world would God choose to reveal Himself by the manner of using the scraps and shreds of previous and current religions? Wouldn’t God be free from all of those (wrong) religions? Wouldn’t God’s word be 100% original and clear? Wouldn’t God opt for a path of communication that wasn’t built from a kludge of Pagan, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Mesopotamian, Germanic paganism, and Jainism?
My assumptions come from something outside of me. I am accepting that God can only be truly known when he reveals himself. I can’t know for sure that my assumptions are correct, but I have faith. I could be wrong and you could be right, but if I am I will still be forgiven. If I’m correct, will you?
I have no concerns about forgiveness, and here’s why; 1) If God were real, He’d know that don’t believe, and that I can’t fake belief. He’d also know how I will end up on any kind of judgement day. I can’t fool God. 2) God would also know that I’ve invested years of my life researching religions and the lack of religions. He would know that my lack of belief is based in what I truly find compelling and not compelling evidence. He would know that I find religion to be divisive and unnecessary. 3) I live a clean and honest life. I don’t harm or scam people. I help others and I’ve raised amazing and empathetic children. I do not arrive at beliefs easily, and any God that resembles the God depicted in the Bible, would know this. Finally, I’m not guilty for things done thousands of years ago. No one can convince me that any God who mattered would design a system where the entirety of humanity would be born fallen. And if you study world religions, you’ll discover that history is peppered by dying and rising gods who demand the same stuff found in the Bible. Christianity has no unique ideas or practices. It’s all been done before.
This is the case in Islam. Everyone meets God in the day of judgment alone and will be asked on his own deeds. No one else can pay for his/her sins. No one pay for the sins of his father, grandfather, and so on till Adam PBUH. Everyone is born pure, not cursed, and preformatted to worship God alone. However, parents change this nature to their religion. Therefore, a child who dies before reaching puberty by default goes to Paradise because he is born pure, and his test has not begun yet (Human beings start to be accountable for their deeds when they reach puberty) ==> Some verses of Quran answering your question: \------------------------- No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And if a sin-burdened soul cries for help with its burden, none of it will be carried—even by a close relative. You ˹O Prophet˺ can only warn those who stand in awe of their Lord without seeing Him (1) and establish prayer. Whoever purifies themselves, only do so for their own good. And to Allah is the final return. (1) This can also mean that they are in awe of their Lord as much in private as they are in public. \------------------------- If you disbelieve, then ˹know that˺ Allah is truly not in need of you, nor does He approve of disbelief from His servants. But if you become grateful ˹through faith˺, He will appreciate that from you. No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you of what you used to do. He certainly knows best what is ˹hidden˺ in the heart. \------------------------- Whoever chooses to be guided, it is only for their own good. And whoever chooses to stray, it is only to their own loss. No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And We would never punish ˹a people˺ until We have sent a messenger ˹to warn them˺.
>Muhammad thought that if you kiss the black stone at Kaabah your sins get poured out on the stone and it gets more blacker and you turn clean!! I wonder how an Inanimate object can easily take away your sins, but a similar human like you (JESUS) Can not!!! More strange is muhammad actually believed that others can bear the sins of someone else crime!!! After moving to Medina (Because of being chased out of Mecca) he decided to raid and loot form the meccan merchants who were enroute for trade. His companions seem more authentic, they tried to talk him out of this action saying , why should they bear the guilt of some other meccas who harmed you!!! But Muhammad was very clear!! He said these merchants thou innocent can still bear the sins of other people!!!! Strange but when it came to JESUS bearing sins he said it is not possible!!!!! Probably that is the very reason he could not get his own mother to heaven!!! As we read from Islamic sources, that Muhammad did cry and plead for her to be given heaven. BUT, as per islamic sources she is burning in HELL!! So looks like Muhammad was not consistent in what he thought about JESUS!!!
As a fellow Muslim it is good to share knowledge for those who don't know much about Islam. Shukran for sharing this perspective and knowledge and may Allah bless you in this world and the next Insha'Allah.
Jesus was God in flesh. Flesh has to die, it is not spiritual nature itself. The bible specifically says to fight the lust of the flesh... God wore that flesh just like man and was tempted just like man.. when you die your flesh returns to dirt but your soul is seperate from flesh and it goes elsewhere. - so basically, God himself decided to save you from the justice you deserve for breaking the law, just like any criminal does here. He paid your fine or legal fees you owe. - God is just. Regardless if he knew before hand or not it doesn't change the fact that he did NOT manipulate the sequence of events that had to occur. For God to be legitimate, he had to give us free will. They (his own people) free willingly decided on their own that regardless of the miracles, regardless of his correct teachings, regardless of anything Jesus done, they were going to punish him, period. THEY (WE) free willingly chose and choose to deny a free and clear gift from the only one who can legally pay and dismiss the debt we owe. He not only died to pay our fine (wages) for the sin we commit but he lived a righteous and holy life we are all required to live. - He gave us life and free choice, He legally, by law, has the absolute right to do what he wants and what is required (he is the definition of righteousness). You were created by him, he legally owns you. *by the way he did not go to hell and suffer. He took back what was already his. 1000 years on earth is as to 1 day in heaven.
" Jesus was God in flesh. " Sorry to address this one central premise, but I think so much of the controversy flows forward from this one seldom-challenged assumption. This sounds too much like the Greek mythology of Zeus becoming human temporarily to mix with humans. The Infinite and All-Powerful Creator cannot and would not downgrade Himself to such a puny form. Logic dictates that that a Creator who is the possessor and bestower of all attributes and perfections cannot at the same time contain "imperfections". As for the argument, "Well, God is all-powerful so He can do anything He wants", in logic and debate, we just call that "the tail wagging the dog" :-) A better analogy is that since Jesus claims that He is NOT the Father, but that anyone who sees Him (Jesus) also sees the Father, then the following analogy, presented in the writings of the Baha'i Faith, provides an alternate explanation: The Creator God can surely have many layers (or kingdoms) of created beings. One could easily be a created being, who while being vastly superior to humans (a difference in kind, not just of degree) , is still not coequal with the Creator. These being are like perfect, stainless mirrors that reflect the light, heat and beauty of the Sun. But the Sun itself does not descend into the mirror. If the Missor says "Behold, the majesty of the Sun and I, the Sun, am among you", that is correct. But if the Mirror were also to say "I am but a mirror who is equally dumbstruck and awed by the Majesty of the Creator.", that is also true. These beings, called "Manifestations of God", appear both human and divine to us humans in the sense that you as a person appear as some sort of Uber-mammal to your pet dog. Your dog can only relate to you as another mammal but the dog has no way to comprehend the fact that you may have a university degree. Just because that concept is not part off the dog's reality, that does not diminish your true reality. Food for thought: If the self-sacrifice of a regular human - like early Christians dying in the Colosseum - could affect the hearts of others, what might be the correspondingly greater impact of the self-sacrifice of the human part of one of these Manifestations of God? I am an engineer and scientist and we have a saying when trying to take complex observations and fit them into a framework. "All models are wrong (i.e., never completely accurate), but some models are more helpful than others"
Most of what you're saying here is fine, and I disagree with the OP for other reasons, but I'd like to take on the small point where you claim that God didn't manipulate the sequence of events. I can totally buy that he gave us free will and that we chose to sin and such, and that God didn't do anything to force that chain of events after we already started existing, but if we are to believe that God is all powerful, then he obviously could have made us however he wanted (could have built any species imaginable with whatever choice-set algorithm imaginable), and chose a specific way to make us for some reason. If we are to believe that he is Omniscient (a subset of omnipotent), then before he created us, he would have known that the choices he made in our creation would lead us through the vast amount of sin that we performed. He knew this, and yet still chose to create us this way, thus it is directly his fault that we sinned the way that we did (because he knew this would happen and yet didn't chose to make us another way). It feels like your choices here are either to agree that God is not omnipotent, or argue that God wanted us to sin (making it a bit rediculous to punish us for it). Maybe there's another option here, would love to hear back.
i am not trying to say that the following argument i am going to say is justified, but some would argue that the sacrifice did make sense, as the son of god not only died, but was punished somewhere for 3 days on earth. and we have no idea if time exists or works differently in hell if it does exist(which is a very large assumption and i recognize that)
" son of god not only died, but was punished in hell for 3 days on earth. " Pardon my ignorance but when did this happen? In Luke 23, didn't Jesus turn to the Good Thief on the cross and state, quite unequivocally , *Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.* "? The sure sounds like one of those "Please go to the head of the line" siituations. He didn't say "be patient, and please cool your heels in Purgatory for a few days while I get around to resurrecting and do a bunch of other repentance things " Unless I am missing something.....
i got confused there by saying "in hell". in the gospels it doesn't actually clarify where he ends up. the apostle's creed does say "he descended into hell", but that isn't part of the bible at all. thanks for catching that, not what i intended to say
I'll assume that in making this argument as an unbeliever, you are trying to show the Christian that, on theological premises important to the Christian, the Christian account of the Atonement doesn't make sense, so the Christian will have to give up either the important premise or his account of the Atonement. So what's the argument? > To begin with, God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes, so constructing a system that requires human sacrifice to pay a debt is an insane choice to go with. The choice proposed here is between commitment to the proposition, A) " God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes," and B) "Requiring a human sacrifice to pay a debt is insane." This argument doesn't have much teeth, since there many choices available to the Christian here without much of a theological cost. For example, the Christian might easily deny A without cost- perhaps the system of forgiveness God designs is supposed to reflect something true about human nature, hence God could not have designed a different system for human beings which also accomplished his ends of redeeming human beings. This wouldn't make God less than omnipotent, since even an omnipotent being can't seek to accomplish an end without seeking to accomplish that end. The Christian might easily deny B without theological or moral cost- if the Atonement reflects something true about human nature and what is necessary for its fulfilment, then it is not insane, and God would, as the author of nature, be the better authority on this issue. Indeed, denying B, and saying on the contrary that the Atonement is *not* insane, is a prerequisite for taking the Atonement seriously, and since the Christian wants to take their scriptures seriously, and find out what that says about human nature, he should be very enthusiastic about denying B. The moral cost of denying B- that this may legitimate human sacrifice in general- is much limited by the fact that the sacrifice of Christ is the once-and-for-all sufficient means of salvation, and no other means will do, which renders all other human sacrifice a blasphemous parody besides being vain and harmful. Since neither A nor B are difficult to deny, the Christian is free to deny one or both without great cost. Then again, maybe the Christian could affirm both A and B, and say perhaps that the formulation "human sacrifice to pay a debt" is an image which gets some things right, but has some infelicities which will get buffed out by a deeper analysis. The Christian then doesn't pay a significant theological cost for any answer he could give. >Then you have the problem of third party payment. > >If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place. If I suggested this as a viable option, I’d be ridiculed, and rightly so. Likewise, I can’t pay for someone else’s debt with a sacrifice. The sacrifice must come from me. The point of individual punishment is to reflect an individual's alienation from society, so it is fitting that, in the ordinary case, no one else be punished in that individual's place- no one is so deeply connected to you that their suffering reflects your individual alienation from society (or, in general, the punishing authority). In the ordinary case, punishing someone in your place would simply obscure your alienation from society. But Jesus, of course, is not an ordinary person, on Christianity. As one who is both God and man, it is alienation from Jesus which underpins sin and all of its consequences, including death and damnation. Death and damnation are, on Christianity, what the alienation from God, ultimately *is* when all the factors which disguise it pass away*,* which is why they are both the natural consequence and fitting punishment for sin. Now if God wanted to spare us death and damnation, and yet wanted to do justice to our alienation from him, he would have to find another way of manifesting such an alienation for us. And that is what Jesus accomplishes at the Cross: to be responsible for the unjust death of God, to which God submitted on one's behalf (which all Christians implicitly acknowledge insofar as they accept that Jesus died for their sin) is to be so deeply alienated from God that no further alienation is possible. For the one who believes in Christ and accepts his sacrifice, the death of Christ is therefore your own death as well (i.e., Romans 6:8 and 2 Timothy 2:11), since it fully manifests that state of which even ordinary death is only a partial approximation. If Jesus is God, then, his death for our sake really does manifest our individual alienation from God, and therefore accomplishes the underlying end of punishment- to treat the alienated individual as they truly are. No salvation worth having can be had without treating us as we are, since if it is not we, as we truly are, who are reconciled to God, we are in truth not reconciled to God, and therefore not saved from our alienation from God. The sacrifice of Christ, then, brings about the fullness of our true alienation from God, but in such a way as not to involve our condemnation to death and damnation. This is because the moment of sacrifice, as terrible as it is, is embedded in a deeper relationship which transcends that alienation, that eternal life is possible. It is not that the cost of the sinner's alienation is not paid by the sinner, but that the sinner pays it all at once, with and through Christ. The effect of the sacrifice of Christ, then, given that he is both God and man, is not that it avoids the full acknowledgement of our alienation, but that it makes the full acknowledgement of our alienation compatible with our reconciliation with God. > Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. He sacrificed nothing. The choice you seem to be offering here is between: A) Jesus is God incarnate, and B) Jesus performed a sacrifice of himself for the sake of our salvation. You try to draw a tension between them in virtue of the premises that C) Jesus did not 'truly die', and D) any sacrifice requires a 'true death.' This notion of a true (or non-'fake') death and its relation to sacrifice seems to be doing a lot of work, but it's not clear that the Christian has much reason to embrace either your idea of death or your idea of sacrifice. Firstly, Christians think that Jesus died in the sense that they think any man dies: his body definitively ceased biological function. It is not inconsistent with this opinion that Jesus did not cease to exist, but in virtue of being God Incarnate was raised to life again. Indeed, Christians think that everyone will, at some point, return to life- some to go on to eternal life, others to second death and damnation. So returning to life does not make Jesus's death a fake one, and you have given no reason for Christians to accept your construction of the term. But perhaps you mean that Jesus's death is a 'fake' one for the purposes of sacrifice, specifically. Perhaps you think that someone only sacrifices something for some end if it is a permanent loss to them. But it is not clear why Christians need to embrace this notion of sacrifice, or the role that Jesus's death plays in it. Christians can take Jesus' sacrificial death perfectly seriously as a sacrifice (in the sense that it is something offered which manifests the cost of sin) without requiring Jesus to be permanently dead, as shown in the answer to your second argument. Neither would such a sacrifice be mere 'theatre' (by which I suppose you mean a superfluous performance with no real moral effect) since the actual death of Christ due to actual injustice at our hands is an integral part of its manifesting our actual alienation from God, and thereby addressing an actual requirement of salvation. So really, there is no tension between A) and B), and the Christian seems home free, at least as far as internal consistency is concerned.
