Yes, it is loaded, naive, and presumptive, but it helps me to understand the incredulity of atheists when God is presented this way by people who label themselves “Christian”. We cannot blame the atheist, not when the “Christian” presents himself as teacher. What I want to know is how the simple message of God’s Love can become so twisted as to raise a question like the one quoted?
Who told Jab that God changed “the rules”, let alone that He had to “make Himself” do it? And who told Jab that rule changing was the object of His sacrifice?
Christians, let us please stop making asses of ourselves, alienating nice people like Jab, and complicating God’s simple message. His sacrifice was not intended to change any rules, but to fulfull them, that is, to make them perfectly observed. And He didn’t have to do it; He wanted to.
So the question becomes, “Why would God sacrifice Himself on our behalf to fulfill the rules that we could not?” And the answer is because He loves us.
However, speaking from only this atheist’s point of view, this does nothing to explain why God had to do any of this - or why he chose to. How does getting yourself nailed to a cross just to arise 3 days later achieve anything that simply wishing away all sin in the universe couldn’t? Why is it considered a sacrifice when he knew all along he would get up and be fine? How exactly does an all-powerful being make a sacrifice anyway?
For me - “He loves us.” - doesn’t provide much of an answer.
Of course, as an atheist, I find it more an interesting look at a fairly unremarkable “hero’s quest” myth more than anything else.
Well, if you go by what Jesus himself said, he said he went to death to show he loved and served the Father solely. Since he told his followers they could expect the same thing to happen to them, he had to go first to prepare a way for them.
God created us and is all knowing. Shouldn’t He know what we are capable of?
Why was Christ on the cross a sacrafice? A sacrafice implies that something was lost. What did God lose?
Why does Christ on the cross have any redemptive power? Christians always say that people are saved through grace, not works. How could Jesus save humanity through a work? Thousands of people have died on crosses. Did those works save them?
To clarify the essence of jab’s question, if God wanted to change the rules because He loved us, fine. But why couldn’t He have simply snapped His fingers (or whatever) to make it so? Why did He change the rules the way He did?
Fair enough. From your perspective, I would see it the same way you do.
What God did was analogous to my sainted mother desecrating herself (say, as a whore) in order to acquire the means to feed and clothe me. Her decision is not mitigated by her knowledge of its brevity (“Just a few days of screwing and it will be over”.)
What is remarkable about what God did, and what His sacrifice constituted, was not His death, but His taking upon Himself all sin.
Now, my mother was a good woman, and prostituting herself would have been a monumental sacrifice, but even her goodness paled to His. God went through His worst nightmare. The sacrifice was not about His power, but about His goodness.
To be more analogous, your sainted mother would have had to desecrate herself to become a whore even though she could just snap her fingers and conjure up the money instead. The atheist’s point is that Christians simultaneously claim God can do anything logically possible, then claim that He “had to” kill himself to forgive sin, when this does not seem a logical requirement.
God could not forgive us our sin unless He “took it upon Himself”? Why not? He is supposed to be all-powerful, and I cannot see a good reason why a just judge would somehow “give” sin to an innocent person to forgive the guilty. And if He has taken all our sins, why will some people still go to hell, then? You once said the only sin was a cold heart. I do not see that God has taken cold hearts from the world, so how did He take our sins upon Himself?
You’re still not telling us what God “sacrificed.” How exactly does he suffer for “taking upon Himself all sin?” How does all that sin affect him? Migraines?
And if he really cared so much about humanity, why didn’t he just implant the knowledge of this “sacrifice” into the brain of everyone living at the time, instead of relying on such ineffective vehicles as the original Apostles to get the Word out?
Christian logic is a house of cards, Libertarian. With all due respect, Christian logic is an indefensible house of cards. Surely you must understand how silly what you’re saying sounds to us.
Yes. But simply because we are incapable of being perfect without His intervention does not mean that He ought not to require perfection of us.
Everything.
What does infinity lose when it becomes finite? What does perfection lose when it becomes tainted? What does light lose when it falls into a black hole?
A. Per se, it doesn’t. (see B)
B. The work was trivial. It was the Goodness (Love) motivating the work that mattered.
C. No.
He could have indeed, with or without a snap, but merely with an exercise of His will. But again, He never changed any rules. And our will for our own lives trumps His.
Sorry, Libertarian, but I happen to think that the question in Jab’s sig line is a good one. Wanna take a crack at answering it instead of just reiterating that God was really nice when he sacrificed Himself to Himself (etc.)?
Speaking as another skeptical atheist, I’ve always wondered why there’s such a big to-do about Jesus’ death. E.g., the whole “God sacrificed his only son for your sins!”
Big whoop.
God’s omnipotent; Jesus shuffling off the mortal coil is no big deal to him. Dad just snaps his fingers, and junior’s back hale and hearty.
Heck, technically speaking, God and Jesus are the same being (along with the Holy Ghost, which almost nobody talks about). So if Jesus died and was resurrected three days later, doesn’t that imply that God was working behind the scenes to raise him? If so, doesn’t that mean Jesus didn’t die to begin with, since Jesus == God?
(Digression: I am the father of a 16-month-old son. My kid has never done anything bad in his life other than soiling his diapers at inopportune moments. Yet, according to a strict interpretation of Christian doctrine, if he were to die right now, he’d go to Hell and burn for eternity because he didn’t recognize Jesus as his savior. Needless to say, I get really honked off at such a cruel and heartless doctrine, and IMO it puts to lie the whole idea that religion is a good thing to subscribe to. Yeah, roasting toddlers in hellfire sounds real loving to me…)
Because God gave man free will, and us such man hides himself from God through sin. This state of being hidden from God is transmitted through “Original Sin.” Through Jesus’s death and ressurection, he demonstrated that God exists and perfect love for God is both possible and not futile in a way those in a world suffering the effects of Original Sin could not themselves realize because of their occlusion. Thus, the sacrifice enables the faithful to overcome Original Sin.
