For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that the church is mostly right. As a matter of historical fact, Jesus died as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and through Him we can have salvation if we accept him as our savior.
Why? Does that make sense? Is it supposed to?
Wouldn’t it have been a lot cooler and more streamlined if he could have just died, redeemed humanity and then everyone gets their hand stamped at the gate? Why does that model make less sense than St. Paul’s outline?
Wait! Now, that I think about it, why did he have to die at all? Why couldn’t he just go ahead and announce “All sins are forgiven, thanks for coming, see you in heaven, I’m out!”? That’s how I think I would have done it. Obviously, JC’s exit had more dramatic flair, but I can’t see why my models make less sense theologically.
Which church? Mostly right about what? What parts are wrong?
Does a rock make sense? Does the sea make sense? Why isn’t it more salty? Less salty? It is what it is. How can you assume the church is right and question it’s logic at the same time?
What does being cool and being streamlined have to do with making sense?
Again, if your premise is that what happened actually happened, how can it *not *make sense? Are you asking why God didn’t do things differently? Why do we have one tube for both breathing and swallowing? Does that make sense? What the hell is tooth decay all about? Or pain? To paraphrase Heller, any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have come up with a system of flashing lights to warn us of danger.
Forgive me for making such a deplorable generalization, but by the ‘church’ I mean the entire spectrum of the people who describe themselves as ‘Christian’ and generally subscribe to the basic tenet of faith I outlined in the OP. Sorry that was confusing.
Please, pardon my flippant use of the language. ‘Cool’ and ‘streamlined’ were just my attempt to not use the phrase ‘make sense’ more than 5 or 6 times in the post. To be more clear, sequences of events that are streamlined usually can be more coherently explained, since causal relationships are more evident.
Assuming the church is right is merely a means to avoid other arguments about the hostoricity of the resurection, persistence of the human soul, reality of God, etc. I’m sorry all that threw you for such a loop, I thought the thread title was pretty succinct.
Depending on what verses/context you read it in, it is actually that simple…
Christ tells the thief on the cross next to him that he will be in paradise… there’s a verse that says “whoever believes will be saved”… its mostly the writers that come later (Paul) that add extra requirements. There’s a fairly consistent theme that salvation is all due to God’s Grace and there is nothing we as humans can do to “earn it” save the belief.
The rest usually deals with how we show our faith thru works… some have construed that to mean that you have to work to be saved or do something specific (baptisim, preach, etc).
Yes. But you can’t dismiss Paul. Pauline theology is central to Christianity as it has been practiced commonly for a long, long time.
The question is, does it really make sense to you? If Paul was explaining it to you for the first time, wouldn’t you stop him and say, “Well if he’s done it, why does it matter if I believe or not?” or “What do you mean he had to die? Couldn’t he have just gone and erased this debt you’re talking about?” That’s what I think I would say, if I’m the only one, I obviously don’t understand.
If I remember correctly (it’s been a long time since I read it), C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity says that, in order to be a standard Christian, one doesn’t have to believe any particular theory of how the atonement works (i.e. how Jesus’s death saves people), only that it does. He then goes on to give at least one possible explanation, which I really don’t remember well enough to say any more about.
And, after writing this, I see that the very thing I am remembering is quoted in the Wikipedia article on the Atonement, which is worth looking at.
The idea of Jesus dying as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity probably makes more sense within the context of first century Judaism from whence it arose. If I understood the Old Testament system of sacrifice for sin, Jesus’s death as sacrifice would probably make a lot more sense to me.
I’ll check out the article on Atonement, I’m firewalled at the moment so I can’t comment immediately.
I have read explanations of the sacrifice as making more sense in Judaic culture of the first century. Interesting, enlightening, etc., but they only address the anthropological/cultural reasons for the necessity of the sacrifice. Just because a sacrifice satisfied certain cultural urges, it doesn’t answer the question, why was a sacrifice necessary at all? And why did that sacrifice have to be formally acknowledged to have any practical benefit for us sinners?
Who should be considered more authorative on the issue of redemption and it’s requirements? Jesus or Paul? (The master or the student?)
Christ didn’t say do nothing and you’ll be saved, Christ said “believe and you will be”, If you believe in his teachings, it should follow that you would try to live life in accordance with his teachings… not neccisarily the teachings of those that followed him (unless you found them to be in accordance with them).
And in the end, it’s not up to you and there is nothing you can do to “earn” salvation… its ‘by the grace of god’ and only because of the sacrifice is it even possible for that grace to be given.