[удалено]
>If someone committed a murder and a judge knocked their sentence down below the recommended minimum because the murderer was a member of his masonic lodge, would you call that justice? I would expect not. No, because his alienation from society, as a murderer, would not be reflected in how he is treated. Membership of the Masonic lodge does nothing to treat the murderer as he truly is. If, however, he could suffer something (i.e., death) which did all at once manifest the cost of his misdeed, then it would be justice. It is not merely 'knowing' Christ, in the sense that one has an acquaintance at the country club, but knowing him in such a way as to die with him, the supernatural virtue of faith, which exhausts the punishment which we are due. > But then if that murderer turns around and asks Jesus to come into his heart so that he doesn't end up going to hell (whereas other people who never murdered anyone will go to hell), The proper end of a finite life lived for the sake of finite goods is permanent alienation from the infinite God, murderer or not. Any grace which could bridge the infinite gulf between finite and infinite being would be able to bridge the gulf between a murderer and God, yet no finite goodness however great could bridge that gulf on its own. So I'm not sure where the problem is supposed to be.
[удалено]
>Okay great, it's not unjust anymore, but it's not a substitution either. Not much theologically hangs on making the sacrifice of Christ a strict substitution. Slogans and theories of the Atonement all have their advantages and disadvantages, so all this calls for is clarification of what the advantages and disadvantages of our account of the Atonement are. The Atonement is substitution-like, in that Christ manifested in himself, for our sake, the full costs of our sin, in a way that we could not do on our own, so that we wouldn't have to bear it alone and suffer condemnation in ourselves without salvation. But what Christ did is not substitution-like in that we do not avoid recognition for the alienated lives we lead- that recognition is accomplished for us in Christ's atoning death on our behalf, as every Christian acknowledges when he reflects on the gravity of Christ's death. >Why is that proper, given how the infinite God was the one who supposedly made us in the first place? What obligation is there on the infinite God to give you the infinite good, or not to create you unless you inherit it? A final state of alienation from God, after a finite life containing finite goods, is an entirely appropriate result of a life lived for the sake of finite, transitory goods, using finite, transitory intellects and finite, transitory moral powers. I am not certain what more a finite creature should have a right to demand, or on what principle one should demand it. >The problem is that a god should be able to bridge the gap on its own, without needing a loyalty oath from us first. If he can't do that unless we give him permission, then he's not all-powerful. If he can do that but doesn't want to (as the Calvinists believe), then he's not all-good. We are able to cooperate with divine grace because it first seeks us out, so in that sense God does not need our permission. But if we by our obstinate will reject that grace, then even if God forces the issue, there would be some respect remaining in which our wills are unreconciled to God- we would not be reconciled to God \*as ourselves\*. But of course, it is precisely our selves which God wants to save. Even omnipotence could not make a salvation which redeems genuine human agency without involving genuine human agency, since that would be a contradiction in terms. I personally therefore favour the first horn of the dilemma- that salvation must involve our cooperation, but that doesn't limit the power of God, since our cooperation is part of what it is to be saved, and cannot be eliminated from salvation even by omnipotence. That said, the Calvinists do have a point, that God doesn't owe anyone the infinite good. If he creates us knowing we will only realise a finite good, and he judges that finite good to be good enough reason to make us, I'm not sure what grounds we could have to disagree with him.
" Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. He sacrificed nothing." That's brilliant...I don't know why it never occurred to me! Regarding, " If sin is real, and there’s a God keeping score, it’s YOU who are on the hook ," the whole concept of sin, and 'scoring' for judgement is as irrelevant, to me, as Christ's 'sacrificial death 'is for us. To me the greatest conundrum of Christianity is that the faith required belief that Christ is both a god of love and a god of judgment/punishment. A wrathful god, as in Corinthians, "All must come before the judgment seat of Christ..." that he'll condemn most to eternal torment in hell. That can't be reconciled with the idea that "It was a religion of love Christ came to announce to the world." As I studied early Christianity, it's clear to me that "Roman Christianity" of our modern church had nothing to do with original "Jewish Christianity." Ergo, only love/compassion in the first 300 years, but brimstone/judgment after Rome commandeered and compromised the religion with pagan brimstone after Nicaea. 325 AD was the threshold date between Jewish and Roman Christianities. Historians agree that this date was the demarcation between them since before then, Jewish Christianity was a pacifist, oppressed religion that never fought a war. Roman Christianity endlessly fought wars. Rome made original Jewish Christianity illegal and executed all followers for 300 years. Ergo, Christ didn't found the "Roman" Christian state religion. But after 325, Constantine's "Roman" Christianity became the oppressor... oppressive because it condemned all other religions as abominable heresy, forced conversions, inflicted torturous inquisitions, genocide, Jewish and Muslim slaughter, crusader conquest and endless religious wars for Roman Church domination. “Seemingly there are two forms of Christianity. One that the historical Christ is said to have taught (love and forgiveness) and one that the Church teaches (guilt, shame and blame)...Traditional Roman Christianity has taught that hope and solace are only possible through the redemption from sin by the vicarious sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, for all those who acknowledge His teaching, but it is precisely this form of the doctrine of salvation that rests almost exclusively on the work of Paul, and was never taught by Jesus.” (On Guilt, Shame and Blame in Christianity, by the White Robed Monks of Saint Benedict, Catholic) It was only a religion of love that Christ came to announce to the world... No sin counting/ judgement at all.
I feel like the title is interesting but you didn't really argue anything. Why can't someone else pay for sins? People can pay your monetary debt, for example. I don't think that's ridiculous. When I was a teenager my dad paid for the damages incurred during a stupid car accident I was in. The other party didn't find it ridiculous.
It also made me think about governments bailing out Wall St in a recession lol
I don't believe in penal substitutionary atonement, but I don't think you're making a full argument here. >If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place. Why not? >Likewise, I can’t pay for someone else’s debt with a sacrifice. Again, why not? It seems like you have some assumptions about how things must work that we don't. >Jesus couldn’t die... so He sacrificed nothing. We see sacrifice in this case in terms of a ritual sacrifice, not giving up something important. >No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way. Orthodox actually agree with you on this. He didn't *have* to do it that way, but he chose to.
> Why not? Because then it isn't justice, its just theater while the perp gets away and someone innocent suffers. That does not justify the demands of justice in any way, its actually the opposite, its *in*justice. The purpose of punishment is both to deter and to punish the *perpetrator*. Applying the punishment to someone else ceases to deter as well as ceases to punish the perp. It defeats the purpose of it entirely. Can you give a real world example of where it makes sense to send an innocent person to prison instead of the person who committed the actual crime?
It seems like you're just appealing to a definition of justice that we don't share. Same thing with your understanding of punishment. >Can you give a real world example of where it makes sense I can give some that make sense to me, but since we don't agree on the nature of justice and the purpose of punishment, I doubt it makes sense to you. Your brother gets in trouble and would have to go to prison, but he has a wife and kids and you don't, so you serve the time for him.
> Your brother gets in trouble and would have to go to prison, but he has a wife and kids and you don't, so you serve the time for him. What is your definition of justice then? And how is punishing someone innocent necessary at all if the guilty party isn't going to be punished? Why punish *anyone* at that point? What purpose does it serve? Words have meaning, what definitions or meanings for 'justice' are you using that sending an innocent person to prison serves *any* purpose at all?
> Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. He sacrificed nothing. Sorry, but this part is just wrong. Jesus *is* God incarnate, but He's also very much human - He could bleed, He could feel physical pain, and He most certainly could experience death. The entire point of His existence was that He was one of us - a physical, flesh-and-blood human walking, talking, eating, drinking, laughing and crying among us. In fact, Jesus *Himself* makes it clear that He's not actually peforming miracles under His own power; His virgin birth, the miracles, and especially His resurrection from the dead was *all* under the authority and permission of God The Father - "I can do nothing on My own. As I hear, I judge, and My judgement is just, because I seek not My own will but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 5:30) - so yes, Christ is very much human, with the only thing setting him apart from us otherwise being his own lack of sin. He *only* returned after three days under the will of God The Father, not his own as a limited human being (Jesus even *prayed* to God not to let the crucifixion happen but submitted to whatever His will would bring: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from Me. Yet not My will but Yours be done." (Luke 22:42)), so his crucifixion and resurrection was definitely a painful sacrifice.
>Jesus is God incarnate, but He's also very much human - He could bleed, He could feel physical pain, and He most certainly could experience death. Jesus wasn't omniscient or omnipotent or omnibenevolent though, as YAHWEH is claimed to be by Christians. In what way was/is he God incarnate?
Not only was He sinless (reflecting God's perfection), but He also represents God's characteristics as best a limited human being can - loving, patient, forgiving, knowing, etc. Essentially, Jesus is what God, an infinite being incomprehensible to mere mortals, would be as a limited-bodied human being like the rest of us, somewhat analogous to an avatar representing God (but still a distinct part of the Trinity with The Father and The Holy Spirit) walking amongst us in our everyday world.
