On Jesus - why specifically was suffering and dying required?

[Blaster_Master]

@begbert2

So, to summarize, any sin from jaywalking to genocide earns (spiritual) death, unless you scapegoat it first with a sacrifice’s (physical) death. Previous to Jesus a sacrifice’s physical death only answered for the prior sins of the sacrificers; each subsequent sin after this necessitated a subsequent physical sacrifice. (One supposes that there was a way around deathbed sinning too?) Then Jesus’s (physical) death came along, and it was so awesome that it could be used repeatedly thereafter by anybody, to avoid having to undergo (spiritual) death themselves. Is that a fair summary?

Well, I don’t really believe these particulars anymore, so I’m trying to go more off of what I was taught. I don’t remember the supposed efficacy of sacrifices prior to Jesus’s crucifixion so I can’t really answer to that. For afterward though, it’s not exactly a one time thing, we’re still expected to try to well and to ask for forgiveness, we would just not have to have a sacrifice anymore. For instance, look at Catholics, they still do confessionals and all. So it’s not exactly just a one-time thing, it’s not like you just accept the sacrifice and ask for forgiveness once then do whatever. It’s supposed to be an ongoing process of realizing sin, sincerely asking for forgiveness, and trying to live more Christ-like constantly.

The best analogy I can really think of would be like comparing a bucket of water to faucet. If I’m washing my hands, I can only use the bucket of water so much before the water gets filthy enough that it won’t clean my hands anymore, so I have to go fetch more. But every time I want to wash my hands with a faucet, there is effectively an endless supply of clean water.

One thing I forgot that might clarify is that I was also taught that during his three days of death, Jesus descended into hell. I never believed that, I don’t even believe in hell, so I’m not sure if that clarifies or muddies the point.

You’re right that the “wages of sin is death” thing is a bit confusing, not helped in the least by the fact that it’s ambiguous about which kind of death we’re talking about. Regardless I find myself wondering who set up and is imposing this sin -> death rule, and why they choose to accept replacements and substitutions. (Since that would probably undermine their reason for making the rule, unless the only point is they like getting lots of death.)

I don’t look at it as a replacement, I think that’s where the whole descended in to hell thing came from people people didn’t really get the other aspect. I don’t look at it as sin requires death, it’s more that sin IS death. That is, sin is doing things that separate us from perfection, that is exactly what spiritual death is. It’s sort of like looking at a smoker and lamenting that it’s unfair that they end up living shorter lives and having lung cancer and stuff; it’s not a punishment for smoking, its a direct consequence of smoking.

When I was a kid, and I’m sure most of us have similar stories, on weekends I’d go outside and play, and mom would mom the floor and vacuum the carpets and all and when I’d come inside she’d make me take my shoes off. It wasn’t a conditional of “well, if your shoes are clean enough it’s okay”; it didn’t matter if I was running around in the mud or on the clean pavement, I had to take them off. I couldn’t make an argument about how clean my shoes may or may not be, even if I had been on the clean pavement, it was true that my shoes were still dirtier than a freshly mopped kitchen floor. That floor was, for the sake of this analogy, perfectly clean, and even if my shoes were nearly clean, I still couldn’t walk in the house wearing them.

My point is, we see degrees of sin and compare them because we’re comparing them to ourselves, but relative to God, we all fall short, even the least sinning human ever is still going to fall short of perfection, just like even the cleanest kid in the neighborhood will still have to take off his shoes before walking on that freshly mopped kitchen floor.

[begbert2]

@Skammer

For those not inclined to click on my link above, Wikipedia lists the following theories of atonement:
[ul]
[li]Moral Influence[/li][li]Ransom and Christus Victor[/li][li]Satisfaction[/li][li]Penal Substitution[/li][li]Governmental[/li][li]Scapegoating[/li][/ul]
Each has a long history and most of the specific wiki articles do a pretty good job at summarizing them, as well as providing the most common support and objections for each doctrine.

You’re not making this easy, but I’m digging into the wiki to find how the torture and sacrifice mesh with each of these.