Because, Biblically, sin is a crime against God, which demands a penalty. Crimes just can’t be dismissed. Someone has to pay the fine. To the Jews, animal sacrifices were down payments with full payment coming with repentance & commitment to virtue. To Christians, God finally abolished the temporary animal sacrifices with the ultimate payment- the Sacrifice of (depending on how you regard Jesus) the Physical Embodiment of an Aspect of Himself, or at least, the One Created Being who is the closest thing possible to God Himself. Jesus pays the Price of Death, then takes up Life Eternal, which is then available to all who entrust themselves to Him.
Sounds totally fair & simple to me. The ONLY thing questionable or unfair is the delivery system of this message- a really fallible community of Christians, and the lack of the same evidences which the first Christians had- either encounters with the Risen Christ or the presence of Apostles who possessed His miraculous anointing. Which is why I believe in the Restoration Era.
Yeah, the whole thing is kinda goofy to me.
It kind of makes a god look sadistic when the only payment he’ll take for humanities sins is the death of someone. What good reason could he have for it? Would that make him pro death penalty?
“God, the whole world is full of sinners. We’re gonna need some forgiveness down here. What’s it gonna take?”
God: “Hmmm, I think I’m gonna need a death as payment.”
Refuting the premise. Or perhaps restating the premise in such a way as to reveal it’s flaws. The question as posed makes no sense. And note that the OP ignored the substance of my response, which was to question why a God based theology would be required to makes sense to humans.
Sarcasm duly noted. It it your contention that ‘the church,’ as you phrase it, is monolithic with regards to theology? Do you include Rastafarians? They consider themselves Christian. Jehovah’s Witnesses? Latter Day Saints? Are all their theologies consistently logical? Why impose a logic on what is basically an element of faith? Is it logical that the sun stood still for a day?
Is there a name for this debating technique, where someone prefers smartassedness over substance? I asked my questions in good faith.
Here is a possible succinct answer to your succinct title. Your OP has by no means established that this particular tenet is needlessly complicated; in fact, it may be the most parsimonious device by which salvation is established. Simply declaring it complicated and suggesting an alternative is insufficient to show that it was not the only way. We’re not talking about manufacturing ball bearings here, but essentially examining the nature of reality.
Y’all are forgetting that the dude (according to the same theology) is God, whose forgiveness it is that is being obtained by his sacrifice. So not only do you have to believe in order to benefit from his having died for your sins, he had to die for your sins in order to allow himself to forgive you.
Frankly, Christianity and I parted company as soon as I understood that the orthdox theology considers it to be a good thing that Jesus of Nazareth got killed. I still can’t wrap my head around how so many folks get from the ‘kid’ theology of “Jesus was kind and good and taught us to forgive, share, and love one another” to the ‘real deal’ of “We’re so glad he got nailed to a cross and hung up to die in horrible pain, original sin, blood of the lamb, resurrection, yadda yadda yadda” with scarcely so much as a gobsmacked “HUH???”
People often tend to miss the Christian belief of a “just God”.
God is just, therefore he cannot tolerate our sin. Much as a judge would convict us of crimes against the state. However, man’s guilt is inherant and no works can free him of this blemish. All men, being guilty, are in need of a savior. Enter Jesus to intercede on our behalf. The jewish custom of sacrifice was just that, they gave something of value, the first (best) fruits of their labor, as an offering. The sacrifice of blood is fairly common in the Old Testament. Jesus filled the need for spilled blood of an unblemished “lamb”.
To me it makes perfect Biblical sense.
Of course, He’s pro-death penalty- not HAPPY about it, but not squeamish about it either. Gen 4-6- God lets Cain off by sending him into exile but with a mark of protection. 1500 years later, He’s dealing with a world so saturated with violence that He wipes it out and starts over with one family.
Finally, He turns His Law upon Himself on Golgotha. Fair enough!
Ummm no- that’s not what the Greek word “pisteo” means- it means to trust, to rely on, to lean upon. If one is entrusting oneself to/relying upon/leaning on Christ, one will grow into acting rightly. One also may suffer just as much, but in that suffering, with have God/Jesus taking one through to the other side.
The story really perplexes me. I mean we know what’s good behavior and what behavior sends positive reprecussions out. Todays version, “well kids, mom says you were bad today…lets sacrifice the dog!” How is that suppoesed to you know…help matters?