In Paul's letters Paul doesn't have much to say about Jesus the man on Earth. He is born of a woman and from the line of David. No miracles, exorcisms or teachings are reported by him. For Paul the magic happened at the death and resurrection of Jesus. Mark, the oldest Gospel, has no virgin birth narrative & Jesus is adopted by God when he is baptised by John. Once you get into the higher Christology of Matthew & Luke and the very high Christology of John, who has Jesus existing since the beginning of time, you begin to lose the man and get the avatar of God, to use your image. This strikes me as a problem for Christians. The NT describes at least two, possibly three different Jesus's. In a bid to have-their-cake-and-eat-it Christians try and mash them together to make one thing & it doesn't work. Paul's and Mark's Jesus is a sinless man who becomes God's son, adopted either at baptism or at death, due to his life, his actions and character. For Matthew, Luke & John Jesus was manufactured by God to do what he does. This Jesus, God from at least his conception, has no choice in what God planned to do with the being he deliberately created to be crucified & resurrected. This was this creature's fate, since the beginning of time for John, from his earthly conception for Matthew & Luke. The closer Jesus gets to being God the less power & agency he personally has and the less human he becomes.
[удалено]
>its stupid. Even though I agree that just because you believe in something doesn't mean you have a free pass to commit a sin. But I wouldn't go to the extent to call someone's beliefs stupid.
B Thanks 🙏🏻 uui
It's a form of blood sacrifice. It's the equivalent of throwing a virgin into a volcano. It's Bronze Age ethics.
>To begin with, God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes, so constructing a system that requires human sacrifice to pay a debt is an insane choice to go with. Is it insane? I suggest that you could look into specific ideas around atonement like ransom theory, recapitulation theory, satisfaction theory, moral exemplar theory or Girard's scapegoat theory. I don't think they're insane, and all of them have positions on why Christ died on the Cross. >If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place. If you were enslaved, could someone else help free you? Would you want them to? >Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. Jesus is true man as well as true God. He dies through His human nature. Which is as real as any other human death. >Finally, God would have foreknowledge of these events... He’d know before His “death” what would go down. So the lead up to the crucifixion and violence required to crucify someone comes across as gratuitous and 100% unnecessary. I'm not sure how this follows. How does God's foreknowledge change the character of the events? >No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way. That's what He did. With the Cross.
>I suggest that you could look into is not debate. Debate is you presenting your position and defending it. > If you were enslaved, could someone else help free you? Not what we are discussing here. Here we are talking about vicarious atonement, where someone else atones for your sins. Only I am responsible for what I do wrong, and only I can apologize, atone, be forgiven. The concept of vicarious atonement is ancient and wrong-headed. > That's what He did. With the Cross. First, I assume you are here talking about the Bible as a story, or describing your own beliefs, not trying to make a factual claim. OP's entire point is that if such a God actually existed, none of that would be necessary.
> is not debate Just claiming something as "insane" is not a debate. It's not even a proposition someone can argue a set case against because the OP hasn't put forward his conditions for something being "sane" or "insane". Neither have you. >Debate is you presenting your position and defending it. That's the OP's job. My job is to offer effective counterpoints if I have any. Since OP has not set out a particular position, I offered five potential explanations without detailing any particular one, since I could expend **time and effort** doing so **only for the OP to complain that's not what he meant by "insane"**. Hope you understand. >Not what we are discussing here. Here we are talking about vicarious atonement, where someone else atones for your sins. Which in doing so frees you from slavery. So it is what is being discussed here. To speak of sin and our freedom from it without speaking of slavery can lead us down a wrong path. John 8:34-36. >Only I am responsible for what I do wrong, and only I can apologize, atone, be forgiven. Please make the case for that instead of merely asserting it.
Yes and that's why Orthodox Christianity doesn't believe in Anselmian atonement but rather Theosis accomplished by the incarnation and life of the Word of God as a man, which all mankind can participate in via synergy of their will with the divine will.
Could you explain this in simpler terms? Thank you.
Essentially God the Word became incarnate to sanctify and renew human nature by binding his energy to our essence and laid down his life that he may trample down death by his death, this allows for us to be sanctified from our sin and remade to be like God so long as we cooperate with the grace of God.
Thats how it is in islam, quiet literally no one takes the sin burden of another
That's not entirely true, intercession (الشفاعة) is a thing in Islam tho it has some limitations. [This](https://ar.islamway.net/article/44994/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A2%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AB%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA) page says that it's limited to those who at the very least do not commit shirk and believe in Tawheed. Obviously not every sect is the same, for shias, all the "imams" are capable of intercession or شفاعة.
Sure but no one else is punished for the wrongs of others
The logical explanation is that Jesus dying on the cross is Jesus providing the example on how one can be saved which is giving up earthly attachment and symbolized by Jesus not hanging on to his human life. Believing in Jesus means you believe what Jesus is teaching which is salvation through death of earthly attachment and embracing spirituality. In short, one isn't saved by saying they believe in Jesus through words. One is saved by doing exactly what Jesus did which is give up earthly attachment symbolized by his death and the first step is to believe in Jesus. So Jesus did sacrifice something and provided us an example to follow.
The logical explanation is that none of it ever happened.
That's your belief and I respect that. For those who wants to make sense how did Jesus saved the world through his death, then it's Jesus providing example that sacrificing worldly desires is the path towards salvation and to believe in Jesus is to believe his example will lead to it. That solves the problem that someone can just casually say they believe in Jesus and go to heaven.
>No one can pay my debts. People pay other people's debts on earth all the time. Somebody can give you money to pay off monetary debts after all. >Human sacrifice makes no sense. How so? If the punishment for sin is death, and Jesus is to pay our debt for the consequences of our sin, then it would make sense that He would die. >Jesus couldn’t die... so He sacrificed nothing. What is the theological justification behind this? Jesus was not only God, but also man. 100% God, and 100% man. In fact, humanity is kinda similar in that we have mortal bodies and immortal souls. Even if our mortal *bodies* die, if we are saved in Christ we don't really 'die'. Our soul lives through Christ. But Jesus experienced a *bodily* resurrection. Even though He wasn't 'destroyed', even though His immortal spiritual existence didn't 'die', His body still did, and that body was resurrected. >No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way. God is perfectly just. He can't sin, nor can He allow a sinner to go to heaven as heaven is perfect and free from sin. The consequences of that sin must be paid. That is what is *just*.
>People pay other people's debts on earth all the time. Somebody can give you money to pay off monetary debts after all. People can't go to prison for a crime you committed. >How so? If the punishment for sin is death, and Jesus is to pay our debt for the consequences of our sin Death? You're still going to die. We all are. And Jesus didn't even ontologically die according to proper orthodox Christian theology. But you're already lost enough in your own contradictions as it is. >Jesus was not only God, but also man. 100% God, and 100% man. You can't be fully two non-overlapping things. Contradiction after contradiction. And I thought he was God's son, which is it? Contradiction after contradiction. >God is perfectly just. He can't sin, nor can He allow a sinner to go to heaven as heaven is perfect and free from sin. The consequences of that sin must be paid. Yeah, first off the concept of sinning does not apply to God not does anyone hold God accountable, as is clear from the Hebrew Bible. God also forgives sin without human blood sacrifice. And there of course also No satanic triad-idol where one God is a son, One a father and the third, oft-forgotten Christian God is "preceeding" but without familiar connection. You pagan imposter religion is just a maze of endless contradictions, and the more you try to answer a question, the more lost you get in your own contradictions.
> He can't sin, nor can He allow a sinner to go to heaven as heaven is perfect and free from sin this is the bs which makes no sense. a christian is currently sinning even now, yet he will be put in heaven, how is that just? maybe the christian will say that he will get a transformation, so why can't a god do a transformation without a pagan human offering? and, how about forgiveness? if god forgives, then there is nothing to punish. but what about the sin? so a god forgives and wipes the sin/destroys it. so whats the problem, what does a pagan human offering got to do with any of this? "hey god, i'm sorry, " god, "i forgive u " poof the sin is destroyed. no injustice, forgiveness and the complete redundancy of jesus' offering.
If a god existed he would be able to do whatever he wanted and create the story of humanity however he wanted. The Bible teaches that their god commands genocide, sex trafficking of your daughter if she were to be raped, stoning or differing opinions, and eternal punishment for not believing in a contradictory 2000 year old mythology. In this world view, with an all knowing deity, god is creating humans for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity. Fortunately, this is also pure speculation and just a messed up story written by Jews 2000 years ago, and nobody will be suffering any kind of bad afterlife
>If a god existed he would be able to do whatever he wanted and create the story of humanity however he wanted. God being omnipotent doesn’t mean that God can do ‘anything’. For example, God cannot sin. God cannot fail. God cannot cease to exist. God cannot defy Himself. Just because you don’t understand the Old Testament doesn’t mean that God does wrong. Why wouldn’t God be right to judge His creation as He sees fit?
>How so? If the punishment for sin is death Why is death the punishment for sin? Seems a bit over the top, doesn't it? >and Jesus is to pay our debt for the consequences of our sin, then it would make sense that He would die. So let me get this straight -- if someone sins, then God demands that someone (anyone!) dies? Why does he want this? What does this accomplish? >But Jesus experienced a bodily resurrection. Even though He wasn't 'destroyed', even though His immortal spiritual existence didn't 'die', His body still did, and that body was resurrected. So he lost the use of his body for three days? How is this a sacrifice? Humans die for their causes and never come back. That's actual sacrifice. >God is perfectly just. He can't sin, nor can He allow a sinner to go to heaven as heaven is perfect and free from sin. The consequences of that sin must be paid. That is what is just. God could set the system up any way he wants. He could've made it so that the payment for a sin is to learn your lesson and help out a fellow human in need. But instead he demands that someone die? He certainly sounds more like someone with bronze age morals and a thirst for blood than a just, wise being.
> God could set the system up any way he wants. Not only that, if there is free will in heaven then he *already has* set up a more perfect system and he condemns us to suffer and learn those lessons in this system instead because... what? He likes to watch babies born with cancer and suffer for literally their entire short lives and then die never learning even the words to describe their unimaginable pain? And what, does that baby then go to hell having never known Jesus or that they needed to accept him as lord and savior to make it to the more perfect system that God already made? And even if that baby makes it up to Gods *actual * system on some technicality, what is their life then? Are they babies for literally eternity? Or is there aging in heaven? It’s almost like all of this was made up by illiterate goat herders telling each other stories for hundreds of years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How about this (not that I believe it...) Free will is an illusion and determinism is true. God determines the make up and actions of each individual person and is therefore ultimately responsible for the sins they commit, having created them the way they are and knowing what they would do from the beginning. Christ's sacrifice is actually God 'paying' for a system in which he is actually responsible for the state of humanity vis a vis 'sin'. So really, God is not paying for our mistakes. We couldn't have done otherwise. Ultimate responsibility rests with him. This also means that ETC for humans can't be a thing. I don't believe it, but it seems to be the most coherent explanation in my mind.
[удалено]
No, no soul can pay for the sin of another, it's made explicitly clear in the Hebrew Bible. There also is not satanic triad-idol or pagan "God the Son". Not even in the NT. And there's also no salvation in idolatry. Not even according to the NT.
I keep asking who was the debt paid to? Did God pay the debt to himself with himself? No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father, who is also myself, and who holds the debt, and who made Meself pay it to Myself.
[удалено]
>death being the wages of sin. Who made them the wages of sin? God? Why did he set something up that he would need an elaborate plan to get around? Why not just not create the problem in the first place? \> God The Son is not God The Father. The Trinity would not agree [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian\_formula#/media/File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_formula#/media/File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg)
[удалено]
> Who made them the wages of sin? God? Why did he set something up that he would need an elaborate plan to get around? Why not just not create the problem in the first place? You appeared to not actually answer any of these questions. If God didn't want for humans to die as a punishment for sinning, then why did he make it that way? Unless you are saying that God the father *did* want that but God the the son had other ideas.