Moral Influence:

[Quote=wikipedia]
The moral influence view does not focus primarily on the death of Jesus in the same way that penal substitution does. Instead, it focuses on the wider story of Christ’s teachings, example, and the church movement he founded. His death is seen as inspirational within that context, but his death was not the whole goal in the way that penal substitution depicts it. The moral influence view depicts Jesus’ death as a martyrdom, in which he was killed because of his teaching and leadership of a controversial movement.
[/QUOTE]
Translation: the torture and killing served no direct purpose, in and of themselves. Which raises the question of what God thought he was doing in Gethsemane.

Ransom:

@wikipedia

The theory teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction of his just claim on the souls of humanity as a result of sin.

The ‘Satan is running the show’ view. Internally consistent, but

@wikipedia

Today, the ransom view of atonement is not widely accepted in the West, except by some Anabaptist peace churches and a few theologians in the Word of Faith movement.

Well, them and kanicbird.

Christus Victor:
Similar to the above, but

@wikipedia

this is the theory that Adam and Eve made humanity subject to the Devil during the Fall, and that God, in order to redeem humanity, sent Christ as a “ransom” or “bait” so that the Devil, not knowing Christ couldn’t die permanently, would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the Resurrection.

This theory requires that there actually be a rather peculiar set of rules in place that govern both God and the Devil, which both sides are trying to use against the other and in which Jesus’s death (and torture?) was a way for God to game the system in a way which he otherwise wouldn’t do. Which raises the question, who thought up these rules, and why?

Satisfaction:

@wikipedia

Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ’s death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ’s surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ’s death is substitutionary; he pays the honour instead of us.

This one’s interesting - it’s a scapegoat plan, but avoids the skeevy part of it by not being about justice to start with, so the justice-abrogating nature of scapegoating is no big deal. In this it’s all about God - his honor, his happiness. We’re all the loser kids who didn’t get into college, but Jesus is the awesome son who God can slap on the back proudly at company picnics, and with Jesus pleasing God so much he lets the rest of us off with an indifferent shrug. This model has a certain homey charm; God’s kind of a self-absorbed dick in it, but the model is pretty amusing. Of course in this model Jesus’s death was necessary because being tortured and dying in such a manly manner is awesome and totally cool party conversation, which is a bit twelfth-century, but whatever.

Penal Substitution:

@wikipedia

It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.

Which is to say, it was written by people who have no idea what the words “justice” and “just” mean. Suffice to say, for justice to actually be served, you have to punish the right man. This is just the scapegoat system.

Governmental:

@wikipedia

By contrast, governmental theory holds that Christ’s suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but it did not consist of Christ receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. Instead, God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin through the suffering of his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. Christ’s suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received. On this basis, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus allowing his wrath to “pass over.”

In other words, sin makes God very very mad and he just had to punish somebody, and so he punished the innocent guy to…just show how mad the sinning made him, I think? Skimming the article it appears the big difference between this and Penal Substitution is that in Penal Jesus got exactly what everybody else deserves straight up, and in this it was just some other punishment that was about as bad. Notable to me in the wiki description of it though is this feels like the teacher punishing an innocent party unless the guilty party steps forward, because somebody had to pay for breaking the fishbowl. Except that God knows who actually did it, but meh.

Scapegoating:
Scapegoating appears to just be Penal Substitution (or vice versa); it doesn’t even get its own distinct page, persay. It may be worth noting the Penal Substitution, Governmental, and Scapegoating are listed as subgrouyps or derivitaves of Satisfaction, although personally I think that the wiki’s description of Satisfaction is pretty distinct on its own.

[begbert2]

@Blaster_Master

Well, I don’t really believe these particulars anymore, so I’m trying to go more off of what I was taught. I don’t remember the supposed efficacy of sacrifices prior to Jesus’s crucifixion so I can’t really answer to that. For afterward though, it’s not exactly a one time thing, we’re still expected to try to well and to ask for forgiveness, we would just not have to have a sacrifice anymore. For instance, look at Catholics, they still do confessionals and all. So it’s not exactly just a one-time thing, it’s not like you just accept the sacrifice and ask for forgiveness once then do whatever. It’s supposed to be an ongoing process of realizing sin, sincerely asking for forgiveness, and trying to live more Christ-like constantly.

The best analogy I can really think of would be like comparing a bucket of water to faucet. If I’m washing my hands, I can only use the bucket of water so much before the water gets filthy enough that it won’t clean my hands anymore, so I have to go fetch more. But every time I want to wash my hands with a faucet, there is effectively an endless supply of clean water.

