Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

jgh7

Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #1

Post by jgh7 »

Jesus was a blameless sinless man according to the NT. How does the killing of the innocent atone for the sins of the wicked? Am I correct in saying that if Jesus had not been killed and resurrected, then God would not be in a position to forgive us of our sins?

In the real world, it is completely nonsensical to kill the innocent to atone for the wicked. On the contrary, it is probably one of the worst injustices that could occur. Where is the logic and sense in God having the most innocent of innocents killed so that He can forgive us?

jgh7

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #11

Post by jgh7 »

Wootah wrote:
jgh7 wrote: Jesus was a blameless sinless man according to the NT. How does the killing of the innocent atone for the sins of the wicked? Am I correct in saying that if Jesus had not been killed and resurrected, then God would not be in a position to forgive us of our sins?

In the real world, it is completely nonsensical to kill the innocent to atone for the wicked. On the contrary, it is probably one of the worst injustices that could occur. Where is the logic and sense in God having the most innocent of innocents killed so that He can forgive us?
Killing Jesus was sinful. Jesus sacrificing himself was however necessary.

In the real world when someone runs into a burning building and rescues someone else but dies in the attempt we call them heroes.

View it that way because that is closer to how Christians view it.

No Christian views it as killing innocents to save the wicked.
But you're choosing to worship a God who's actions make no sense. If a man sacrifices an innocent being on this planet to atone for sins, we label it a heinous act and the man as possibly crazy. When the Christian God has it done, Christians label it as the most generous act possible.

There is a complete disconnect in logic. Why do Christians ignore their own common sense?

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #12

Post by ttruscott »

DanieltheDragon wrote:
ttruscott wrote:
jgh7 wrote:Where is the logic and sense in God having the most innocent of innocents killed so that He can forgive us?
You miss the mark - GOD did not kill Christ. HE offered His life as a sacrifice for us. Why this is the best way to achieve our repatriation to the Father, I do not know but He was a volunteer.
Why did God neeeeed Christ to volunteer as a sacrifice if he can create universes life etc. he can't forgive without blood sacrifice? Seems fishy of you ask me....
I just said I do not know. Nor do I base my faith on your emotions, especially in a debate forum.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #13

Post by ttruscott »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
ttruscott wrote:
jgh7 wrote:Where is the logic and sense in God having the most innocent of innocents killed so that He can forgive us?
You miss the mark - GOD did not kill Christ. HE offered His life as a sacrifice for us. Why this is the best way to achieve our repatriation to the Father, I do not know but He was a volunteer.
Was there ever even the slightest possibility that Jesus would have opted out of this plan, in your opinion? And if the answer is no, if there was really never such a possibility on the table, in what way was Jesus ever functioning as a volunteer?
Of course there wasn't any such possibility. The impossibility measures His commitment to the necessity of forgiveness by blood and fulfilling His promise of salvation to us only, not to any victimhood or being forced.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #14

Post by ttruscott »

Zzyzx wrote: .
Wootah wrote: In the real world when someone runs into a burning building and rescues someone else but dies in the attempt we call them heroes.
If someone standing by could put out the fire (with an aerial tanker or a click of their fingers or whatever) with no one being harmed, and did not do so, what would we think of that person?
As usual when the analogy is argued instead of that to which the analogy points, the point is missed.

The Christian pov is that His death is, in fact, the putting out of the fire, the sealing the fate upon evil, the sealing of the salvation of the sinful elect, the end of the hold of death on His people that had been predicted and was now established. That is why we sing Hallelujah.

As for having evil without pain and suffering, where ever did you get the idea that was possible?
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #15

Post by ttruscott »

DanieltheDragon wrote: 1. God can't forgive without the blood sacrifice of an innocent
2. God creates an innocent to sacrifice
3. The creation is sacrificed
4. The wicked are forgiven
This denial of the Trinity and that the Trinity is in full and perfect agreement on all things denys most of Christianity itself and is meaningless to us.

1. Where is it written the blood must be innocent and not righteous?
2. Where is it written Jesus was created to die?
3. He was not a creation to most of Christianity.
4. It is not the wicked, the eternally evil demonic sinners who were forgiven but the good but sinful seed, the sheep of His flock who went astray, the people of His kingdom and the people of His family who became seduced into the addiction to evil, HIS legitimate children who were able to be redeemed...these are the people who were forgiven and who will become holy.

This caricature of Christianity is not Christianity...funny how often we have to repeat ourselves, eh?
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9467
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1005 times
Been thanked: 1311 times

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #16

Post by Clownboat »

ttruscott wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: .
Wootah wrote: In the real world when someone runs into a burning building and rescues someone else but dies in the attempt we call them heroes.
If someone standing by could put out the fire (with an aerial tanker or a click of their fingers or whatever) with no one being harmed, and did not do so, what would we think of that person?
As usual when the analogy is argued instead of that to which the analogy points, the point is missed.