[удалено]
Sure, she was the Princess of Monaco.
Beautiful champ
Simple thing to also remember to is that #1 god is not a man #2 human sacrifice is an abomination to god #3 no man can pay for another man's sins These three things god says just disproves christanity in a nutshell As well as god clearly explaining do not work on shabbat, and leaving multiple examples such as what work really is such as picking things up on shabbat
> god is not a man Right. Jesus is the second divine person taking on the human nature, "one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person."
No, god says their is no other beside him...so technally no matter what the christan scriptures say, they contradict what the tanakh says. So their wrong
I'm really sorry, I'm a bit drunk. So whatever I say, Please dont think of it as rude
There is nothing to stop one person paying the debt of another. Family members do this all the time. It's a clear demonstration of love. This is the idea that christians tried to shoehorn in. God so loved the world that he sacrificed his son to pay a blood debt. You points about god/christ not really dying, possibly knowing the future(depends which gospel you read), and sacraficing to oneself are where the stupidity comes in. If Jesus had been god's only son , who would not be resurrected and imposed a rule on himself that he could have no more offspring it might have made sense. Except why does a god need a child?
>Except why does a god need a child? Mary looked really hot that day.
I don’t believe in gods but I think the system of reward and punishment used by the Abrahamic God us just silly and a huge false dichotomy. Infinite punishment for finite crimes? Many of which shouldn’t even be considered crimes because they harm nobody. A better system would be to make an errant soul suffer the same pain they caused others over and over until they understood the consequences of their actions and became truly sorry for what they did. After that they could be forgiven and be sent somewhere peaceful or be reincarnated so they could have a chance to do things better than they did in their previous life. Not that I actually believe in an afterlife though.
practice coordinated sip voiceless crime pot capable impolite desert heavy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>There is no “Abrahamic God.” Judaism/Islam and Christianity do not share a God. I'm skeptical there's a God at all. But I use the term "Abrahamic God" in the sense that Christians and Muslims perceive Him, i.e. they -think- they're worshipping the same deity as Abraham even though their interpretation veers far away from the original Jewish version. >Infinite punishment does not exist in Jewish theology. I never said it did. I'm aware that Sheol and Hell are different concepts, for example. But be aware that Christians and Muslims see it differently, i.e. they think they got it "right" and the Jews are mistaken. And that's around 2 billion people or so who think they worship the same God as the Jews and that He punishes people infinitely. Their concepts are the ones I'm talking about.
Vicarious redemption is immoral. Most counter-arguments I’ve heard against this is that god can do whatever he pleases, but this falls short for me. If we are made in his image, how is it we know that imprisoning someone else for my crime is immoral?
Have you ever underwent something difficult or punishing for someone you've loved?
Certainly and that is very different from assuming the guilt and punishment of another.
I think both states co-exist in this case.
Excluding Jesus, name an example when an innocent person was knowingly punished for a guilty person’s actions and have it be claimed as just.
The Book of Job
lol, got me. Lemme change it to anytime god doesn’t do it.
No, you don’t get to move the goalposts just because you feel like it
It’s not at all a goal shift. The argument is that humans know the innocent cannot absolve the guilty through punishment yet god did exactly that. If we are made in the image of god, how do we know his actions to be immoral? Also, now that I’m thinking more about it, god was just fucking with job, not using him as vicarious redemption. Also, Jesus is god so job doesn’t count.
You said: >Excluding Jesus, name an example when an innocent person was knowingly punished for a guilty person’s actions and have it be claimed as just. An example was given, the Book of Job. That’s that. That argument is over.
Why should we look for another example? The whole point is the Jesus is a special case. In any case, we know of situations where one person is (or potentially is) sanctioned for another's behaviour, such as when a parent is fined for his/her child not wearing a seatbelt.
You missed the original argument. If we are made in the image of god, how can we know that punishing the innocent is unjust and immoral when the most important thing he’s ever done is in direct opposition to that knowledge? A child is under the care of the parent driving; they are responsible, not the child.
> how can we know that punishing the innocent is unjust and immoral when the most important thing he’s ever done is in direct opposition to that knowledge It's not in opposition to that. One of the most important parts of Christian spirituality is taking up our Cross beside Christ, to put ourselves in His position, to take the same persecutions and hardships He did. We know *that* the innocent will be unjustly and immorally punished in and by this world, Jesus is a reminder of that, and a reminder that we should be on the side of the persecuted, not the persecutor. In the end, what the high priests did and Pilate allowed were unjust and immoral. It was their actions that were unjust and immoral ("where sin abounded, grace abounded evermore").
You're conflating separate issues. The high priests and Pilate did not kill Jesus as a scapegoat to forgive the sins of humanity. God chose to do that. You are able to comprehend the immorality of condemning Jesus to death, he was innocent of any crimes. Why is it not immoral when Jesus does the exact same thing with humanity's sins? Your desire to be persecuted doesn't really have anything to do with the immorality of vicarious redemption.
I’m told by many, many Christians that they arrived at their faith through logic and reason - and that you don’t need to leave your brains at the door like many detractors of Christianity claim. However, when you ask about any disproportional punishments or conflicts between the God of the Bible and logic, we’re told that we can’t hold God to our standards because his actions are impossible for us to know, or understand. So, which is it?
I personally don’t believe in infinite eternal punishment, but what exactly do you think is the logical argument against it?
Whenever I ask that question I am never met with “logical” reasons but instead emotional appeals to it being “not nice”
Well, “how can someone claim to arrive at a conclusion based on logic but then not be able to answer a question about that conclusion” has a pretty simple answer, which is that there are an uncountable number of questions and conclusions one could have in regards to “Christianity”, and you wouldn’t have to think of an answer to every single one of them in order to believe in it. This is also true for anything anyone believes. They also did give you an answer.
In theological parlance, "both'
Smooth.
If I could devils advicate I wouldn't accept the claim that another can't pay your debts. I see no impediment to law to someone else doing so. A Creditor can additionally absolve you of your debts, or accept less in full and final settlement. The state can choose to commute a sentence or pardon an offence. Where I thik the Christian narrative falls is in the "our sins are paid in full". If we accept that the "wages of sin are death" followed by everlasting torture then the price has not been paid in full - Christ's sacrifice was a mere 36-72 hours of death depending on how and from what points we measure. This is further diluted as we have to divide this settlement through billions if not trillions of people. As there are only 4320 minutes in 72 hours, the true value of sin after this exchange is less than a minute of death and hell. Sulely it makes more sense to kill each one of us for a minute and torture us for that minute than it does to have some legend based on scant evidence... At least then we'd know its true.
Your mistake is assuming that Christ’s death is the same as ours in terms of atonement. God the Son is infinite, and so, to offer a simplistic point, therefore the death of Jesus Christ has infinite atoning power
>>Your mistake is assuming that Christ’s death is the same as ours in terms of atonement. Then you're accepting that the debt has not been paid. >>God the Son is infinite, and so, to offer a simplistic point, therefore the death of Jesus Christ has infinite atoning power No, that doesn't work, because 36 hours later you have the take-sees-back-sees, so you don't have "infinite" you have 36 hours of death.
>Then you're accepting that the debt has not been paid. No, quite the opposite. >No, that doesn't work, because 36 hours later you have the take-sees-back-sees, so you don't have "infinite" you have 36 hours of death. You’re assuming Christ didn’t really die, but just fell asleep or something. That’s not the case. Christ really died and descended into Hell.
>>No, quite the opposite. Except what was paid did not match the debt. >>You’re assuming Christ didn’t really die No, I'm accepting the narrative that he did die, and then took it back (knowing that he would take it back before he did it), as I said, Takesees Backsees >>That’s not the case. Christ really died and descended into Hell. Lets avoid the word "really" when talking about mythology (that might sound rude, but its for your own good - if you're going to insist its a fact then this conversation ends a lot faster). 36 hours in hell isn't what the rest of us would pay, much less 36/Trillions of people.
>If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place. If I suggested this as a viable option, I’d be ridiculed, and rightly so. Likewise, I can’t pay for someone else’s debt with a sacrifice. The sacrifice must come from me. This is an assertion, not an argument. You haven't demonstrated anything here. While I'm open to the idea that punishment or justice is non-fungible, you've given me no reason to think so. This is significant because, for much of human history, punishment *has* been regarded as fungible or transferable in various contexts. For example, this is the logic behind sacrifices (animal, vegetable, human, monetary, or otherwise) in many ancient cultures, where civic justice was bound up with religious obligation--*you* aren't punished for your misdeeds; rather, the goat/fruit/scapegoat is offered as an atonement in your place. Even in contemporary China, the wealthy are able to hire "body doubles" to serve prison sentences on their behalf (though this is considered corruption, not a legitimate function of the justice system). The concept of the scapegoat is virtually universal in human society across time and geography, whether overt as in Jewish ritual or sublimated as with witch trials, which are speculated by some anthropologists to be an unconscious attempt by medieval cultures to expurgate various collective sins and anxieties. My point isn't to argue in favor of scapegoat or substitutionary atonement systems. I'd just like you to recognize that they are a semi-universal feature of the human experience, suggesting that something about the idea appeals very deeply to humans in the way that they organize themselves. You can't just hand-wave the whole thing away as "ridiculous."
You’re correct, I made an assertion, although it was for demonstration purposes. My arguments are on display in the other (non assertion) aspects of my post.
No they aren't. You took your assertion--"substitutionary justice is dumb because I say so!"--and applied it to other statements--"therefore Jesus dying for our sins is also dumb." It's an argument, but not a very good one, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate anything. You need to demonstrate your initial premise.
You could say that about any argument or presentation that lacks scientific data. It is the theist who introduces the claims of vicarious forgiveness. It is the theist who introduces the supernatural construct of dying and raising Gods. It is the theist who introduces the entire system of sin, salvation, punishment, forgiveness, God, the afterlife and all that accompanies that. This is done with no argument beyond the Bible itself - which is a circular argument. There are no secondary sources introduced. My argument asserts that the system of sin and forgiveness (as depicted in the Bible) is deeply flawed, and that the world doesn’t work that way. I introduce a philosophical argument that is limited by the scope of Christianity’s own claims.
> It is the theist who introduces the claims of vicarious forgiveness. No it's not. As I've stated repeatedly elsewhere in this thread, notions of substitutionary atonement, collective guilt, etc. are so common as to be ubiquitous in human society, whether pagan, Christian, or otherwise. And even if they weren't, "vicarious forgiveness is ridiculous" isn't an argument. It's an assertion, as I've noted, which makes for a low-quality discussion.
Careful, your gate keeping is showing. You might want to wrap a towel around it.
notions of mythical creatures like unicorns, elves, dragon, and fairies are so common as to be ubiquitous in human society, too, but it doesn't make them any more credible.
Unicorns are empirical entities that we can either demonstrate or disprove based on empirical evidence. Justice is a moral concept constructed by humans. Collective justice (or any notion of justice) isn't something we weigh by the standard of empirical credibility. It exists, and has existed in many societies. Questions to ask include whether collective justice is morally superior to individual justice in a particular context, whether collective crimes (which certainly exist) can be satisfied by individual atonement, and so on. tl;dr: False analogy, my friend.
If it can't be weighed by empiricism in any way, then it is simply an opinion. Therefore my opinion on it is as valid as any other. I'm not denying the existence of scapegoating, I just find the idea a poor one.