One thing I forgot that might clarify is that I was also taught that during his three days of death, Jesus descended into hell. I never believed that, I don’t even believe in hell, so I’m not sure if that clarifies or muddies the point.

I didn’t mean to imply that I had interpreted you as saying only had to use Jesus’s sacrifice once - just that once it had been done, you always had a faucet.

And I’d heard that Jesus went down to hell for the interim too - but nobody told me was being tortuted there. Possibly amusing, but the impression that I was given was that he was touring the place, perhaps like a foreman inspecting a plant.

@Blaster_Master

I don’t look at it as a replacement, I think that’s where the whole descended in to hell thing came from people people didn’t really get the other aspect. I don’t look at it as sin requires death, it’s more that sin IS death. That is, sin is doing things that separate us from perfection, that is exactly what spiritual death is. It’s sort of like looking at a smoker and lamenting that it’s unfair that they end up living shorter lives and having lung cancer and stuff; it’s not a punishment for smoking, its a direct consequence of smoking.

When I was a kid, and I’m sure most of us have similar stories, on weekends I’d go outside and play, and mom would mom the floor and vacuum the carpets and all and when I’d come inside she’d make me take my shoes off. It wasn’t a conditional of “well, if your shoes are clean enough it’s okay”; it didn’t matter if I was running around in the mud or on the clean pavement, I had to take them off. I couldn’t make an argument about how clean my shoes may or may not be, even if I had been on the clean pavement, it was true that my shoes were still dirtier than a freshly mopped kitchen floor. That floor was, for the sake of this analogy, perfectly clean, and even if my shoes were nearly clean, I still couldn’t walk in the house wearing them.

My point is, we see degrees of sin and compare them because we’re comparing them to ourselves, but relative to God, we all fall short, even the least sinning human ever is still going to fall short of perfection, just like even the cleanest kid in the neighborhood will still have to take off his shoes before walking on that freshly mopped kitchen floor.

Okay - but how does Jesus washing his aleady-clean shoes cause your shoes to become clean? (Realizing that by ‘washing’ we mean ‘horrible bloody torture and death’, which felt pretty disingenuous when I typed it so you get this clarification too.)

[John_DiFool]

begbert2, where have you been, man?

Even tho IANA Christian, the one thing I got from my Catholic upbringing that stuck is that love is the answer (trite as that might sound and of course there is a lot more where that came from). If I were to re-convert back (which I won’t), I’d say that Resurrection is something which needs to occur in your heart, i.e. not a literal one from ages ago, but one which is constantly happening.

[begbert2]

@John_DiFool

begbert2, where have you been, man?

Even tho IANA Christian, the one thing I got from my Catholic upbringing that stuck is that love is the answer (trite as that might sound and of course there is a lot more where that came from). If I were to re-convert back (which I won’t), I’d say that Resurrection is something which needs to occur in your heart, i.e. not a literal one from ages ago, but one which is constantly happening.

Love is why Jesus had to be tortured to the point of (not quite) bleeding from every pore, why he had to be flailed bloody, whe he had to be publicly executed via a notoriously cruel method??

That’s some tough love, man.

[Czarcasm]

@begbert2

Love is why Jesus had to be tortured to the point of (not quite) bleeding from every pore, why he had to be flailed bloody, whe he had to be publicly executed via a notoriously cruel method??

That’s some tough love, man.

That’s why it is important for both sides to agree on a “safe word” beforehand.

[monavis]

@begbert2

We all know the story - after wandering around for a little while, Jesus goes off to pray in a garden, is personally tortured by God, and then immediately afterward is apprehended by the Romans and after a brief trial was whipped bloody, crowned with thorns, and executed via crucifiction. As far as I know it is universally accepted that not just the Gethsemane torture but the entire thing was deliberately orchestrated by God, nominally for the purpose of ensuring everyone’s salvation somehow.

I’m interested in the ‘somehow’. Taken at face value, what we have here is a straightforward scapegoat sacrifice - one person takes the punishment that another person deserves, and the other person’s accounts are then considered settled despite they themselves not having endured punishment. Originally this was apparently done by trying to deflect your sins onto an actual goat. One gets the idea that the one dispensing punishment is pretty dim to be so easily fooled; the most charitable interpretation is that the person meting out punishment simply doesn’t care who gets punished, as long as the punisher gets to punish somebody. Regardless, scapegoat sacrifices are not and cannot be about justice being served; they are explicitly an abrogation of justice.

