# Maybe Jesus wasnt supposed to die? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667 "2005-03-15T17:41:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/41 "2005-03-16T04:26:00Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > **Diogenes the Cynic** : > > Put me in, coach. I’m ready to play today. Sign me up for the batting order. The scouting reports say you’re a sucker for the fastball. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/42 "2005-03-16T05:18:02Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > **Diogenes the Cynic said:** > Given that the OP refers to Jesus and God, it is God’s POV that matters, not yours or mine. When it comes to accepting or rejecting a religious philosphy, that philopsophy is going to have to accord with my own conscience because, ultimately, my conscience is the only moral compass I can rely on. Also, don’t make the mistake of thinking that conforming to a perception of “God’s” morality is not still an autocratic moral choice on _your_ part. > [@](#): > > I note later in your post (quote box 3 below) you do a fair amount of handicapping as to what is reasonable, ethical or logical. (as you are want to do) I don’t know what you mean by “handicapping” but I do insist that God be good instead of evil and I will reject what I see as evil. > [@](#): > > Also, you have not cited the bible, whcih given the context and thrust of the OP I DID cite the Bible. Luke 10. I also referenced the Parable of the sheep and the Goats. It is not necessary to cite Bible passages for everything I’m saying because we are speaking in generalities about doctrines that everyone is already familiar with. As to **Diogenes** ’s question and the definition of sin, the bible refers to two types of sin. The first is the sin that we are all born with; [/quote] What does it mean to be “born with sin?” Do we have a “sin” gene? And if we’re born with it, how can we be blamed for it? the sin we _inherit_. **(Rom 5:12)** [/quote] Romans 5:12 says nothing about “inherited” sin, it just says that all men sin and sin causes death. I reject both of those sentiments out of hand, > [@](#): > > The bible also speaks of sin that we _commit_ ; the sin that comes from excercising our free will in a way that misses God’s standards of righteousness. The Greek word for sin carries the thought of “to miss” or “missing”; as in missing the mark, or to miss God’s mark. The Hebrew word carries a similar connotation. > From the bible’s POV, sin can be practiced through different ways. It may be in word **(Job 2:10; Ps 39:1)**, in deed, doing wrong acts **(Le 20:20; 2Co 12:21)** or failing to do what should be done **(Nu 9:13; Jas 4:17)**, or in mind or heart attitude\*\* (Pr 21:4; compare also Ro 3:9-18; 2Pe 2:12-15) **. Lack of faith in God is a major sin, showing, as it does, distrust of him or lack of confidence in his ability to perform.** (Heb 3:12, 13, 18, 19)\*\* A consideration of the use of the original-language terms and examples associated with them illustrates this. How is one supposed to know what counts as “sin” and what doesn’t? Why does sin have to be horribly and eternally punished? > [@](#): > > It is only God who has the right, wisdom, and power to establish what His standards are. Says who? Isn’t this just saying that might makes right? > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, God is patient and understanding of our imperfection, and does not comdemn us accordingly. In fact, the point of Jesus’s death was to reconcile us to Him (via Christ’s death) and cleanse us of our imperfection. (our sin) And why couldn’t he “reconcile” us WITHOUT a crucifixion? Why can’t he just cleanse of our “imperfections” by snapping his fingers? Why not get rid of Hell and just let everybody into Heaven with no questions asked? > [@](#): > > It is clear that human sin originated with Adam and Eve. It’s also clear that while A/E started human sin, Satan’s sin pre-dated A/E.\*\* (1 John 3:8, John 8:44 and others)\*\* There was no Adam and Eve and the “Devil” can’t do anything God doesn’t want him to do. If Satan exists, he exists by the will of God. If God doesn’t like the Devil he can disappear him out of existence any time he feels like it. Why doesn’t he? > [@](#): > > The biblical cites that show that sin has consequences number in the hundreds, and likely the thousands. God clearly laid out the requirements for Adam and Eve for example **(Gen 2:16, 17)** and also the consequences of disobedience. > As their God and creator, only He had that right. Throughout the OT & NT the cites show both a requirement of God, and the consequence of disobedience are too numerous to count. **(See Rom 6:23, 6:16, 1 John 3:4-8, Pr 10:7, Gal 6:7,8 and hundreds of others)** I’m not going to wade through these verses because I don’t care. I’m not asking IF your God punishes petty “sins” with eternal torture, I’m asking WHY? > [@](#): > > (Diogenes asked about the comment " His resurrection showed that He conquered sin and we can too.") > > It is only God who can establish what constitutes “justice.” It’s His universe. It’s His world man, we’re just spinning on it. Sorry. That’s not an acceptable answer. “Because God says so” just doesn’t cut it with me. If