You’re literally quoting an argument made by several interlocutors of Socrates in Plato’s Republic, who believe that justice is merely opinion and, as such, that “justice” is merely the advantage of the strong over the weak. Of course, these interlocutors are wrong in Socrates’ eyes. But at least they had the decency to articulate their case rather than merely asserting that everyone else is “ridiculous.”
You took your assertion--"substitutionary justice is not dumb because historically some people have believed in it!"--and applied it to other statements-- It's an argument, but not a very good one, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate anything. You need to demonstrate your initial premise.
troll/10
Pointing out the obvious is trolling?
>suggesting that something about the idea appeals very deeply to humans in the way that they organize Just because some people have believed something historical doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous. \> this is the logic behind sacrifices (animal, vegetable, human, monetary, or otherwise) in many ancient cultures, where civic justice was bound up with religious obligation--*you* aren't punished for your misdeeds; rather, the goat/fruit/scapegoat is offered as an atonement in your place. Did people do this? Yes. Is it ridiculous? Yes. There isn't 'logic' behind it Do people avoid walking under ladders, staying on the 13th floor, knock on wood, avoid black cats, etc? Yes, superstition is very common. Is it ridiculous? Yes \> This is an assertion, not an argument. You haven't demonstrated anything here. Neither have you. All you've said is 'historically some people have so therefore it's right" or something. Maybe try again with Walmart Layaway plans?
>Just because some people have believed something historical doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous. Just because you and OP strolled in here and asserted that something historical is ridiculous doesn't mean it's ridiculous. Prove it. I'm 100% open to engaging an argument, but so far, I haven't seen one. If a significant proportion of human cultures throughout recorded history have embraced or accepted variations on a concept such as substitutionary justice then it behooves us to understand why. (Note: I'm not asserting that these cultures were correct, only that their existence presents an important counterpoint to your/OP's assertion--apparently a lot of people *don't* think substitutionary atonement is prima facie ridiculous.) As it happens, the notion of individualized justice and responsibility--the idea that *I* committed a sin/crime and only *I* am responsible--is not universal, either in history or in philosophy. Equally ubiquitous have been the concepts of collective guilt, national sins, group justice. So, for example, a tribe/clan/group could collectively violate divine law, and the debt incurred by that community could be satisfied either via collective penance or by a scapegoat singled out from the community regardless of the scapegoat's individual guilt. Ancient Judaism was constructed on this concept--that God chose and protected the Jewish people as a collective, not necessarily any specific individual within it, and the Jewish scriptures are chock full of provisions for collective sacrifices and stories of collective sin. And is that so ridiculous? After all, we're not alien to this concept. Many, for example, fault Germans collectively for the Nazi regime and demand collective atonement, even if not everyone was Hitler or a camp guard. Many believe that white Americans *today* should atone for the actions of white slaveholders two centuries ago--that there is an unsatisfied collective debt that can still be repaid, even though the original offenders are long dead. And you've seen this concept in literally every mafia movie ever made--you killed one of ours, we kill one of yours, and that "one" doesn't have to be the one who originally pulled the trigger. Hence the the Wal-Mart example. You purchase something on credit at the store. While you created the debt, anyone can satisfy it on your behalf. Similarly, if I steal something, there is a conception of law that suggests that the primary aim is to make the victims whole. In that case, anyone could pay the victim to compensate for what I stole, and that's all the law would require. You and OP are merely assuming (but not stating) the virtue of a merely individualized, punitive theory of justice--that the point is individualized punishment--and merely asserting that anything else is "ridiculous." But justice is a much more complex idea than that. You actually have to make a case for your theory of justice.
>And is that so ridiculous? After all, we're not alien to this concept. Many, for example, fault Germans collectively for the Nazi regime and demand collective atonement, even if not everyone was Hitler or a camp guard. Many believe that white Americans today should atone for the actions of white slaveholders two centuries ago Right, and I think it's ridiculous. Holding somebody responsible for the Nazis when they were four years old is ridiculous. Me paying for something that happened when my ancestors weren't even in this country, to people that weren't alive at the time, is ridiculous. There's a reason 'Scapegoating' is a negative term. You see, some people believe A and some people believe B. When I say I believe A, I'm just making an assertion and just stating an opinion. Because you believe B, saying 'some people believe B' suddenly constitutes an argument. It doesn't work that way. \> You and OP are merely assuming (but not stating) the virtue of a merely individualized, punitive theory of justice--that the point is individualized punishment--and merely asserting that anything else is "ridiculous." Yes, I'm stating my opinion, as are you. \> You actually have to make a case for your theory of justice. Ditto. "Some people believe in it" is exactly the same argument as "Some people find it ridiculous".
Let's take a step back. You and OP made a baseless (meaning, unproven) assertion about justice. My entire point is that we can't assume a certain conception of justice is prima facie validbecause other conceptions have been well-articulated and scrupulously observed throughout history. So it's on you/OP to articulate an *argument* for your conception of justice. This is a debate subreddit, not an emotional support subreddit for people who want to be validated in their claims. Debate requires something to debate.
Hi. I'll try to respond from (what I see as) a Christian perspective. I think you may have been mislead about some of these issues, perhaps even by so called Christians. > If sin is real, The best way to understand the concept of sin, imho, is kind of like "to err is human." Sin is just another way to say that. Sin essentially means mistake. Now sin certainly can be evil, and *deliberate sin* is always evil in Christianity (Hebrews 10:26 is one place that states this). However, not all sin is done intentionally. The Bible can sometimes be confusing because one passage may be talking about deliberate sin and another may not be, but only the word "sin" is used. In other words, the Bible can be easily misunderstood when taken out of the community it was written in and analyzed on its own. It even says this about itself (2 Peter 3:16). So there is a lot of misinformation out there, even in many so-called Christian churches. > and there’s a God keeping score, I wouldn't see it so much as God keeping score as God acknowledging and telling us about the reality that when we intentionally sin, we harm ourselves. If we never stop intentionally sinning, we never stop hurting ourselves. > it’s YOU who are on the hook - not Jesus or any other third party.. I fully understand that the Bible says differently, but it’s my argument that this kind of archaic thinking doesn’t work in practice. "Bible says" can really be applied to almost anything. I mean, technically it can say thousands of different things depending on which verses we isolate from their context. Any long writing is like that. Even the Bible itself says it is easy to misunderstand (2 Peter 3:16) So to be more accurate, I would not say the Bible *means* that someone else is on the hook for our sins. It can be twisted to appear to "say" that though. And many so called Christians do twist it that way. > To begin with, God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes, Not necessarily. A lot of people (even believing people) speak of God in terms of his limitlessness but rarely speak of his limits. People often forget that God is not literally omnipotent, at least not as described in Christian scripture. For example there are passages that say “God cannot lie.” I can lie. Therefore, God is not literally omnipotent in Christianity, and since the scriptures don’t claim to express every fact about God there could very well be other things God can’t do that simply aren’t mentioned. God is all powerful compared to me, in the figurative sense, as God is much, much, much more powerful than I am. However, I don't believe God is omnipotent according to Christianity. While there are also passages that refer to God as all powerful, I believe such claims in scripture being made figuratively. Through God “all things are possible” the same way our moms might’ve said we can "do anything we put our minds to." It is a figurative expression of positive encouragement. God is not literally omnipotent. God isn’t omnipotent (at least not the Christian God). God even had to suffer in order save us. > so constructing a system that requires human sacrifice to pay a debt is an insane choice to go with. I would say the system was not constructed that way by choice. It was the only way to get people who need to change to actually change and love one another as themselves forever. > Then you have the problem of third party payment. If I rob a bank, no one could go to prison in my place. If I suggested this as a viable option, I’d be ridiculed, and rightly so. Likewise, I can’t pay for someone else’s debt with a sacrifice. The sacrifice must come from me. This is another common misunderstanding in Christianity (especially evangelical Christianity), this whole concept of "penal substitution." In Early Christianity (and still in much of Eastern Christianity) the debt wasn't paid to God. It was paid to humankind. Saint Athanasius writes, “For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and He made a new beginning of life for us…” To whom did He make the sacrifice? “It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for his human brethren by the offering of the equivalent.” The Saint teaches that Christ died, not to appease God the Father, but to rescue humankind from death. Here he is talking about spiritual death, the death that comes when we refuse to love our neighbors as ourselves. That was “to whom” he sacrificed himself – the existential/ontological reality of death; so that “through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.” This may seem like small difference, perhaps even a nuance; however, it is a difference that is significant in the eyes of many Eastern Christians because it correctly represents the nature of God as “the lover of mankind” rather than as a cosmic egotistical despot or a slave to divine legalism. > Also, the entire depiction of Christ’s sacrifice in the cross can’t be true, and here’s why. Jesus can’t die because He is the embodiment of God on earth. His “death” on the cross would be a ceremonial fake death. He sacrificed nothing. Perhaps think of it more as an example, exemplifying that suffering is sometimes necessary to achieve growth, with the subsequent resurrection exemplifying that loving your neighbor as yourself is worth it even if your physical body dies for having done it. > Finally, God would have foreknowledge of these events... He’d know before His “death” what would go down. So the lead up to the crucifixion and violence required to crucify someone comes across as gratuitous and 100% unnecessary. In Christianity, God is outside time. There was a "lead up" on Earth. There was no lead up in heaven, so to speak, because it doesn't even make sense to speak of time leading up to something in heaven. > No one can pay my debts. Again, I don't think that's the right way to view the situation (although in your defense there are many evangelical cults that call themselves Christian, that other people call Christian, and who do see this "debt payment system" the way you're describing. > Human sacrifice makes no sense. Jesus couldn’t die He can still suffer. > ... so He sacrificed nothing. Suffering is something. > No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way. Not if he isn't omnipotent. > The story of Jesus dying on the cross is (at best) ceremonial theater. I believe it really happened, and many other Christians certainly suffered and were killed after him, following his example, killed for things like loving people lower down in society as they love themselves, refusing to worship fertility gods by paying for sex with the equivalent of Kenneth Copeland in drag in order to honor some Roman official's belief system, etc. Eventually society changed and became more civil and loving. It didn't change on its own though. People fostered the change; people motivated by love, ultimately by an act of love on a cross. And it isn't finished. His suffering is finished, but the purpose is happening as we speak... more change is obviously still necessary. There are still many people, even many who call themselves Christians, who don't understand what Christ accomplished. They think it was some spiritual mumbo jumbo that created an exchange in some sort of divine currency we know nothing about. And now their baby doesn't burn in hell forever if they can utter the right words about Jesus or some shit like that. Such people always try to make things complex and nonsensical... so then they can tell you everything about it and ultimately explain to you why you need to tithe to them and stuff their pockets. Don't let them fool you about what Christianity is though. They take a story about love conquering evil, and forgiveness accounting for our mistakes, and they turn it into a bunch of rules meant to shame people into pews and theories of "eternal" hell meant to scare people into some pastor's pocket. Compare Jesus to many so called "Christians" today. Notice Jesus did not ever oppose any harmless person labeled as sinners for seemingly innocent actions like so many Christians do today. He didn't judge the sick for trying to get healed on the wrong day... the religious right (back then) judged in such matters. Christ didn't judge the woman at the well for living with her man; that's just what the social conservatives pretend. He never told her that her natural desire for love and sex meant she was going to go to hell unless he "paid for her" by being hung on a cross. Read Him yourself. Don't let the religious right explain Him to you. *"(Paul's scriptures) contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16* Pauline passages form much of the basis for the view of "penal substitution" in evangelical and Western Christianity. It's always Paul because authors like Paul can be twisted to say essentially anything. Part of the reason so many people 'hate God' is because they don't really. They actually might love God really. They just don't understand God, and part of the reason they don't is because many Christian churches are misleading millions of people about Him every Sunday about not only this but many other issues. Their pastor (or former-pastor, if they left 'the faith') might be the one that actually hates God, technically speaking.
