"Jesus Died For Your Sins". Please explain.

[Shagnasty]

@Johnny_L.A

I’m sorry, but I’m tired. I keep reading the title as ‘James Dean Died For Your Sins’.

Don’t be ridiculous, James Dean was a rebel without a cause.

[Skammer]

CJJ* – I just want to applaud your responses in this thread. Very well stated (even more so coming from an apostate )

[CurtC]

@aldiboronti

IANAC but this is the way I understand mainstream Christian theology. Had Jesus not offered himself as a sacrifice each human on being judged would have had to answer not only for his or her own sins but for the original transgression of Adam, and the latter alone would have been sufficient to consign him to damnation. Jesus removed that taint and now we simply have to account for our own misdoings (probably enough to damn us anyway, certainly in my case!)

The only human born without the taint of Original Sin prior to Jesus was Mary, owing to the Immaculate Conception, ie she was conceived by her parents without sin, whatever that means.

IANAC either, but my understanding of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that it’s strictly a Catholic belief.

Something I’ve been wondering about the whole Original Sin thing - since most Christians nowadays accept that the Garden of Eden story is not an actual account of history, but is just an interesting ancient myth, do they still hold to the idea of Original Sin?

The traditional Christianity was that Jesus removed the taint of Original Sin, which otherwise would be enough to damn us all to hell. But I usually hear Christians mentioning that “Jesus died for my sins.” My own perception is that most Christians (certainly most non-Catholics) can’t even tell you what “Original Sin” is.

Is Original Sin an idea that is fading away?

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@raindog

An excellent point and one I hadn’t considered.

snip

I think that is a compelling argument

That is an excellent point and a compelling argument. Too bad FriarTed made them up out of thin air. It must be so nice to be able to live your life that way: cognitive dissonance? Make something up. I wish I had the capacity to do it (seriously.)

[begbert2]

@CJJ

My bigger question here has always been, why is a horrific human blood sacrifice necessary at all? It makes sense in terms of ancient bloodthirsty gods and feeding virgins to dragons as protection money, but it doesn’t really make functional sense for any deity or entity that doesn’t see value (or flavor) in the death of the sacrifice itself. And suffering/privation as punitive punishment doesn’t make any logical sense when the punishment is by proxy, unless (again) the suffering itself is valued currency to the entity, independent of all justice or sin or anything.

This is exactly right, and the consensus position of most modern Christian theology. It is, in fact, the root idea behind the “moral influence” theory of the Passion: The illustrative and educational value of the story itself required this style of sacrifice.

I must be misunderstanding you, because it looks like you just said that that the notion that god loves the taste of blood and enjoys watching other people suffer for no reason is “exactly right, and the consensus position of most modern Christian theology”. Call me a rube, but that’s certainly different from what I’ve heard Christians saying. Please clarify?

@CJJ

I make this point only because–after reading numerous posts in this thread–many folks seem to be arguing against an antiquated version of the atonement. This is somewhat like arguing against modern chemistry by citing the ridiculous conclusions of medieval alchemy. I’m not saying their arguments are as solid as modern science, and there are plenty of good reasons to reject Christianity. But believe me: Great minds have gone over these apparent contradictions pretty thoroughly, and their arguments deserve to be approached more seriously.

I’m happy to approach seriously any arguments you wish to present, be they of ancient origin or modern. But seriously - no explanation for the scapegoat sacrifice can make reasonable sense unless it can answer the question: what is gained by torturing an innocent man, and who gains it?

One possible explanation, the old-school one, is that the storm god in question is hungry. I vaguely recall some biblical passages suggesting that God likes the smell and taste of the animals sacrificed to them; which suggests a logical sequence of events: we serve God a nice meal, it puts him in a good mood, in return he grants those who served him the meal favors.

But when you start nailing humans to the cross this suddenly gets a lot squickier. I mean, yeah, we’re supposed to be on a plane or two lower than god, but suddenly we’re lunchmeat? (It certianly puts the notion of us roasting in hell in a different light…)

I have a tough time finding an alternate explanation for “why blood sacrifice?” that passes the smell test. I mean, imagine this: a bunch of your kids are fighting with one another, breaking things; you decide to punish them. But then somebody suggests that instead you take your favored son, who wasn’t fighting, and have some of the fighting kids punch him in the face a few times, and this is supposed to make everything better. What’s your reaction to this? My reaction would be to give the moron who came up with that plan extra punishment and then proceed as originally planned. So what logic makes the scapegoat thing a good plan?

I’m prepared to seriously consider arguments, but they’d better be better than the usual ones I’ve heard. Remember, the problem isn’t whether Jesus is special or important or unique enough to pull it off. It’s why God goes along with the whole “sacrifice” idea at all. Er, assuming you really aren’t proposing that the great minds of Christianity are of the consensus that God considered Jesus an especially tasty snack.