God cannot conform to MY sense of what is right then I have no use for him. > [@](#): > > As noted somewhere in the thread, God required animal sacrifices for many things, including sin atonement. Many of these sacrifices were quite specific, and dealt with different types of sin. And the question is WHY? What does God get out of people killing animals? The truth is that animal sacrifice is rooted in extremely early and primitive human perceptions that they needed to literally feed the gods to curry their favor. It’s patently absurd. > [@](#): > > OTOH, it is clear from the bible that Jesus’s death was a “corresponding ransom”; it was a corresponding debt paid by Christ and God–willingly and out of love. The debt we incurred was the debt, and curse, of sin; of imperfection. I still fail to grasp why I owe any debt but more than that, I fail to grasp how a blood sacrifice is required to pay it. Why couldn’t God just let it go, you know? > [@](#): > > We inherited this curse from our perfect parents, Adam and Eve. Given that they were born perfect—without the blemish of sin—only a perfect man could offer himself as an equivalent sacrifice to balance the scales of Justice. Only Jesus had the necessary credentials to offer himself up as an equivalent sacrifice. \*\*(See Rom 6:23, Rom 3:23,24, Eph 1:7, Heb 10:1-3, 9:22-28, 1 Pet 1:18-19, Rom 5:15-19, Rom 5:14, Matt 20:28, Rom 5:8, 8:20, Heb 2:17 and others)[/B. > > _It is for this reason that Jesus died; to balance out the scales of justice, to cancel out the debt of sin that we inherited through our perfect parents Adam and Eve. And through his sacrifice we have the means to approach God with a hope that we formerly did not have due to this curse._] This is sheer nonsense. There _was_ no Adam and Eve, “inherited sin” makes no sense whatever and no sacrifice is required fot an all powerful God to forgive anybody he wants > [@](#): > > Jesus conquered sin by _choosing_ to keep God’s righteous commandments. He excercised free will in doing so. Like Satan, and Adam/Eve he could have chosen to sin—to disobey. Yet he kept his integrity. In fact, he kept his integrity in a much different world than the paradise that Adam and Eve lived in. Like Eve he was tempted many times. **(See Matt 4)** In spite of this, he kept his integrity all the way through an excruciating execution. He set an example for all of us to follow, and through his death provided a means to approach God in prayer with a clean conscience. He could righfully say, _"…but take courage! I have conquered the world.”_ **(John 16:33)** None of this would be any trick if _was_ God. I’m not impressed. > [@](#): > > Certainly there were other ways. But this was His way. His righteous decision. His sense of Justice…this is as intellectually vacant as it gets. It sure is. > [@](#): > > I had a good friend who dismissed the account of Noah because the ark’s hull wouldn’t have been able to sustain the pressure exerted upon it. He conceded that God made the whole universe, the whole thing. He even conceded that God could control the weather–to make it rain for 40 days if he wished. But…apparently he couldn’t build a seaworthy vessel. :smack: I agree. There are far better reasons to reject the account of Noah than that. > [@](#): > > **Diogenes** , if you’re an atheist, cool. I prefer to call myself agnostic. > [@](#): > > But…if you concede that there might be a God—the super-duper one that everyone talks about— it’s preposterous for any of us to define Him from our perspective, or ascribe limitations to Him. But even the traditional definitions ascribe one limitation to him. He must be good. > [@](#): > > Certainly he could stop sin, or stop sin from causing death. Then why doesn’t he? > [@](#): > > In the former, it would involve invalidating His righteous requirements It is my comtention that the requirements you ascribe to him are not remotely righteous. > [@](#): > > and make our existence standardless. There would be no distinction made between good and evil, right or wrong. Why not? Defining right and wrong as being the arbitrary defintions of God and saying they’re right or wrong because God says so is the same as saying those words have no meaning. > [@](#): > > In the latter it would either remove all consequence for our _choices_and remove one incentive for striving to do good. **I** strive to good without any fear of consequences or expectation of reward. How do you explain that? If you’re just being good because you want to go to Heaven, you’re not really being good. > [@](#): > > In any event, It’s His world. Who am I to say? Who are you? This is exactly what **gobear** meant when he talked about Christians who think that obedience to power is a virtue. Might does not make right. If God cannot be good, then I choose good over God. > [@](#): > > Frankly, whether you choose to be a Christian or not is up to you. But with all due respect, I don’t think you can explain [cogently] Christian theology. Your questions in this post alone show this. It’s one thing to be able to articulate what the bible has to say on a given matter —thoroughly and contectually, and with a firm handle on the background and continuity— and reject it. But I do not believe you have this knowledge— the intellectual basis. You are mistaken in this perception. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you. > [@](#): > > Knowledge must be the basis from which to gain faith. (along with humility, a spiritual awareness & sensibility etc) It appears to me that you are much better acquainted with books that entertain, or offer speculation/opinion/commentary on the bible than the bible itself. What makes you think I want to gain faith? I have no desire or use for faith. I much prefer knowledge. And spare me the sanctimonious pronouncements about my Biblical knowledge. My background is in criticism, not theology. It’s a different kind of Biblical knowledge than what you seem to be accustomed to. To be honest with you, I think you often show a very naive understanding of your own scripture. You seem to think that if someone has a different interpretation than you, that the other person shows a lack of knowledge. I don’t accept your theological readings and you don’t accept my critical ones. No biggie. But anytime you want to show me how I’m factually wrong in anything I say about the Bible, feel free. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/43 "2005-03-16T05:45:54Z")
> [@jeffh3000](#): > > Theoretically, why would an all powerful god still be unable to make choices? If he is unable to make a choice or sacrafice, when man even can, that would not make much sense. > > If God wants to make a sacrafice to make a point, or to work towards some goal, then that certainly seems like it would be his choice to do so. As for what would he gain, as I say he may be making a point to man, or trying to achieve a goal regarding them. You must remember that christian doctrine teaches that man has free will, so God can not force man to do anything. Well, I still think god loses and gains nothing out of the endeavour. Anything that’s possible can be created at any time. Certainly God may make choices, no doubt about it. However, I think all the possibilities are God making his choices. So in a way Jesus would be God, but there is nothing inherently unique about being God, we all are. That lesson learned we move beyond that and ask “What is God?” The lesson I learn from this is that Jesus got smacked down by God for claiming to be something he wasn’t, but I don’t think it was because he wasn’t God. but because he had some doubt somewhere in his soul, and therefore wasn’t, whether that is free will or predestination, it doesn’t really matter because the result was what it was. My personal feeling, is I like to prescribe the Heart Chakra of the species as a whole to Jesus. There is much Heart metaphor rife in the NT, that’s clear to everyone. So our will is a rising of the emotion of the macro, we have our own feelings and our feelings are also governed by the feelings of others to a certain degree. So if the emotional feeling of the whole were to rend the heart in some way it would manifest as a Heart Attack, and I think that that’s what the Crucifixion was, a manifestation of that spiritual heart attack. He is a metaphor of the absorption of the pain of something that could have wiped out much of mankind. Who knows, the Hindus believe that Shiva lives in the Himalayas, perhaps he hangs out with Jesus and Buddha from time to time, and they are still alive walking the Earth. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/44 "2005-03-16T06:08:51Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > For Him to do so, it would require Him to take away our status as free moral agents, in which case we would no longer be humans made in the image of God, but automata. It seems to me that it would only _cement_ ours status as free moral agents if the punishment/reward system was removed. If you have nothing to gain by being good, then being good is much more meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![jeffh3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/34f0e0/32.png) [@jeffh3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeffh3000)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/45 "2005-03-16T06:52:36Z")
4.How could eternal torture (or if you’d prefer, eternal separation from God) ever be rationalized as “justice?” There’s nothing just about it. [/QUOTE] Without getting into a debate over if the goal of hell is actually supposed to be to torture or punish, I have to say that whether this concept of hell is “just” or not is a matter of opinion. I say this as I have found that many people believe in heaven and hell primarily BECAUSE they want to believe that there IS some form of “divine justice.” Whether they are right or wrong, and the foundations of these beliefs is a different issue. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/46 "2005-03-16T06:59:28Z")