Now, back in the good ole’ days, it was pretty standard to try and sate your deity’s rages and hungers with something other than your own flesh; the dieties in question were rather explicitly unjust and capricius beings who would happily smite you beyond reason if annoyed, but could maybe be distracted with a lovely roast animal instead. There are shades of this in the old testament; the sacrifices are made to curry favor and show appreciation to God, and he is a few times described as being directly pleased by the savory smell (and taste?) of sacrifical meat on the barbecue. There is no need to imagine a complicated redemption system here; you piss off God with your sins, and then make him a tasty dinner to get back in his good graces. One hardly needs to invoke the sacrifice as being a scapegoat - it’s just a bribe, simple as that. God accepts the sacrifices because he likes the sacrifices themselves.

And then we get to the whole Jesus thing. If you attempt to extend the above explanation to include Jesus, things start getting weird - you have God torturing and killing Jesus because he likes torturing and killing Jesus. Presumably when Jesus asked the cup to be taken from him God laughed maniacally and shouted, “No chance - drink, you bastard, drink!” And if you take the literalism of God accepting sacrifices because he likes the taste literally, well, suddenly communion makes starts making sense. ‘This is my body, eat of it’ indeed.

Of course, you don’t hear things along those lines in most major churches - at least not the ones I’m familiar with. Which means that most people probably don’t think that the Jesus sacrifice was supposed to make God directly happy or satisfy his hungers. The question is, though, what exactly was accomplished by Jesus being tortured and killed? Is it a scapegoat sacrifice, with God compulsively lashing out due to sin but not caring that an innocent is being hit? Is god trying to trick himself into thinking that all the guilty were punished, when in reality only Jesus was? Or is there a higher power above God that is able to demand and compel that punishment occurs - but is so stupid that they don’t notice the wrong person is getting it? Or perhaps this higher power simply hates Jesus so much he’s willing to forget about everyone else as long as Jesus gets put through the wringer for a weekend?

If one posits that someone other than God is demanding the sacrifice, the candidate that springs to mind is Satan, since one presumes that Satan is sort of miffed with God and Jesus and would enjoy seeing them squirm. However for this to be the case Satan would have to have power over God. Not just over man, but over God himself - when Satan came calling God would have to be unable to just tell him to go to Hell. Now, I know that some people actually do embrace this model - but I don’t get the idea that this is the norm nowadays either.

So. How do Christains explain the need for the torture and death of Jesus, and the mechanics by which it ensures human salvation? Or do they? Full disclosure: I was raised in a Christian environment, and even though it didn’t take with me and I was a fully aware atheist by the time I left my teens, it took the better part of the next decade before I sloughed off enough of my upbringing to realize that in addition to being untrue, Christianity’s core tenent literally doesn’t make sense, even on its own terms. That’s just how ingrained into my upbringing and environment the Jesus thing is. So I can certainly understand if most people haven’t given it a moment’s thought. But surely some Christians have - so how do they explain it? What did Jesus’s sacrifice do, that couldn’t be accomplished some other, less barbaric way? Explain this to me in a way that doesn’t fall apart on cursory examination, please?

I think there are many people who question the logic in such a plan of a Supreme Being that he first created a being that he knew ahead of time would revolt, then punished with death all his (so called) Children, because Adam and Eve tried to know the difference between good and evil.

If this supreme being knew ahead of time it would happen, then punished things or beings that he knew (if he knows and knew all things as was taught) punished with death and suffering doesn’t say much for such a Supreme Being, but doesn’t portray this Being as a good ,loving or all knowing being, but a cruel being. And since we only have the word of another human that this is what happened, we can conclude it wasn’t that way at all.

[monavis]

@Blaster_Master

I was raised Anglican, and what I was taught was that the penalty for sin was death, which was the purpose for sacrifices before that. Sacrifices were accepted or denied by God for many reasons but basically boil down to whether we were truly repentant and loved God or simply going through the motions. Jesus’s death was what established the new convenant, being the ultimate, perfect sacrifice; thus, we no longer need to offer other sacrifices as long as we accept that one.