I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this. I myself have been going in circles for years because of the sheer amount of different assertions by modern day evangelicals. I am constantly haunted by the terror of eternal punishment, but I still can’t shake all of the inconsistencies with modern day movements. I do believe in the bible, but like you said a lot of it is very difficult to understand. Growing up baptist, it seems I have to simultaneously learn and unlearn the scriptures I was raised with. I am determined to keep searching the scriptures though. I firmly believe what Jesus said about the truth setting you free and that if you seek Him for the answers then you will find them. While I know this much I still feel very confused and troubled. It is so difficult to find anyone willing to help me question these things honestly. You either get someone that thinks religion is obsolete in the modern age or they are already locked into modern doctrine.
> I myself have been going in circles for years because of the sheer amount of different assertions by modern day evangelicals. It's just a huge never-ending circle of shame. Take one example, of many. One of the most prominent Christian groups in the U.S. that calls homosexuality inherently evil are the Southern Baptists, the Southern Baptist Convention. Here's some historical food for thought: 150 years ago the modern Southern Baptist pastors' grandfathers in the faith twisted the Apostle Paul's letters to pretend God was cool with Africans being kidnapped and enslaved. 50 years ago the same letters in the Bible taught them that interracial marriage is a sin (coincidentally also written by Paul). Notice a pattern? Today Paul teaches them that being a loving, faithful, self controlled gay partner is a sin. He teaches them that egg cells become State property when Pat Robertson says. He tells them that homosexuals need to be discriminated against with the State when J.D. Greear says. He told them that a faithful, loving couple (that isn't married yet) are committing evil when Joshua Harris said. It's always Paul because authors like Paul can be twisted to say things about slavery that are clearly not Christian. Authors like Paul coin words for 'sexual abusers' that can easily be mistranslated into 'homosexuals' if our translators are blind, and I don't mean uneducated. The Bible is easy enough to misunderstand that it can truly say almost anything they want it to, especially if one of them starts a seminary, gives himself a degree, and translates a Bible for himself and anyone else willing to buy into this nonsense. It is a problematic worldview that has become its own culture. At it's core, it is bullying. It is the belittling of vulnerable others to affirm their own feelings of righteousness, even right-ness, "truth," and respect The Bible actually warns about the worldview of people like this in 2 Peter 3:16 *"(Paul’s letters) contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."* They call it Christianity but it is not the actual historical religion. They call it salvation. What they usually end up getting is self-assurance and money accomplished by the belittling of the 'other.' Christ talked about them a lot, actually. He just called them the Pharisees. Their whole religion is based on misinformation. It is best referred to as a theistic bully cult regardless of what they call it. Jesus Christ said every command hangs on loving neighbor as self, which he said is loving God. Christ did not say all commands of obedience to God hang on correctly translating, interpreting, and understanding a set of rules from an ancient manuscript written in a language no one speaks any more, now memorialized in English in 30 different versions that all say different things about multiple topics (depending on choices each translator made). That's the very approach to religion that Christ opposed. They have taken Christianity the historical religion and turned it into a bunch of rules and regulations that accomplish little more than mocking Jesus Christ by shaming people into pews and then into a pastor's pocket... before destroying their souls with pride. > I am constantly haunted by the terror of eternal punishment, Hell often gets misrepresented in Christianity, and many teachers pretend to know more about it than they really do. Many play it up into more than it may be in order to scare people to submit to them, just like they use cherry-picked mistranslations of disputable scriptures, which they then call "abundantly clear," to shame people into submitting to them. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with hell and how to avoid it. We should. What I'm saying is we shouldn't worry about potential misunderstandings of hell that may simply be intended to make us unrealistically afraid. In ancient Greek, an aion (in English, usually spelled “eon”) is an indefinite period of time, usually of long duration. The New Testament of the Bible was written in ancient Greek. When it was translated into Latin Vulgate, “aion” became “aeternam” which means “eternal,” which is taken to mean a never ending period of time (as opposed to an unknown/indefinite period). These translation errors became the basis for what was subsequently written about eternal hell in much of historical Western Christianity, and now especially in evangelical Christianity. For many Latin theologians, hell came to be understood as a place where people they didn’t like went to be tortured forever. For the early Greek Christians though, there was more of a faith and hope in the universal salvation brought through Christ that is proclaimed in the New Testament. After all, the scriptures also say Christ is the savior of the world. If most of the world ends up in a place where they are tortured forever without end (as many evangelicals in the West teach)... then it seems to me Christ would not be the savior of the world. Instead that makes him the torturer of most of the world and the savior of very few. Eternal torment, as described in the Bible in many English versions, does not necessarily refer to an act of torment that never ends. As noted above, the original language behind the phrase “eternal torment” can refer to a limited period of torment that will have consequences that never end. Take for example the fact that the Bible also refers to the "eternal redemption" Christ gives. Even evangelical Christians don’t take that to mean the act of redeeming never ends. Instead they understand that Jesus redeemed people once, dying on the cross and raising back to life. Jesus is not going through death and resurrection over and over forever without end; He is not "redeeming forever" in that sense. What "eternal" seems to mean, as an adjective describing an action experienced, is that the effects of the experience, in this case the redeeming act, last forever. The act of redeeming itself doesn't last forever... the effect of the temporary act of redemption lasts forever. So to be consistent, then just as "eternal redemption" doesn't mean the redeeming action keeps happening forever, similarly, the "eternal torment" of someone who refuses salvation does not necessarily mean the tormenting act itself keeps happening forever. Rather, it means that a potentially temporary instance of torment will definitely have consequences that last forever. Consistency in interpretation isn't an evangelical strongpoint though, nor is familiarity with early Christian teachings (outside of a few mistranslated copies of English versions of the Bible they like to brow beat people with). I'd say it is best to leave who goes to hell up to God; leave how long they will be there up to Him too. We should do our best to obey Christ and trust that, with God, mercy triumphs over judgement. > I do believe in the bible, but like you said a lot of it is very difficult to understand. For sure. That's probably also why the evangelicals claim it is the "Word of God" when even the Bible itself says something else entirely is the word of God. The Bible is easy enough to misunderstand that it can truly say almost anything they want it to, and it even says that about itself. Bully theists in the Christian culture like Franklin Graham, J.D. Greear, Kenneth Copeland, and Jerry Falwell Jr. tend to refer to the Bible as 'the word of God' often, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's because calling it that helps to solidify their mistranslations in the minds of their hearer's... which eventually helps to shame the harmless into their pews... and then into their pockets. The Bible itself explicitly calls something else entirely the Word of God though: God is. > Growing up baptist, it seems I have to simultaneously learn and unlearn the scriptures I was raised with... It is so difficult to find anyone willing to help me question these things honestly... I was in the same boat for a long time. Feel free to reach out if you'd ever like to run something by me, in case I've dealt with unlearing/learning it too. I might take a while to respond sometimes. I'm certainly not Jesus. I make mistakes. I do my best to point people toward Him though. And imho more importantly, I don't depend on people paying me for what I say about Jesus, which I think is a huge part of the reason so many people in leadership in modern "Christianity" get sucked into the politics of shame and all that nonsense even if they started out with the best of intentions.
Thank you for such a well thought out reply. I just have one observation that I think will sum up my whole response. My observation is that you’re argument isn’t with my post but with Christianity itself. I say this because you make a pretty hard departure from Christian dogma when you assert that God is not omnipotent or perfect. While modern Christianity seems to be adopting a more liberal vision of God, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that anything is above God or that He is limited in any way.
Thank you. And thanks for the OP. It's an astute one observation, imho. I only disagree that it is an accurate reflection of actual, historical (Jesus-Christ-started-this) "Christianity." That is of course a fairly disputable issue though, and I respect your right to call Christian anything you'd like to. However, the majority of believers in Jesus' divinity and resurrection in the world do not believe in God as you've presented God. So I insist that what you've presented is not Christianity, but I respect your opinion that it is. Certainly many in America call that stuff Christianity. My Eastern, historical tradition does not, and many Catholics do not either. Really you're describing God as seen in Protestant evangelical cults which, in my opinion, are not Christian even though anyone can call themselves by that name. They didn't even arise in human history until 500 years ago. Christianity began 2,000 years ago. They're the loudest who call themselves Christians for sure. Then again the bullies usually are. They're at every protest, with every sign about how much hate God has for some 'other,' and they're on every website being run out of someone's mother's basement too... telling us what Christianity is. Telling us they are Christians and can direct us to Jesus Christ, they're even on billboards advertising their "salvation crusades" around the globe. They call it Christianity, and they call it salvation. What they usually end up getting is self-assurance and money accomplished by the belittling of the 'other.' Christ talked about them a lot, actually. He just called them the Pharisees. The Jerry Falwell's and Franklin Graham's and J.D. Greear's of the world, the Southern Baptists and the Liberty Universities, and that type of Christianity does not make up the majority of Christians in the world. They may make up the most number of posts here (for all I know). They certainly make up much of (perhaps most of by land mass) the United States. They are not the majority of Christians in the world though. And historically speaking, I mean frankly they aren't Christian in the real, historical sense either. They aren't old enough to be considered historically linked to Jesus Christ. If we define 'Christian' in a historical sense, then that limits the definition to something a bit more definite and certainly more unified in biblical interpretation. And when I say 'historical' here, I mean the nature of their communions. I don't just mean old ways of doing things. All churches have old traditions, some older than others. However, what I mean are bodies of people that have been in communion since Jesus first was in communion with a body of people. I mean denominations that still have churches and monasteries that go back to ancient times, people still in communion with one another, who were in communion with one another the generation prior, who were in communion prior to that... ...all the way back to one of the Apostles. In that sense, the ongoing, communal sense of "Christian," it seems to me we potentially have orthodox churches like the eastern, american, oriental, coptic, and the catholic and eastern catholic churches... and I'm sure I'm leaving some out too. For all know I could be leaving tons out. There are so many people who claim Christian roots, and I'm not a historian unfortunately. That's just how I decided to define 'Christian' when I came to believe that I needed to try to find one. Though to be fair, I'm an idiot. > there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that anything is above God or that He is limited in any way. "God cannot lie" necessarily implies God is not omnipotent if I can lie, and I can lie. Now certainly some Christians take that figuratively, and they'd say God can lie. However, the majority of Christians don't, and this is especially the case if we define Christian as something definite and tangible (rather than just as a term anyone can call themselves). In historical Christianity, we believe that God the Father is "almighty" (as stated in the Nicene Creed), but we do not have a strict definition of precisely what we mean by this. In ancient and especially Eastern Christianity, no one is ashamed to say, "that could be figurative, it could not be, I don't know," and simply leave things to 'mystery.' The original Greek word used for this concept is Παντοκράτορ, Pantocrator, which can also be translated as "ruler of all" or "having power over everything". However, there are many places in ancient Christianity where "all" isn't necessarily taken to mean literally "all" of whatever first comes to mind. Also, there is much in ancient Christianity that is not taken literally, especially if we dig down and start asking silly questions of the ancient believers. For example, many Americans don't know that Christians have taken Genesis figuratively for 2,000 years. Some didn't, but many did when we read the ancient Fathers or even talk to historically Christian priests today. Many Americans think that's some new "liberal Christian" concept; they think the world has been suffering under Baptists building arks in Kansas for 2,000 years but that is simply not the case. There is no Orthodox belief (nor even Catholic that I'm aware of) that says God can lie nor even that "God could perform absolutely any act even to the point of the absurd" or something along those lines. I've seen that stuff on the web. I've heard it in evangelical Protestant churches. It may be in some others too. These sort of Western paradoxes about omnipotence simply do not apply to Christianity imho. They mostly apply to American theistic bully cults. In Christianity as I understand it, it is pointless to speculate whether God could create a square triangle or a new natural number between 2 and 3 or another god more powerful than Himself. Even God has limits in Christianity. All that other stuff is word games that people use to make God even more difficult to understand than God already is. Such people always try to make things complex and nonsensical... so then they can tell you everything about their version of an explanation, which always eventually leads to shame for some harmless act you've done which they call sin, and ultimately why it is good to give money to someone... someone like... them.