**REDEMPTION,** n. Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sin, through their murder of the deity against whom they sinned. The doctrine of Redemption is the fundamental mystery of our holy religion, and whoso believeth in it shall not perish, but have everlasting life in which to try to understand it. – Ambrose Bierce ---
**Author:** ![jeffh3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/34f0e0/32.png) [@jeffh3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeffh3000)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/47 "2005-03-16T07:46:12Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > There is no commentary that I’m aware of that shows that Adam/Eve knew right from wrong after their sin. Certainly there was a change in their awarenes; for example they were now aware of being naked. (Gen 3:7) The fact is, they were now sinners. They were imperfect. I don’t understand what you think “the change of awareness” was if you aren’t aware of the christine tenet that they gained knowledge of good and evil from the tree of knowledge. If you are not clear, that is the tree the fruit is from that they were not supposed to eat, but they did, which christianity tells us resulted in the orginal sin. That Adam and Eve learning right from wrong after eating from the “Tree of Knowledge” is actually fairly common and basic christian tenet. [See a basic definition of the “tree of knowledge”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_knowledge). I mean come on, the full name of the tree that the fruit came from is “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” God clearly refers to the tree as “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 2:17. Would you not assume then that you gain knowledge of good and evil by eating from it? The serpent goes even further in Genesis > [@Genesis 3:5](#): > > “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and (D)you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This should provide you the basic information you seek. Most of the commentary about the “tree of knowledge” described in Genesis, if one takes it in a literal sense, is about how this is how humans gained awareness of good and evil/right and wrong(aka sin). That is the knowledge that they gained from the “tree of knowledge.” Many christians do also take it figuretively. This story is believed to be about the loss of innocence of mankind, and gaining the knowledge of good and evil. The story is interpreted different ways by different faiths, but that is still the basic lesson most faiths walk away with. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/48 "2005-03-16T09:34:00Z")
Just adding my 2 cents without much reading what others have posted: Assuming that Jesus’ main idea that he was trying to get out there was “Be cool to everyone and stop being such buggers about things you don’t like”, then his need to die for the sins of mankind makes sense. If we are supposed to accept and allow people to continue with things that are quite oficially sinful, then we would need to have, for ourselves, the knowledge that the onus for that continued sin has been paid. So, for instance, we can allow athiests to get away with living sinful lives (luckily for myself) because Jesus died to pay for all those athiests. Of course we’ll still all go to hell, but at least you all don’t need to be buggers to us while we’re alive and can go about being to cool to us while we’re still alive. …would be a view. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/49 "2005-03-16T14:05:07Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > There is no commentary that I’m aware of that shows that Adam/Eve knew right from wrong after their sin. Certainly there was a change in their awarenes; for example they were now aware of being naked. (Gen 3:7) The fact is, they were now sinners. They were imperfect. **Genesis 3:22** _And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever._ Funny that you would try to lecture me about not knowing the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/50 "2005-03-16T15:43:03Z")
**Diogenes the Cynic said:** > [@](#): > > When it comes to accepting or rejecting a religious philosphy, that philopsophy is going to have to accord with my own conscience because, ultimately, my conscience is the only moral compass I can rely on. I understand. That is your _choice._ But to the extent a person decides that they themselves can be the arbiter of what right and wrong is, Christianity will remain elusive, if not impossible. In virtually every thread that comes close to this topic someone will say some variation of “all you need is love” (the beatles song going through my head…) and misquote some scrpiture. The fact is, there are many more cites that show that Jesus Christ subordinated himself to do the will of his Father. Love is paramount. But along with love one must have a sense of their spiritual need, a hunger for it, and humility. For my part, I recognize that if Jesus himself said that he was incapable [by _choice_] of being self willed, who am I to assert that my moral compass is any better? I would submit your compass doesn’t know true north, even though it appears to. > [@](#): > > Also, don’t make the mistake of thinking that conforming to a perception of “God’s” morality is not still an autocratic moral choice on _your_ part. It is a _choice._ I’ve weighed the facts and come to the conclusion that there is a God, and that He has a will and purpose. I’ve considered the bible. I’ve even read the commentaries. (even the tin foil hat crowd) I’ve chosen to conform, to the extent my sinful condition allows. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you mean by “handicapping” but I do insist that God be good instead of evil and I will reject what I see as evil. There is the issue as to whether God is good. (I submit He is) And there is the issue as to whether you can insist on having Him adhere to your moral code. (I submit you can’t) > [@](#): > > I DID cite the Bible. Luke 10. I also referenced the Parable of the sheep and the Goats. It is not necessary to cite Bible passages for everything I’m saying because we are speaking in generalities about doctrines that everyone is already familiar with. Well…The OP wasn’t general, not specific. Secondly, I would submit that the concept of the “ransom” is not one everyone is familiar with. In any event, it is the central anser to the OP—which is, “Why did Jesus have to die?” You cannot answer this question (at all!) without going to the source—to find what the bible has to say about the purpose of his death. Yet here it is rarely done. I know of no other field of study where the source document—the authority on the subject—is so blithely ignored. The main reason that I don’t post much anymore is that we’re not fighting ignorance. We’re breeding it. This is a cesspool of ignorance. Please note: This is not from a perspective of dogma. It’s simply from the perspective of what the bible has to say on a given topic. If a poster asks a question that must, by defintion, require the bible for the answer there will routinely be dozens of answers–sometimes more than a hundred—without ever referencing the bible. My point is this: If you wish to know the answer to this question, read the bible yourself. Go to the source. And that goes for the believer or the academic; to the theist or the atheist. > [@](#): > > What does it mean to be “born with sin?” Do we have a “sin” gene? And if we’re born with it, how can we be blamed for it? We inherited sin. That sucks. Whether that is in our “genes” or not, we do not know. But the fact remains that we inherited the sin of Adam. We are not “blamed” for it in any way. It is a fact of heridity. Rather that “blaming” us, God sent His son (His _son_, not Himself) to balance the scales of justice and cancel out our curse of death, from inherited sin. > [@](#): > > Romans 5:12 says nothing about “inherited” sin, it just says that all men sin and sin causes death. I reject both of those sentiments out of hand, **Romans 5:12** says this: \*12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. \* It does in fact say that sin was inherited; death spread to all men. How? “through one man”; Adam. > [@](#): > > How is one supposed to know what counts as “sin” and what doesn’t? By reading the bible and endeavoring to understand God’s righteous expectations, His requirements and purposes. _By taking in knowledge._ (as the _first step_ in developing a relationship with God) > [@](#): > > Why does sin have to be horribly and eternally punished? It’s not. Unrepentent sin results in death. Permanent death. A just God would not burn or torture someone for eternity for 70 or 80 years of sin, no matter how heinous the sins. I believe you and I agree on this. “Hell” is the common grave. It’s where you go when you die. It’s non-sentient death. > [@](#): > > Says who? Isn’t this just saying that might makes right? Well…says God… The question bafles me. If God exists, and if He made all this stuff, there is no one else. God said as much, right? **(Isa 45:5,6)** Nebuchadnezzar said:"… 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are being considered as merely nothing, and he is doing according to his own will among the army of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth. **And there exists no one that can check his hand or that can say to him, ‘What have you been doing?’"\*\*\*\*(Daniel 4:35)** (bolding mine) So the answe is yes. God can just say it and that makes it right. You are _free_ to _choose_ to reject this as out of hand. (and suffer the consequences) > [@](#): > > And why couldn’t he “reconcile” us WITHOUT a crucifixion? Why can’t he just cleanse of our “imperfections” by snapping his fingers? Why not get rid of Hell and just let everybody into Heaven with no questions asked? He could have! But He didn’t. It simply appears that you disagree with how He does [did] things. We can speculate all day long, or offer Monday monring quarterbacking. But it is not our right to determine what is right, and what course justice should take. We have neither the right or ability. > [@](#): > > There was no Adam and Eve and the “Devil” can’t do anything God doesn’t want him to do. If Satan exists, he exists by the will of God. If God doesn’t like the Devil he can disappear him out of existence any time he feels like it. Why doesn’t he? Satan does exist by the will of God. But the bible clearly says that in due time he will be executed for his crimes; he will be put to death. In the meantime we are every day, passively or actively, choosing whether we are willing to submit to God and His righteous requirements (that are, after all, based on love and for our benefit) or whether we are self willed. It’s up to you. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to wade through these verses because I don’t care. I’m not asking IF your God punishes petty “sins” with eternal torture, I’m asking WHY? You’re asking me “WHY?” in the same breadth that you say that you won’t consider the texts that were offered? First, there is NO eternal torture. No burning hell for misdemeanors. God’s sense of justice, as articulated in the bible, offers us the hope of eternal life if we submit to Him and follow His righteous requirements. For those who _choose_ not to, death awaits. It’s His universe. It’s His rules. > [@](#): > > Sorry. That’s not an acceptable answer. “Because God says so” just doesn’t cut it with me. If God cannot conform to MY sense of what is right then I have no use for him. If I could condense all of our exchanges to one comment, this one would suffice. I would submit that having a relationship with God requires A) Love, B) A spiritual hunger, an awareness of one’s spirutual need, C) Humility and D) Knowledge of His will and purposes. Because this was would be off-point of the OP (and I’m pressed for time) I will not cite it now. But there is ample cites/evidence to suggest that knowledge alone is insuffecient. (Satan himself is extremely knowledeable, and quoted the scriptures in Matt 4) Without humility, without a desire to grow spiritually, your “knowledge” will be an empty vessel. _As long as you insist that God conforms to you, you will not find Him or know Him._ > [@](#): > > I still fail to grasp why I owe any debt but more than that, I fail to grasp how a blood sacrifice is required to pay it. Why couldn’t God just let it go, you know? He could have. Be He didn’t. I would submit that a cursory reading of the bible will not give one an accurate reading on God, His purposes, or His personality. Trading barbs on an internet message board won’t get it. > [@](#): > > This is sheer nonsense. There _was_ no Adam and Eve, “inherited sin” makes no sense whatever and no sacrifice is required fot an all powerful God to forgive anybody he wants It makes no sense _to you._ > [@](#): > > Then why doesn’t he? To give people like you and me the time and opportunity to know Him and to bring our lives into harmony will His will and purposes; and to enjoy the benefits of taking such a course. **(2 Pet 3:9)** > [@](#): > > Defining right and wrong as being the arbitrary defintions of God and saying they’re right or wrong because God says so is the same as saying those words have no meaning. There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of God. His “definition” is provided in rich detail in the bible. He articulates His requirements, His personaility, His intentions, and His purposes. That is the basis of one’s faith----an accurate knowledge of Him. **(John 17:3 and many others)** > [@](#): > > **I** strive to good without any fear of consequences or expectation of reward. How do you explain that? If you’re just being good because you want to go to Heaven, you’re not really being good. If you are striving to be “good”, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that you will do many things that God approves of. We are, after all, made in His image. Hence the talk of the “natural laws.” Your motivation may simply be a regard for others, your self or your family. To be a productive part of society. But if you take a secular humanist approach, in which you become your own arbiter of what is good and what is not, you are not endeavoring to search out God’s will. I don’t believe that the **primary** reason for doing good is the desire to go to heaven. One does it because of the love one develops for God, the richness and beauty in that relationship and the appreciation for Him and His qualities. He reciprocates by offering Life as a reward. > [@](#): > > This is exactly what **gobear** meant when he talked about Christians who think that obedience to power is a virtue. I don’t know about that. I know this: We must be obedient. Still, obedience is not driven by fear, or the fear of power. > [@](#): > > Might does not make right. If God cannot be good, then I choose good over God. If God exists, it would be impossible to do this. > [@](#): > > You are mistaken in this perception. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you. > [@](#): > > What makes you think I want to gain faith? I have no desire or use for faith. I much prefer knowledge. > [@](#): > > And spare me the sanctimonious pronouncements about my Biblical knowledge. My background is in criticism, not theology. It’s a different kind of Biblical knowledge than what you seem to be accustomed to. To be honest with you, I think you often show a very naive understanding of your own scripture. You seem to think that if someone has a different interpretation than you, that the other person shows a lack of knowledge. I don’t accept your theological readings and you don’t accept my critical ones. No biggie. But anytime you want to show me how I’m factually wrong in anything I say about the Bible, feel free. I think you understand me just fine. It is the bible that I don’t think you understand. I say this with no shortage of trepidation. Several times in our relationship you have said, “I know more than you do.” (or variations of that) It’s clear that you place a great premium or knowledge and