The key point though that I think confuses people is that the penalty of sin is death. As I was taught, this is basically that any sin separates us from God, because God is perfect and without sin, and separation from God is tantamount to spiritual death. Thus, our sins have to be absolved or we will die. Jesus demonstrated and taught us about the sort of lives we should live, then provided the means to set ourselves right in the eyes of God.

So it’s not about torture or bribes, its about purity. I don’t believe those particulars so much anymore, I think there’s a lot more levels to it, like the list Trust provides and some others, but that was the big part that they focused on and seems to be fairly common in other denominations as well.

Since God knew and Knows all things ahead of time and he knew that
Satan and humans were weak it is the fault of such a God, and it would seem he punished these beings because of his mistake, or was just a being who liked to see suffering…a hard sell if God is just and all loving!

[monavis]

@kanicbird

One take on it is Jesus had to be handed over to the powers of death aka the powers of Satan for Satan to do what he wants. This involved the suffering and death as Satan’s way of discouraging Jesus’ message and actions from spreading. Satan wanted to make a public statement of Jesus, basically saying don’t try what this man did as it didn’t work.

By Satan putting God in human flesh to death (by default without cause), Satan overstepped his authority and now the ‘contract’ that allowed Satan’s Kingdom to operate on earth was in violation. The part that is in violation is that sin leads to death. Any sin, no matter how small or large or how few or many has the exact same penalty - death.

It is that all sin, no matter how small that gave Satan such power to rule on earth, as all have sinned. It is also that part of the contract, that no matter how big or many one sins that the penalty is the same - death that God used to defeat Satan.

As part of Satan’s kingdom, he accepted the transfer of sins from one person to another, so here on earth for instance we have the children bearing the sins of the parents (up to 4 generation in scripture). This insured that even innocent children would die in this world. But due to the transfer ability of sins that Satan accepted to rule on earth, God allows us to transfer our sins to Him. It is this transfer ability, and the innocence of Jesus when Jesus was put to death that allows us to say that the penalty to us has been transfered to Jesus and, no matter how many sins or how bad the sin is, it has been totally paid, as it only requires one death, which Jesus did.
The suffering part had a additional effect, ‘By his wounds we are healed’. Our ability to heal (in some or perhaps all capacity) was awarded because of the unjust suffering of Jesus.

What you are saying( in a way) is that God punishes people or any being for being what he made them. The flaws were there because of God’ mistake, or that he wanted suffering. Such a human father would be put in jail for abuse.

[monavis]

@SeldomSeen

I think this is a reasonable assumption. A lot of symbolism was attached, a lot of legend grew up around the story after the fact. The memory of a martyred leader can be a powerful influence for any group to manipulate.

Did Jesus have a martyr complex? If the historicity of the biblical account is to be believed, his mental and spiritual anguish in Gethsemane would indicate so. He probably knew or suspected that to continue publicizing his message and confronting the authorities could lead to an untimely and unpleasant death, but at that point he could hardly avoid it without being branded a charlatan and coward. There are plenty of more recent stories of inspirational leaders that became martyrs, who knew they were placing themselves in grave danger by continuing their activities, but had sufficient concern for or faith in their cause that they did so anyway.

I realize that many Christians feel that this view trivializes the legend of Jesus, but it really doesn’t do that. If the biblical story of Christ is valid at all (and I personally think it is valid, if not factual in every detail) then the lesson derived from it is of a wise and inspirational social activist, a spiritual leader whose message was so powerful that he literally laid his life on the line to bring it to the public. That the message has been abused and distorted by many self-styled followers does not in any way diminish the act.
SS

The act wouldn’t have been necessary if God had created beings with out flaws, If Satan Revolted it was because he had a flaw, the same with human beings. What human would be considered loving and good if they knew ahead of time their offspring would act like Hitler? I am far from perfect or all knowing ,but if I had a child I knew ahead of time that would be evil and harm my other children, I would not conceive it to begin with!

[kanicbird]

@monavis

What you are saying( in a way) is that God punishes people or any being for being what he made them. The flaws were there because of God’ mistake, or that he wanted suffering.

You are going to have to explain how you derived this?

Such a human father would be put in jail for abuse.

God allows for this for now.