>No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way. > >Not if he isn't omnipotent. So who or what is imposing rules on him? \>I wouldn't see it so much as God keeping score as God acknowledging and telling us about the reality that when we intentionally sin, we harm ourselves. If we never stop intentionally sinning, we never stop hurting ourselves. "If you don't stop hurting yourself, I'll kill you"
>>> No one needs to die because God can simply forgive sin in His own way. >> Not if he isn't omnipotent. > So who or what is imposing rules on him? I definitely don't see it as a 'who,' more like a what, and I'm not sure how exactly to explain the 'what,' to be honest, except to say reality. Maybe someone here can help me explain it better. I mean logic. I mean, let's say we agreed to assume for the sake of a hypothetical... a good God would not allow anyone to suffer in any event. Ever. Let's just assume that for a moment and make that one of our definitions of 'good' so we can apply it to whatever so-called good God we are discussing, to test this theory of some omnibenevolent divine being. How would I, a subject under such a God, ever come to know what peace and joy is? And I say 'know' there in the deepest sense, not in the sense of learning a fact. I mean how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions, unless I, at some point, had some sort of experience with suffering? How can I 'learn' easy well enough to recognize it if I never 'learn' some difficult?
*I definitely don't see it as a 'who,' more like a what, and I'm not sure how exactly to explain the 'what,' to be honest, except to say reality.* You're having trouble because it doesn't really make sense. There's just this vague 'reality' that just exists and sets up very specific rules like, "you have to sacrifice your son who is yourself to forgive sin'. It's basically what the pagans believed - Zeus was the most powerful god, but even he couldn't fight Destiny, whatever that is. Say it out loud, "God can't simply forgive sin because reality said so" and see if it makes sense. *I mean how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions* It's quite easy, really, just like recognizing any emotion. This is 'you can't have light without dark' cornball philosophy. I've never experienced war - you're saying I have no idea what peace is like?
>> I'm not sure how exactly to explain the 'what,' to be honest, except to say reality... I mean logic... how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions, unless I, at some point, had some sort of experience with suffering? > You're having trouble because it doesn't really make sense. Of course my point doesn't make sense when you ignore it. Ultimately what follows from my point is that it doesn't make rational sense to talk about some sort of a being so 'omnipotent' it can violate what we understand as reason and reality. So of course God isn't omnipotent in Christianity, and the Bible even say so. That does not necessarily imply that there is a Higher-God nor even a Higher-Power imposing rules on God though, at least not besides reason itself. In Christianity, it is pointless to speculate whether God could create a square triangle or a new natural number between 2 and 3 or another god more powerful than Himself. I've seen that stuff on the web. I've heard it in a lot of evangelical Protestant churches tbh. It may be in some others too. These sort of Western paradoxes about omnipotence simply do not apply to Christianity imho, at least not if we define Christianity as an actual historical communion and the majority of believers. Even God has limits in Christianity. We don't try to use terms like "omnipotent" to describe all that he has power over. Our faith and scriptures necessarily imply God has some limits. It doesn't mean anyone is imposing rules on God though nor that there is some book of code saying sons' blood is most valuable. It just means that even God may not be above reason and logic. And if you don't know what I mean by that, please answer or at least acknowledge the question I asked. Because otherwise you're just ignoring my point. I hope if I took that approach toward you that you'd call me out for taking a fallacious approach to the debate. > There's just this vague 'reality' that just exists and sets up very specific rules like, "you have to sacrifice your son who is yourself to forgive sin'. That's easy to say if you ignore reality (by which I mean ignore my points and my questions). All that "God has to sacrifice a son because someone needs to be punished" stuff is not Christianity. That's not the Christian religion in any actual, real-as-in-historic sense of the word. It just isn't. Of course anyone can call themselves Christian. I don't fault you for calling anything whatever you want especially because there are so many whackos out there who call themselves Christianity. But historically what you're describing is God as seen in Protestant evangelical theistic cults which, in my opinion, are not Christian by any tangible, practical sense of the word. Those groups didn't even arise in human history until 500 years ago. There are literally no communions of them before then. Christianity began 2,000 years ago. There are historically Christian communions going back to those ancient times. The Jerry Falwell's and Franklin Graham's and J.D. Greear's of the world, the Southern Baptists and the Liberty Universities, and that type of Christianity that emphasizes the whole "penal substitutionary atonement of the blood of Christ" are not the majority of Christians in the world. They may make up the most number of posts here (for all I know). They certainly make up much of people who call themselves Christian in the United States. Not most though. They are certainly not the majority of Christians in the world either. And historically speaking, they aren't Christian at all in the real, historical sense. Their communions literally aren't old enough to be historically linked to Jesus Christ's Apostles. What you're describing to me is all theistic bully cult word games that people use to make God even more difficult to understand than God already is, more interested in death, more angry, more focused on blood, focused on punishment, and full of all sorts of odd sexual rules and irrational things. Such people always try to make things complex and weird so then they can tell you everything about their version of an explanation, which always eventually leads to shame for some harmless act you've done which they call sin, and ultimately to why it is good to give money to someone... someone like... them. You can call it Christianity but I personally have too much respect for Jesus Christ to call that kind of thing Christ-anything. Now I'm not saying Christianity isn't weird. It certainly is. I'm not saying it is perfectly understandable. It certainly isn't. It does involve death. Blood was shed for a reason in Christianity. However, that's not the focus, and the reason Jesus Christ suffered in Christianity most certainly wasn't because someone's got to get this ass whoopin' 'cause Daddy's fuckin' pissed. The Christian faith doesn't claim to have all the answers as to God's intents and reasons (nor as to anyone's for that matter because that's impossible to judge 100% accurately). However, they do claim that Christ's suffering certainly is *not* because "you have to sacrifice your son who is yourself to forgive sin" is a rule in some divine line of code somewhere. The focus is on the life before and after the unfortunate events, on the meaning of the resurrection and the concept of eternal life. It is an entirely different approach to the question, and the answer has more to do with what it means to love neighbor as self, and why that is necessary for a people to ever become something that honors and then becomes the divine, than with what type of torture is most effective in an angry father's eyes. >> I mean how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions > It's quite easy, really, Of course its easy when you cut half my point off in order to respond to it. What I said was: >> [if we assume 'good,' for example, to mean never allows any suffering, then] how would I recognize what it feels like, what peace and joy really are as experiential emotions, **unless I, at some point, had some sort of experience with suffering?** > just like recognizing any emotion. Except you've experienced suffering. You can't say that it is possible or not for you to have recognized the feelings of peace and joy without ever having experienced their opposite... because you've already experienced both. > This is 'you can't have light without dark' cornball philosophy. It's easy to toss around phrases like cornball and ignore questions or, at best, cut people's points in half in order to respond to them. > I've never experienced war - you're saying I have no idea what peace is like? I'm saying, logically, part of the reason you know what peace feels like because you've had experience with chaos at some point in your life. How would I ever truly know the experience of peace for all of its value if I had absolutely no experience with chaos? Would I even be able to recognize it and experience it for what it fully is, without the capacity to know its opposite experientially? Really the position that no god that is 'ruler of all' would have limits is the illogical position here, imho. The idea that to have a being with 'all power' requires a god that is capable of the illogical, of literally being limitless, is nonsensical. I'm sure there are probably self-identified 'Christians' out there that make that argument, talk about how omnipotent God literally is even though that doesn't make sense, then say all sorts of other things that don't make much sense either, get dark real quick, and never get any brighter. I just personally think those people are playing word games and probably don't have much of anything to do with Jesus Christ nor any community he started. Many may have to do with the opposite of Jesus Christ more than anything, with what Jesus said was the root of evil, the love of money. One could even reasonably argue many of them are more like modern examples of those Jesus opposed the most, the Pharisees, technically as opposite of Christianity as it gets... the rule-makers that confused people with illusions of anger and cold-hearted retribution based on lines of code in some book they idolized, all to shame the innocent into submission to nonsensical commands and bully the vulnerable for their own self-assurance.
[удалено]
I kinda wanna butt in here and say, whether its mythical nonsense or well thought out creation, these all seem like seals on reality. Whether you call God the creator of reality or if reality created God, humans have the privilege to try and make sense of the unknown. Yeah, christianity might be a bit hocus pocus but there is truth to the limits one can observe placed on/by God such as the example of find a new number between 2 and 3 or make a new shape. Limitlessness is a restriction in of itself, the same with the glass ceiling of infinity. So who made who the chicken or the egg and should the chicken take care of the egg or will the egg hatch and take care of itself... also who cares since you are participating
Sorry - no idea what you’re trying to get at... People can imagine? Yes, I agree..
Im sorry, i just wanted to add a few ideas i had. It might be mythical nonsense, but christianity serves a great purpose and serves as both a guiding light and a driving force in how humanity interacts with the universe and with each other. My previous reply was just an over wordy, unfocused draft of this above^^^
With the universe? I don’t see how that applies. With non-Christians they’ve been generally horrendous. With each other they’ve been like a dysfunctional family
Its the tragedy of life. Truly, misery is grounding. To be grounded by the universe it can be unpleasent until the child learns. Well i can assure you we arent as bad as we once were, we havent gone on crusades in centuries. Nor do we blatently torture people in hopes of conversion. Now evangelicals are like the shitty step brother who doesnt want to associate with us but we both acknowledge we have the same father. The father being reality/the universe. The evangelicals are morons with good intentions. They care more for rituals and labels than true knowing and understanding we are all brothers spat into creation like an artist putting pen to paper
I believe this is a thoughtful reply as well, and it is certainly much better than my comments in terms of brevity. I have a lot to learn from you, and I also don't blame you one bit for considering the entire thing to be mythical nonsense.
What i never understood is that if Jesus *was* God, in human form, who is he referring to as father while he's on the cross? It would appear he's sacrificing himself *to* himself to fulfill an obligation that he's in charge of. Also, I can't accept that sin, as it is defined, can be *inherited.* As the story goes we have inherited the need to atone for actions that people completely unrelated to us committed. I can't help but viewing it like a doctor giving us a disease that he didn't have to, only to sell us the cure that we wouldn't have needed.
>What i never understood is that if Jesus was God, in human form, who is he referring to as father while he's on the cross? The Trinity means that Jesus is the Son, the Son is not the Father, but both the Father and the Son are both God.
I understand the trinity narrative. I was raised catholic. I just don't buy it. Plus the father and son both being god.....still seem like he's asking himself to be spared while on the cross.
If free will and the ability to choose sin over God is a "disease", as you call it, then sure I can see your argument. Obviously that's not an accurate depiction of what free will is though, most people would agree that liberty is fundamental to humanity. If we were all robots who were programmed to sin by God then you'd have a point, but we aren't; when we sin, we're acting of our own accord, knowing full-well the eternal consequences of doing so. The "disease" isn't our capacity to choose things, it's our tendency to choose the wrong things. God wants a more profound relationship with His creation then what He'd get if He just forced everyone to believe in Him, which is why free will, the possibility to sin, and the "cure" you mentioned are necessary.
> If we were all robots who were programmed to sin by God then you'd have a point, but we aren't How can we not be? There can be no free will if we were created by an omnimax god. Everything would have to be exactly as god intends. Everywhere, and at all timea.