criticism. But it’s clear to me that the source of your knowledge is largely from commentraries about the bible, and not from the bible itself. In fact you recommend some book in this thread,right? Yet, here at SDMB you have been accorded props for your **biblical** knowledge. There is a huge distinction. The basis of your posts rarely use the bible in any detail and many times I’ve called you out for [blatantly] mis-applying a scripture. And so while I applaud knowledge even from someone has no intention of using that knowledge to develop a working faith in God, I am simply saying that I find your **biblical** knowledge to be dubious. (while acknowledging that you are well read among authors who criticize the bible) I will say this. In my view, there is some irony in this. Paul said "19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? "**(1 Cor 1:19,20 also see Ps 33:10, 1 Cor 3:19, Isa 29:14, Jer 8:9, 1 Tim 6:20, Job 12:17, Rom 1:22 and others)** If God does exist (as an agnostic it would appear that you accept this possibility) than it would be at least possible that your knowlwedge is abject ignorance; that rather than going to the source of all knowledge you’ve chosen to take counsel from the creation (idiots like Spong et al) rather than the Creator. (God) There is a distinction too between theology, dogma and a simple rendering of what the bible has to say on a matter. Most often, I have not criticized people for their interpretation of the bible, but for being unwilling (likely unable) to use the bible at all. I will say this in parting: Lurkers, read it for yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Look up the texts cited. Consider the context. Do the research. And come to your own [informed] conclusions. So, why did Jesus die? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/51 "2005-03-16T15:59:39Z")
Sorry, I had to log off quickly last night. This thread has really gone far since that time. Let me see what I can say that Diogenes the Cynic has not already covered: First I will actually post something to the OP: The following makes sense to me. It is from [The Incoherence of Original Sin and Substitutive Sacrifice](http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=33). If you were to read it from a christian, than you could interpret it to mean that original sin is bull, and Jesus could have been a good teacher of ethics without having sacrificed himself. As a result of original sin we cannot pay for our crimes and survive the process, which is to say that we deserve hell for our corruption and disobedience. Fortunately, Jesus ‘bore the sins of the whole world on the cross.’ A sinless person was allowed to undergo the (spiritual) death penalty that we deserve for our sins. This despite the fact that a moral debt, unlike an abstract monetary one, can’t be transferred. There are two conceivable parts of a monetary debt: the money owed, and the moral obligation the debtor might feel that would turn to guilt were the debtor incapable of paying the money and to suffer a conscientious reaction. In a sense, a debtor who finds herself incapable of returning the money owes both money and guilt, a kind of psychological recognition of fault. Were a debtor to find herself broke, and to fail to produce both the money and the consequent guilt the creditor would feel doubly cheated: first for the lack of the proper monetary payment, and second for the lack of the proper emotional response to the debtor’s fault. A debtor might try to substitute for the money owed a recognition of fault with overflowing guilt. P.S. All quotes are taken from the one that christianity has held for a long time, The king James. > [@Tastes of Chocolate](#): > > Sacrifices (usually plant or animal) were a part of the Jewish religious practice of the time. Included in the reasons for making a sacrifice was to ask forgiveness for sins. So there was already a link in people’s minds between the ideas of sacrifice and forgiveness. God was using a form that his audience already knew. He was providing a lesson in a way that his students would (hopefully) understand. One explanation that I have thought of it that people of he time wrote a story about sacrifice. No godly intervention needed. Later, people try to say that it was both influenced by the times, and inspired by god, but I am just not buying it. > [@Scarface Z](#): > > God told Adam that to eat of the fruit of the tree of evil would cause him to die. Adam ate the fruit and (eventually) died. Gen.2:17 “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” To me, “In the day” sounds an awful lot like the same day. As for yBeayf, I have nothing to say that Diogenes has not already said, but he has stated his points more patiently than I feel I can. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/52 "2005-03-16T16:38:36Z")