[begbert2]

@kanicbird

@monavis

What you are saying( in a way) is that God punishes people or any being for being what he made them. The flaws were there because of God’ mistake, or that he wanted suffering.

You are going to have to explain how you derived this?

Based on his other posts in this thread, I believe his starting premise is that God ought to have made us all infallible to start with, and if he had then none of this mess would have happened. Since that would presumably have included making Satan infallible to, I think you’ll agree: infallibility all around would have resulted in piles less suffering.

One notes that his position has the unavoidable base requirement that God is capable of making infallible entities. This is not necessary a bad assumption, because either omnipotence or omniscience alone is sufficient to grant him the ability, but even so it’s not clear to me that all theists accept that creating infallible entities is within God’s ability.

@kanicbird

@monavis

Such a human father would be put in jail for abuse.

God allows for this for now.

I think what he was saying was that under reasonable systems of judgment, God would be put into jail for abuse. (Putting aside that making the arrest might be a little tricky.)

Given that whole thing with the torture and killing of his son, I do think that social services might want to keep an eye on him.

[Voyager]

Many thanks to begbert2 for summarizing the mechanisms. However I ask again - even if these are plausible means of redemption, why are any of them necessary? I grew up going to Temple once a year fasting and atoning for my sins, those I remembered and those I didn’t remember. The purpose was to be written into the book of Life for the next year - it obviously worked. In this context “the wages of sin are death” makes perfect sense. But in this view God can directly cleanse us of our sins - no sacrifices, either of animals or children - being necessary. The OT God gets a rap from Christians about being hard hearted, but the God I grew up with did not consider me inherently sinful, and allowed me to atone without intervention of others. In any case, a God who could not directly forgive sins is obviously not omnipotent and is thus no God at all.
I think this is the heart of why, even if for some odd reason I started believing in a God, I could never be a Christian.

[kanicbird]

@Voyager

Many thanks to begbert2 for summarizing the mechanisms. However I ask again - even if these are plausible means of redemption, why are any of them necessary?.

To me redemption is needed because you have to desire to be God’s child. That is the redemption, not the fasting or pennants. If you desire to be God’s child you are immediately sinless. If you are not God’s child you are in that state of sin, even if unknowingly.

[kanicbird]

@begbert2

Based on his other posts in this thread, I believe his starting premise is that God ought to have made us all infallible to start with, and if he had then none of this mess would have happened. Since that would presumably have included making Satan infallible to, I think you’ll agree: infallibility all around would have resulted in piles less suffering.

One notes that his position has the unavoidable base requirement that God is capable of making infallible entities. This is not necessary a bad assumption, because either omnipotence or omniscience alone is sufficient to grant him the ability, but even so it’s not clear to me that all theists accept that creating infallible entities is within God’s ability.

God did make us infallible, but we are such only as much as we acknowledge we are His children. God does not make imperfect beings, never has never will. But it is God Himself that makes us perfect, not us.

God looks at the intent of our heart, and if it is right He will make whatever our actions ultimately good. This way we don’t have to be perfect in our actions, just our intentions, because He will make our actions always perfect - in our human life we normally don’t see intentions, but we commonly judge actions.

So it doesn’t follow that we are fallible. So it also does not follow that suffering would be eliminated if we are made infallible. What would happen if we are made fallible some of us would never make it back home to God and eternal life, that would be eternal suffering, and that would mean God is imperfect (or cruel).

I think what he was saying was that under reasonable systems of judgment, God would be put into jail for abuse. (Putting aside that making the arrest might be a little tricky.)

Given that whole thing with the torture and killing of his son, I do think that social services might want to keep an eye on him.

God was arrested, put in jail and executed for all the crimes of humanity. All power and authority was transfered to Jesus, so yes this has happened. And I believe the death sentence is considered sufficient punishment for any crime.

[VinylTurnip]

@kanicbird

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. God does not change.

“Hey Matthew, did you hear about the scribe with five penises?”

“Yes, Jesus. His mantle fit like a glove.”

“Ah, you heard that one. Hey, did you hear the one about the Pharisee…”

“Yes, Jesus. We’ve heard that one. We’ve heard ALL of them.”