The Christian pov is that His death is, in fact, the putting out of the fire, the sealing the fate upon evil, the sealing of the salvation of the sinful elect, the end of the hold of death on His people that had been predicted and was now established. That is why we sing Hallelujah.

As for having evil without pain and suffering, where ever did you get the idea that was possible?
Well Wootah, since truscott dodge the question (gotta love the irony about missing the point though!), and since this was aimed at you anyways, I'm curious about an actual answer to the question. What do you have to say about:
"If someone standing by could put out the fire (with an aerial tanker or a click of their fingers or whatever) with no one being harmed, and did not do so, what would we think of that person?"

It would also be great if this one wasn't missed either:
"Consider for a moment WHY we call that person who dies rescuing someone a 'hero'. I offer my reason; that person has just given up that which is irreplaceable, something they can never have back (their life) so someone else can live.
What happens in the Christian story? Oh right...Jesus comes back to life after a three day nap and becomes King of the universe.

Why is sacrificing Jesus necessary?"


Thanks!
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #17

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ttruscott wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
Wootah wrote: In the real world when someone runs into a burning building and rescues someone else but dies in the attempt we call them heroes.
If someone standing by could put out the fire (with an aerial tanker or a click of their fingers or whatever) with no one being harmed, and did not do so, what would we think of that person?
As usual when the analogy is argued instead of that to which the analogy points, the point is missed.
Creative dodge of the question.

Kindly refer complaints to the person who offered the analogy.
ttruscott wrote: The Christian pov
Is that actually THE Christian POV or is it A Christian POV? Does it represent ALL 40,000 denominations of 'Christianity'? – some of them? – a personal opinion? Are you authorized to speak for Christendom? By what authority?
ttruscott wrote: is that His death is, in fact, the putting out of the fire, the sealing the fate upon evil, the sealing of the salvation of the sinful elect, the end of the hold of death on His people that had been predicted and was now established. That is why we sing Hallelujah.
Everyone is entitled to believe or fantasize however they wish. Neither of those require verification.
ttruscott wrote: As for having evil without pain and suffering, where ever did you get the idea that was possible?
I take no position regarding 'evil without pain and suffering'.

I do take the position that a person or a proposed 'god' who could prevent death and injury but refuses to do so is unworthy of my respect. Care to try to deal with that instead of something made up?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #18

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 11 by jgh7]

The problem I have with your post is that it seems to claim all Christians think the same way. Truth is, not all Christians, now and then, hold with the penal-substitutionary theory of the Atonement, which is the issue here. I know I certainly do not. Actually, the penal-substitutionary theory is but one of several theories on teh Atonement and does not come into prominence until the Middle Ages.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #19

Post by Elijah John »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 11 by jgh7]

The problem I have with your post is that it seems to claim all Christians think the same way. Truth is, not all Christians, now and then, hold with the penal-substitutionary theory of the Atonement, which is the issue here. I know I certainly do not. Actually, the penal-substitutionary theory is but one of several theories on teh Atonement and does not come into prominence until the Middle Ages.
That is interesting. Would you please explain to us some of the other theories of atonement?

I, for one, would appreciate learning some of the theories that do not paint the Father as being in need of blood-appeasement in order to forgive.

I do see some verses in the OT/Hebrew Bible which do not call for blood, and with John's "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin" And Jesus himself teaching it is only necessary to ask the Father for fogiveness, and being willing to forgive others.

But how does one defend Paul's theology of blood atonement?

The Prophet says that "everyone who calls upon the name of YHVH will be delivered".

Even Paul says "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord (unclear if he means YHVH or Jesus) will be saved"

YHVH, through Isaiah says that He forgives "For his name's sake" and "for His own sake".

So where/why the need for blood?

I am hoping if your alternate theory of blood atonement is convincing enough, it will enable me to rejoin the mainstream of Christianity. (no pressure there, right? ;))
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

Post #20

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 19 by Elijah John]

Up to the Middle Ages, the classical theory predominated and is actually found in key passages in Luther. Accordingly, the Devil had the rights to rule the world, as he was voted into power by us humans. God wanted to break this power. But how? The Devil had legit dibs on the whole world, won at the polls. The only way was for the Devil to overstep his bounds and try and swallow up an innocent man, like a whale swallowing up someone. Christ came along, the innocent man. The Devil tried to destroy him. Uck oh, the Devil overstepped and therefore had to renounce his power over us. That is how Christ paid the ransom.

Post Reply