**Scott\_plaid said:** > [@](#): > > P.S. All quotes are taken from the one that christianity has held for a long time, The king James. Then _cite them_ please, with “quotation marks” (Psalms X:X-XX) to separate them from your words, and a specific text cite either before or after the quote. It’s easier to understand, and easier to respond to. thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/53 "2005-03-16T16:44:48Z")
Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” To me, “In the day” sounds an awful lot like the same day. Happy now? I originaly thought I would have some more, but to use a baseball term, again, Diogenes pretty much covered all the bases. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/54 "2005-03-16T16:53:43Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Genesis 2:17 > “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” > > To me, “In the day” sounds an awful lot like the same day. > > Happy now? I originaly thought I would have some more, but to use a baseball term, again, Diogenes pretty much covered all the bases. Happy is a relative term, but I am content. Thanks for asking! In the day may very well mean that same day. Or, it could mean that their punishment, their death sentence, would be rendered “in the day” that they transgressed this requirement. **From the context** —given that they lived on further, and actually did die-----that contextually “in the day” meant that their judgement would be rendered immediately “in the day” of their transgression. Their fate would be sealed so to speak. I guess the nearness of opening day has us using baseball analogies. But from my seat, it appears Diogenes was thrown out at first after a slow ground ball… ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/55 "2005-03-16T16:53:45Z")
**the raindog** : > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **AHunter3** > > > [@](#): > > > > Put me in, coach. I’m ready to play today. Sign me up for the batting order. > > The scouting reports say you’re a sucker for the fastball. _What_ fast ball? ::he asks nearly a page later:: ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/56 "2005-03-16T16:57:07Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > **the raindog** : > > _What_ fast ball? > > ::he asks nearly a page later:: _What_ lineup? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/57 "2005-03-16T17:09:20Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > In the day may very well mean that same day. Or, it could mean that their punishment, their death sentence, would be rendered “in the day” that they transgressed this requirement. I’m not following you. If it had said, from this day, yes. But it sounds pretty time related. > [@the raindog](#): > > **From the context** —given that they lived on further, and actually did die-----that contextually “in the day” meant that their judgment would be rendered immediately “in the day” of their transgression. Their fate would be sealed so to speak. You say that, I say that it is a clear contradiction and the context shows that it means not what you say, but that it is a simple plot hole. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/58 "2005-03-16T17:16:36Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > I’m not following you. If it had said, from this day, yes. But it sounds pretty time related. > > You say that, I say that it is a clear contradiction and the context shows that it means not what you say, but that it is a simple plot hole. I see now. That’s the more logical explaation given the outcome and context. I plot hole. How’d I miss that? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/59 "2005-03-16T17:34:57Z")
Lots of interesting stuff, thanks! I have avoided quoting scripture since in my mind scripture was written by man for man and has undergone so many translations I doubt the original content is anywhere near what we see now. Did you ever try that rumor example in school? Where the teacher tells one student something and by the time it is passed thru the whole class the final rumor is nothing like the original? Think about that, and add thousands of years and, probably, thousands of people all trying to interpret the same thing. Im just looking at it from, what I think, is simple logic. Everything Jesus died for was put upon us by God. Sin, eternal death etc… And He, “with a snap of his fingers” could undo it all. Which still leads me to believe that Jesus was sent to live not die. We need to prove ourselves to Him, not the other way around. The more I think about this I see the futility of debating it, since we cant know the mind of God we have to go with what we know and that is whats in the Bible etc… Something in me however still thinks we got it all wrong. FTR, I am a Catholic and a weekly church attendee. To be honest tho, I go because it means alot to my wife, not to me. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667/60 "2005-03-16T17:40:11Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > I have avoided quoting scripture since in my mind scripture was written by man for man and has undergone so many translations I doubt the original content is anywhere near what we see now. Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that the Scriptures have been repeatedly translated, from one language to another, until it finally arrived to us in English? And that the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic phrasings are no longer available? May I ask how you arrived at that conclusion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-jesus-wasnt-supposed-to-die/294667.md?page=4)