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Voyager

Many thanks to begbert2 for summarizing the mechanisms. However I ask again - even if these are plausible means of redemption, why are any of them necessary? I grew up going to Temple once a year fasting and atoning for my sins, those I remembered and those I didn’t remember. The purpose was to be written into the book of Life for the next year - it obviously worked. In this context “the wages of sin are death” makes perfect sense. But in this view God can directly cleanse us of our sins - no sacrifices, either of animals or children - being necessary. The OT God gets a rap from Christians about being hard hearted, but the God I grew up with did not consider me inherently sinful, and allowed me to atone without intervention of others.

Shucks, given what you said there at the start, it sounds like Christians didn’t really need Jesus to die on the cross as a sinless sacrifice on behalf of others; after all, couldn’t someone just sacrifice you on behalf of us all two seconds after a Yom Kippur atonement makes you as pure as Jesus ostensibly was?

[Voyager]

@kanicbird

To me redemption is needed because you have to desire to be God’s child. That is the redemption, not the fasting or pennants. If you desire to be God’s child you are immediately sinless. If you are not God’s child you are in that state of sin, even if unknowingly.

Now that sounds a lot more reasonable than requiring someone to be nailed to a tree for my salvation. BTW, the Yom Kippur prayers specifically have you atone for sins you committed unknowingly.

[Voyager]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Shucks, given what you said there at the start, it sounds like Christians didn’t really need Jesus to die on the cross as a sinless sacrifice on behalf of others; after all, couldn’t someone just sacrifice you on behalf of us all two seconds after a Yom Kippur atonement makes you as pure as Jesus ostensibly was?

Who said anything about purity? Is God such a picky eater that he requires a sinless sacrifice or else he’d gag or something? And guess what - we’d don’t sacrifice at alll anymore, unless you count a couple of meals. Is God so limited that he can’t accept sincerely meant atonement without killing anybody? When I used to believe in God he was a lot more of a mensch than the one you seem to believe in.

[begbert2]

@kanicbird

God did make us infallible, but we are such only as much as we acknowledge we are His children. God does not make imperfect beings, never has never will. But it is God Himself that makes us perfect, not us.

God looks at the intent of our heart, and if it is right He will make whatever our actions ultimately good. This way we don’t have to be perfect in our actions, just our intentions, because He will make our actions always perfect - in our human life we normally don’t see intentions, but we commonly judge actions.

So it doesn’t follow that we are fallible. So it also does not follow that suffering would be eliminated if we are made infallible. What would happen if we are made fallible some of us would never make it back home to God and eternal life, that would be eternal suffering, and that would mean God is imperfect (or cruel).

Um, this makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps we’re having a disagreement on what certain terms mean.

For the sake of this exchange, presume that “infallible” means “perfect”. And also “sinless”. And also “unable to sin”. And also “unfailingly good”. And, that these properties are in effect on their own, without God having to step in and fudge with anything.

An infallible entity, then, would be unable to be imperfect in either thought, word, or deed; an infallible entity would also be unable to become fallible, under any circumstances. In other words, infallible entities are ones that do not need salvation at all, and for which no sacrifices need to be made.

Note that infallible does not mean the same thing as “not fallen at the moment” or “has been forgiven for their failings”. With actual infallibility there’s nothing to forgive.

Also, one presumes an infallible Devil wouldn’t have, er, fallen, so there wouldn’t even be anybody trying to gamble for our souls. (I’m broadly assuming that stealing souls is naughty, and thus imperfect.)

Now, if everyone (including Satan) were infallible, then we can be pretty sure there would be less suffering, if only due to the reduction in crime. Whether there would be no suffering depends on two things: 1) whether god is benevolent, and 2) whether god is omnipotent. Because if God is willing and able to costlessly stop all suffering, then he would, period. If he doesn’t, he’s either unable to do so, or unwilling.

@kanicbird

God was arrested, put in jail and executed for all the crimes of humanity. All power and authority was transfered to Jesus, so yes this has happened. And I believe the death sentence is considered sufficient punishment for any crime.

Ah, okay. Many people draw something of a distinction between God and Jesus, because they held conversations with each other. (Though I suppose he alternatively could have been insane and talking to himself.) And for myself, I don’t consider the death sentence to have been carried out in any punitive sense if the subject is still alive afterwards - either by having been ressurrected or by still being alive in heaven. That kind of defeats the point of the death penalty, really. So while Jesus was horrifically tortured and killed, the torture and pain impress me more than the release of death.