Having grown up with exposure to various Christian denominations (Methodist, Baptist, Catholic) I can safely say I admire the teachings of Jesus Christ and have a great deal of respect for people who try to live Christ-like lives based on loving their neighbors and helping the poor.
But there’s one big part of Christian doctrine that has confused me all of my life. “Jesus died for your sins”. I understand that he was a rabble-rouser who was crucified by the Romans (much in the manner they dealt with other troublemakers of the day), but I don’t understand the transaction that is purported to have taken place for my salvation.
Did Jesus’ death erase my sins? How, exactly? In, if so, then how do we still have the concept of “original sin”? Shouldn’t I get a pass if Jesus rebooted the system?
I swear I’m not trying to be sarcastic or cute or ironic or anything here. I sincerely don’t understand how one guy’s execution absolves me of … well, anything. It kind of reminds me of that Far Side cartoon where the scientist has a whole complex formula written out on the chalkboard with then a miracle happens written in the middle of it. Only in this case I fail to see any connection at all between the first part of the formula (i.e., groovy radical teacher gets executed by the government) and the latter part (I get to live forever because that happened.)
So, realizing that this is an ENORMOUS topic, and hoping beyond reason to avoid the ire of the atheists who might well say “It’s a crazy, nonsensical topic.” Is there a Doper in the house, who is either a believer or a really good explainer, who can spell this out for me in simple terms?
It’s my understanding that you have ancestors that broke a rule a long time ago before they had knowledge of right and wrong. The punishment for breaking that rule is transmitted to all their progeny.
The punishment is either burning in hell or not existing after you die, depending on the sect.
Jesus comes (although he is apparently also God) and allows himself to get killed by the Romans. In doing so, he takes the punishment for that thing your ancestors did upon himself. It bears noting that Jesus, who apparently is also God, could have probably changed the rule any time.
So Jesus suffers for a few hours and dies for a few days and blammo, anyone that worships him gets to skirt the inherent punishment.
The question is the subject of Christian atonement theology. The starting point is Mark 10:45 - “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
From here, atonement theology has developed a number of theories to explain how this actually occurred. Most of these fall into three general and historic categories (the Wiki article does a far better job of explaining these than I could):
Ransom Theory (oldest)
Satisfaction/Substitution Theory (Medieval)
Moral Influence Theory (Modern)
For the most part the Ransom Theory is no longer accepted by Christian theologians, but the older language used to describe this theory still remains in much of the liturgy, hymns, etc.
Sacrifice was once so central to every religion that a religion without it was unthinkable. Earlier it was the most important thing in the world. This is why we have problems understanding old religions. For the Romans, killing God’s son as a trade-off to fix absolutely everything must have seemed an ingeniously simple and natural solution.
I think most religions have little by little fallen to all-mightyness and benevolence traps. It is so much easier to market your god if (s)he’s oh so nice and powerfull, but finally it makes difficult to explain why evil exists. In Christianity particularly, this problem is called theodikea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
In earlier religion’s Gods’ powers were supposed to have limits and they were thought to have flaws which explained the evil in world.
God made humans, and he also made rules for humans that are impossible for humans to follow. In the old days, God’s worshippers were supposed to make sacrifices of various animals, doves, lambs, calves, etc. Sacrificing involved killing the animal in question, and the severity of the sin dictated the animal which was needed to sacrifice. The bigger and more expensive an animal was, the better the sacrifice.
God decided to take pity on humans, and came to live among us as a partly divine being (Jesus was both mortal and God at the same time). He offered himself as a sacrifice to himself, and everyone who accepts Jesus as his/her savior has also accepted Jesus’ sacrifice of himself to himself, and is therefore forgiven of all his/her sins, both past and in the future.
Nowadays, most Christians still perform various forms of sacrifice, but these sacrifices take the form of fasting, or giving donations over and above tithing, or lighting a candle to a saint. or charitable works. These aren’t always sacrifices for past sins, sometimes they’re done in order to please God, but quite frequently they’re performed out of guilt. Sometimes, Christians tell other people how the other people should sacrifice. Mother Teresa said that the poor should offer their suffering up to God, for instance, but when she herself was ill, she took the painkillers that she refused to offer others in her care.
Now personally, I feel that a just and loving God would not make laws that humans can’t follow, or else he would have made humans differently so that it’s possible for them to follow all the laws. Also, a just and loving God would not tolerate mosquitoes or Fred Phelps, but that’s another issue.
If I die in a state of sin, I am punished for eternity. But Jesus is dead for a day and a half, and that is payment for the same sins. I guess that what’s happens when you are related to the guy who makes the rules.
What’s convoluted about it? And if it is so, what’s the problem with ti being complicated? The simplest things are always the msot complicated if you look closely enough.
That may be your take on things, but it is largely inconsistent with the bible’s take on it.
1 There is no indication that the [simple] rules were impossible to follow. That they were not followed isn’t tantamount to them being impossible to follow.
2 The idea that Jesus “offered himself as a sacrifice to himself, and everyone who accepts Jesus as his/her savior has also accepted Jesus’ sacrifice of himself to himself,…” is a popular one ,especially around here, but it is not supported in the bible. In fact, Jesus did instruct his followers to pray-----and even gave them a model or template to get them started-----but never once instructed them to pray to himself, nor indicated he was God. Not once.
3 The NT makes offer provisions for the type of sacrifices you mention. IOW, Christians have no requirements ala Lent etc to offer up these type ‘sacrifices’.
The issue of “right” and “wrong” is a slippery one, but the fact is these ancestors did know what was required of them, and the penalty for disobedience. The implication that humans are jammed up for a crime their ancestors committed, unaware of this “rule”, is not supported in the text. They new full well the rule, and the penalty for disobedience, and broke it anyway.
There is nothing that indicates that Jesus was God, or that he could change the rules. In fact, on the last night of his life he asks for exactly that: a reprieve from the rules. In the end he submitted himself willingly to his God and the “rules” for the love he had for mankind.
The thing I always found most convoluted about it is the Jesus being God thing, and God making the Rules, yet not being able to change the rules when He didn’t like them. That doesn’t feel very omnipotent to me.
Over time, with lots of meditation on the issue, I’ve concluded that He *was *changing the Rules, and Self-sacrifice was the only way to do it. This is a good moral example…most often the problems in our lives are caused by ourselves, and the only way out is to slay your own ego and change your own rules (or actions or thoughts). In this view, Jesus’ tale is an allegory for the rest of us. Sacrifice that part of yourself that doesn’t serve you anymore, and you can be “reborn”, not in a spiritual sense necessarily, but in a practical one. Sacrifice your fear and you can act with courage. Sacrifice your laziness, and you can work. Sacrifice your self-centeredness, and you can love with all your heart. His is an example I can follow to bring the change I want to see in myself. It’s not easy, and there’s always a part of me begging me not to do it, just as Jesus begged for a way out the night before, but if I can push past that fear and ego doing the begging, I can do it and be better for it.
Thus sayeth the neopagan. I don’t know if this view is endorsed by any Christian church or if I’d be stoned for saying it aloud.