Jesus had faith that God existed and was merciful and just. He no doubt had intimate knowledge of this fact, but his death communicated the sincerity of his faith to his followers. Jesus was wholly man and did not possess any special God-like powers on Earth.
Is “he wanted people to know the truth” a better answer?
PS, Dr. Lao – Protestants always say “faith not works.” Not other branches of Christianity.
I think nobody knows why God thought He had to do it that way; the fact of the matter is, according to Christian doctrine anyway, that He did. And, as Lib said (Wow, it’s great to see you back!), for love. Explaining it away via the authority of the Bible (a sacrifice must be made for sin, etc.) simply moves the question back one notch – why did He set it up that way?
Speculation only, here, but one that makes sense: If God wants our loving commitment, which is made abundantly clear throughout the New Testament, then He cannot settle for slavish obedience forced upon us. This makes choosing Him by our free will essential.
If we are to have free will to choose Him or not, and this is to mean something more meaningful than “Gaudere is free to choose whether or not to levitate herself to the top of the Sears Building,” then there has to be a valid other choice to God, or a bunch of them. That bunch we call “sin.”
And for God to Himself pay the penalty for man’s sin – that proves something to us – something that draws man’s attention, and will to believe, to Him. And at an absolute minimum, taking the Gospel accounts of the events of Passover 29 AD as valid eyewitness reports, you’ve got to admit that it’s certainly an attention-getter. Even the JFK assassination hasn’t spawned as many threads here as has Jesus’s death.
rjung, I can’t speak for all Christians, but in the traditional Protestant - specifically Baptist - doctrine there is a concept known as the “age of accountability”. This doctrine posits that before the age at which a child understands that they are a little sinner and need God, they are in a state of grace should they die. They are not held to be responsible for their “sin nature” in other words. So your son is OK.
Asking the genuinely impossible of a being, and punishing them for failing to achieve the impossible, is wrong. I do not punish my cat because she cannot fly. With the attachment of a tiny hanglider and a good toss, she could fly–but for me to require her to fly without these things is unfair. Nor would I think it particularly wrong of her to refuse to acede to a tiny hanglider, either.
So there was in fact no need for a crucifxion?
“God died to get your attention”? ::cough:: Y’know, many of us atheists have proposed much more effective ways of getting our attention–a few miracles would do nicely. I actually think it a little sick that God killed Himself to get us to pay more attention to him–suddenly I have a mental image of God as an angst-ridden teenage boy plotting his own suicide. “Now they’ll pay attention to me! Now they’ll all be so sorry they were mean to me!” Has anyone ever suggested to God that He should join a club or go out for a sport or something if He wants attention, rather than comitting suicide? It’s also a bad precendent to set for other people, maybe they’ll all want to die to get attention too–oh wait, many of them do. Look at the Christian love of martyrs.
Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. He taught a message of equality that was a radical shift from the theology of his day. He managed to gain a signficant following. He was also from Galilee - a known hotbed of Zealots, anti-Roman rabble-rousers.
The Romans see that this man who associates with known Zealots is gaining followers and assume he must be trouble. Romans of the day have no problems killing trouble-makers. Therefore, Jesus is killed.
To his followers, who believe he is the Messiah, his death makes no sense. How can the messenger of God die?
In the years following his death, a myth grows about how he is the sacrificial Lamb and how he was resurrected.
The real problem I have with this flawed theology is that it dismisses Jesus’ message: Love God. Love Everyone. His message does not require him to be Deity. In fact, whether Jesus was Diety or not was not settled in the Church for centuries, and then by force. So much for the church following his message
Jesus, like Siddhartha Gautama, was an enlightened human. He sought to teach others the way to enlightenment. Buddha, to his good fortune, lived previous to and outside Roman influence, and was not killed.
“Miracle on demand”? Why? And what would validate it to you as a “modern-day unambiguous miracle” – given that healthy skepticism can suggest a “natural cause” for almost anything? And how do you distinguish between a miracle as an act of God’s will and a coincidental natural event that happens and fits the picture?
Consider that passage above. I think he was speaking directly to the issue at hand – given the circumstances in which he told the story. (BTW, nobody believes that this parable contains a perfect depiction of the afterlife – it’s a story. Those who think they know what Heaven and Hell are supposed to be like have a quite different picture than this.)
I don’t get what you are driving at. Specifically, what did God lose from the time before the crucifixion to the time after the crucifixion that He could never get back? It is impossible for me to understand a god’s sacrifice if I don’t know what a god could lose. From my perspective, to suggest that a god committed a sacrifice means that there is something that is unattainable to that god.
And one more thing, to echo Gaudere, if the crucifixion wasn’t necessary for redemption, why did God crucify Himself?
::cough:: Y’know, many of us atheists have proposed much more effective ways of getting our attention–a few miracles would do nicely. I actually think it a little sick that God killed Himself to get us to pay more attention to him–suddenly I have a mental image of God as an angst-ridden teenage boy plotting his own suicide. “Now they’ll pay attention to me! Now they’ll all be so sorry they were mean to me!” Has anyone ever suggested to God that He should join a club or go out for a sport or something if He wants attention, rather than comitting suicide? It’s also a bad precendent to set for other people, maybe they’ll all want to die to get attention too–oh wait, many of them do. Look at the Christian love of martyrs. 
I don’t get what you are driving at. Specifically, what did God lose from the time before the crucifixion to the time after the crucifixion that He could never get back? It is impossible for me to understand a god’s sacrifice if I don’t know what a god could lose. From my perspective, to suggest that a god committed a sacrifice means that there is something that is unattainable to that god.