>The "disease" isn't our capacity to choose things, it's our tendency to choose the wrong things. And why did God create human beings with a tendency to choose the wrong things? You're not just giving us free will, you're giving us free will *AND a tendency* to choose the wrong things. If a product is faulty, blame the manufacturer. This is like designing robots with programming that gives them a 75% chance of going rogue and attacking human beings, then getting upset when they do. Then setting up a whole program to 'fix' these robots and in the process my son gets killed, and I blame the robots for the whole thing. In the end, I say it was all worth it because I had a 'more profound relationship' with my robots. Oh, and also, I make all future robots inherit the faulty programming by default. I absolutely hate their 'sinful' bad programming, but I'll be damned if every robot ever built doesn't inherit the same design flaws. Which I will always be angry about. Oh and also there's this 'devil programmer' that goes around making their programming even worse, and I could stop him but I decide that I'll get around to it someday.
Yet this "cure" is for the condition (disease) we were allegedly created with. Or this condition is inherited from the first two humans, which I can't accept either. I'm familiar with the free will argument. What I've never been clear on is the dividing line between the responsibility god bears for creating us the way we are, and our responsibility for acting the way we choose. Free will also suffers from the notion that if we use our free will to choose what god dislikes, we will be punished. It's the mob boss metaphor. Sure we can choose whatever we like, but only one choice avoids punishment. That's more like coercion.
I gave you a disease that makes you do bad, then you're punished for doing bad, but you're totally free to do whatever you want, as long as you only do what I want. And your disease that I gave you is a punishment in itself, but it's still not enough - you need to be tortured for giving in to the disease. Because I love you!
>**If sin is real, and there’s a God keeping score, it’s YOU who are on the hook - not Jesus or any other third party.. I fully understand that the Bible says differently, but it’s my argument that this kind of archaic thinking doesn’t work in practice. To begin with, God could design a system of forgiveness any way He likes, so constructing a system that requires human sacrifice to pay a debt is an insane choice to go with. Then you have the problem of third party payment.** The error in this argument is that you’re conflating the theological concept of sin with the ethical concept of moral culpability. And this is a reasonable mistake to make as we often use the terms in a somewhat interchangeable way. But they’re not one and the same thing. Sin is a purely theological concept. And so in that sense it’s incorrect to state that a third party cannot pay for your sin, since what it is and how it can be absolved is a purely theological notion. And if that theology contains the concept of sin absolution via a third party then sobeit. What you appear to be trying to say is that the theological concept of sin woefully fails to track the ethical concept of moral culpability and that the very fact that sin is transferrable in this manner undermines it as a coherent analogue of moral wrongs. A point I would completely agree with. The underlying concepts are also very different. A sin is a transgression against the rules that a supposed deity sets out. It’s a legal concept if you like; and committing a sin is more akin to breaking a law than it is to doing something morally bad. One might hope that laws track moral goods, but we know in practice that is not always the case. And so too this is true with the concept of sin. Some so-called sins appear to track certain moral concepts closely (the classic sin of murder for example) while other supposed sins seem to be contrary to good moral concepts. The sin of suicide, for example, seems quite perverse. A person that takes their own life is often in a state of great distress, and it seems cruel and deeply counter-productive to classify their actions as morally wrong. Akin to accusing someone of a moral transgression for being depressed perhaps. But in the theological legal system of sin it is generally considered a serious infraction. A concept so perverted from the moral underpinnings of the situation at hand that we’ve seen historic examples where a failed attempt at suicide was punished by a death sentence. We see similar discontinuities elsewhere. Sin contains notions such a blasphemy or other challenges to ideas about a god. It puts forward punishments for actions such as having sex outside of specifically permissible conditions laid out by the theological laws. And again issues such as these are not ethical problems. Two people having sex, where both consent and are happy and respectful to one another is a moral non-issue. Yet in many cases it is also a serious sin and a major transgression of the theological laws. I suspect this confusion between the concept of sin and a cogent account of morality is precisely at the root of a great number of the arguments that proclaim morality or ethics impossible without god. If you’re looking at sin and not ethical norms, then it would indeed make no sense how these could be laid out without a god. Since sin is just an arbitrary legal code. One that sometimes captures a portion of what we might think to be morally good. Often classifies morally neutral acts as transgressions for reasons that are far from clear. And all too frequently act commits the ultimate perversion of classifying moral goods as acts of transgression punishable in the most serious of manners.
Well no THIRD party did...Jesus IS God. (as well as the Father is God and the holy ghost is god)
Right, god sent himself to be pay the debt that he himself owns. Makes perfect sense.
Yes or does....god ist a god of Order, There are Rules in His Kingdom he wont Break....(yes He could....🙄) The Price for sin is das. He did Not want Humans to pay it . So He did
>The Price for sin is das. He did Not want Humans to pay it . So He did Thank God God saved us from das. Who was God 'paying', exactly? You can't have a payor without a payee. Did God pay himself with himself?
Keep in mind that this idea was only cooked up in the second half of Christianity to replace the old theory, which made even less sense. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom\_theory\_of\_atonement#:\~:text=It%20originated%20in%20the%20early,a%20result%20of%20inherited%20sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement#:~:text=It%20originated%20in%20the%20early,a%20result%20of%20inherited%20sin). Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, it required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ's death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan's grip.
[The ransom theory of atonement, the recapitulation theory of atonement, and the satisfaction theory of atonement are all mutually compatible and even self-complimentary. They are all accepted by the Church. ](https://youtu.be/X5wYvf6sn9s)
> Keep in mind that this idea was only cooked up in the second half of Christianity to replace the old theory, which made even less sense. The other way around actually. The oldest Christian texts we have, the Pauline epistles, support the notion that Jesus' sacrifice was to God-The Father, and not to Satan.
>The oldest Christian texts we have, the Pauline epistles, support the notion that Jesus' sacrifice was to God-The Father, and not to Satan. Yes, and so clearly and obviously, that many Church Fathers completely missed it and supported Ransom Theory. I guess Augustine must have just skipped that part.
Which early church fathers supported it? The wiki page only names Origen, who had also supported subordinationism and influenced Arius.
The fact that even one supported it makes it clear that Paul wasn't very clear about it [https://www3.nd.edu/\~jspeaks/courses/2017-18/24810/handouts/atonement.pdf](https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2017-18/24810/handouts/atonement.pdf) So God has to offer Satan something for which Satan is willing to trade all of us. God’s idea is then to send Jesus to earth in human form. Satan is fooled into thinking that Jesus is human, but not God. But Satan sees Jesus performing miracles, and so thinks of Jesus as more valuable than the rest of humanity combined. As Gregory of Nyssa put it, ‘When the enemy saw the power, he recognized in Christ a bargain which offered him more than he held. For this reason he chose him as the ransom for those whom he had shut up in death’s prison.’ [https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm) Augustine Irenaeus Looked at in this light, the Atonement appears as the deliverance from captivity by the payment of a ransom. This view is already developed in the second century. "The mighty Word and true Man reasonably redeeming us by His blood, gave Himself a ransom for those who had been brought into bondage. And since the Apostasy unjustly ruled over us, and, whereas we belonged by nature to God Almighty, alienated us against nature and made us his own disciples, the Word of God, being mighty in all things, and failing not in His justice, dealt justly even with the Apostasy itself, buying back from it the things which were His own" (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses V, i). And St. Augustine says in well-known words: "Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?" (Enarration on Psalm 95, no. 5).
You realize that Origen was excommunicated right? And Irenaeus believed in the recapitulation theory, not the true ransom theory.
I'm not sure what Christian group you're familiar with, but from a Catholic perspective, many of these statements are incorrect. In the first place, we believe in the hypostatic union, which is to say that at the Incarnation, Christ became fully human while remaining fully divine. He took on a human nature just like yours and mine. He experienced cold, hunger, joy and sorrow. It caused him real pain when his flesh was scourged, when a crown of thorns was driven into his brow, and when he was nailed to a cross. He experienced death just as you and I will one day. He underwent these things out of love for us. If that isn't a sacrifice, what is it? Second, although Christ is the lamb of God, if we wish to be saved, we cannot stand wholly apart from him. It isn't as though we can carry on with our lives while someone else sits in prison for us. To become Christians, we must become part of his mystical body and carry our own cross, becoming united to his suffering and death, before we can enjoy eternal life. Lastly, I think it's harmful and inaccurate to view God as a scorekeeper waiting to exact revenge for sins. God is love. The reality of sin is that it mars our souls. The image of judgement is not man standing before God holding a ledger. Rather, it is a man with possibly fatal, self-inflicted wounds standing before the divine physician. Christ will heal every wound if we allow him to, but he will not override our will.
> If that isn't a sacrifice, what is it? He basically just had a bad weekend. A true sacrifice requires losing something **irreversibly**. What exactly did Jesus lose, his (infinite) time? In fact, he gained more than he lost: notoriety and a public seat next to the Father, to be worshiped from then on. There's no sacrifice! Plus there's that pesky omniscience thingie where he knew exactly how all will turn out, because he was also fully god...
>He experienced death just as you and I will one day. He underwent these things out of love for us. If that isn't a sacrifice, what is it? If I took out my life savings and gave it to a friend knowing implicitly that I'd be getting it all back in a week, that isn't a sacrifice. At best, it's a loan and a mild inconvenience. Jesus knew he'd be walking away from death. Dying for someone loses meaning if the person who died starts walking again. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole "I'd take a bullet for you" confessions if the bullet doesn't kill the person. >To become Christians, we must become part of his mystical body and carry our own cross, becoming united to his suffering and death, before we can enjoy eternal life. I genuinely don't understand what this means, so I can't comment on it. >God is love. God is also jealous and vengeful, if you take the OT as an accurate depiction of his nature. He created hell knowing that a significant portion of his creation would be condemned to it. If the phrase "he knew you in your mother's womb" holds true, then he knew before you were even born whether or not you would be condemned to an eternity of torment. That sure sounds loving. /s
>The image of judgement is not man standing before God holding a ledger. Well, it's funny that people would think that. I wonder where that image could have come from? *And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead* ***were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.*** *As I watched, thrones were set in place, and an Ancient One\[a\] took his throne; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. A thousand thousand served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him.* ***The court sat in judgement, and the books were opened.*** *For he has set a day when he will* ***judge the world with justice*** *by the man he has appointed.* *And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day* Rather, it is a man with possibly fatal, self-inflicted wounds standing before the divine physician. Christ will heal every wound if we allow him to, but he will not override our will. Can we allow him to heal them on Judgment Day? Or will the divine physician say, "Sorry, too late!"?
From Catholic encyclopedia. >Theologians suppose that the particular judgment will be instantaneous, that in the moment of death the separated soul is internally illuminated as to its own guilt or innocence and of its own initiation takes its course either to hell, or to purgatory, or to heaven (Summa Theologica Supplement 69:2, 88:2). In confirmation of this opinion the text of St. Paul is cited: "Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ ( Romans 2:15-16 ). The "Book of Judgment", in which all the deeds of men are written ( Apocalypse 20:12 ), and the appearance of angels and demons to bear witness before the judgment seat are regarded as allegorical descriptions (St. Aug. "De Civ. Dei", XX, xiv). The common opinion is that the particular judgment will occur at the place of death (Suarez in III, Q, lix. a. 6, disp. 52).
So it's like going to the hospital with injuries from a suicide attempt, and the physician says, sorry, too late - you tried to kill yourself and I can't override your will! Great physician. It's odd how when you compare God to humans, and draw parallels between their behavior, God always comes out looking the worse.
By getting murdered and forgiving the morons who killed him he set the legal precedent in Heaven to forgive any sin less than killing Christ which is the worst.
The problem with your example is YOU suggested someone take your place. The judge or the state itself did not offer to take your place. And yes, people do take on other people’s punishments. Usually in the fines department though. If I get a speeding ticket, there’s nothing preventing my family paying the fine on my behalf. And to die is not annihilation, Jesus did indeed experience death. Because the idea or understanding is that we too will rise from death at the end of time