Kill an Innocent to Atone For the Wicked

[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?

[Elijah John]

[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.

How did we "vote" for the Devil?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

The idea is that we allowed him to win us all over to his side. Hence, he has the right to govern us.

[rikuoamero]

.

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?

In which case, his resurrection should 'restart' the 'fire, 'unseal' evil etc.

One of my favourite video games is Persona 3 FES. In a scene towards the end (spoilers), we see this happening. 40 secs long

The guy we see pointing his figure is the protagonist one plays in the game, and he sacrifices his life to seal away that which would destroy all life on Earth. In the story, he is trapped in that position we see at the last second. If he leaves, if he gets down...well, guess what would happen?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

The idea is that we allowed him to win us all over to his side. Hence, he has the right to govern us.

If you'll indulge the pesky questions, how did we allow him to win us all over to his side?

----

Getting back to the whole alternate theory of atonement question, isn't Paul's idea of the "2nd Adam" another one? If so, is that related to the ransom theory?

And aren't those theories contingent then, on belief of a literal Adam in the first place?

Take away a literal Adam and Garden-fall story, and the need for Christ to atone vanishes....for "original" sin anyway.

And wouldn't simple repentance then, suffice for actual sin?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]

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.

Yeah we got that part.

Why this is the best way to achieve our repatriation to the Father, I do not know but He was a volunteer.

We got that part too.. Jesus was "volunteered".

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 7 by Wootah]




[center]God and Jesus have no choice
Part One[/center]

Killing Jesus was sinful. Jesus sacrificing himself was however necessary.

That's the general idea... The story goes that an all powerful god had no choice in the matter but to send his son to get humiliated, tortured, and killed.

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

That's true of firefighters.

Firefighters happen in the real world. And they are heroes, even if they don't lose their lives. Each and everyone of them are heroes, if you ask me. You say that Jesus was the same kind of hero... dying to save people from "burning" in "hell" or something..

It looks to me that you are saying Jesus didn't have a choice either... it was save us or we all die in eternal fires or something...

Not much choosing these Bible gods.
Meh, they just gotta do what they gotta do, right?

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

I can understand that's how some Christians might view it. We are debating if their views make sense.

No Christian views it as killing innocents to save the wicked.

If that's really the case, I'd say that they should give it a bit of thought.

____________

Questions:

• 
  1. Do you believe that the Bible god is all powerful?
  
  2. All knowing?
  
  3. How can an all knowing, all powerful god not have A CHOICE?
  
  4. Do you believe that God chose to send his son to his humiliation, torture and death on a cross without knowing all of that would happen in advance?
  
  5. What kind of choice did Jesus have in deciding if he was going to sacrifice himself or not?
  
  6. Why do you say that we should view it the same way as some Christians? I'm not a Christian. I don't view it the same way.. Why should I?
  
  7. Should we simply accept that any belief is true?
  
  

____________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]



[center]Fear the wrath
Part One[/center]

The idea is that we allowed him to win us all over to his side. Hence, he has the right to govern us.

If you'll indulge the pesky questions, how did we allow him to win us all over to his side?

It was do or get kicked out of the garden and die.
Or burn in hell.. or both.

I think the answer you are looking for is "Fear of the wrath" and call it "love" ( or else, presumably )

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

So your statement about Jesus doing this voluntarily is completely bogus. Doing something voluntarily requires options. There was never any other option for Jesus. Just as every day of your own life was already scheduled and written in God's book before you were ever born. You cannot alter it. Christians incessantly claim that humans were given free will. No such offer is directly extended anywhere in the bible however, you will notice. In practice, according to what you believe, every decision and act you make has already been scheduled in God's book.

Non believers however, having no such beliefs and therefore no such scheduling, are complete free agents making our own choices freely. Unless of course we were scheduled in God's book to be non believers before we were ever born as well. Which means God scheduled us to hell. Seems rather unfair. Not to mention pointless.

But such is the nature of your belief system. Pointless, unfair, and self contradictory.

[ttruscott]

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.

So your statement about Jesus doing this voluntarily is completely bogus.

So you did not understand my phrasing "The impossibility measures His commitment" - I suspected as much.

Volunteer means: a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task. It means to do something because of your own choice without force or payment from someone else to do it. There were Three Divine Persons who could have chosen to do it but and all probably did volunteer but Christ was chosen to be the volunteer and to die freely by His Own choice to save us from our sins. And once He so chose, so it was set in stone and prophecy with no wavering until it was done.

The fact that many Christians believe our lives (not our fates) are determined by GOD to exactly and perfectly fulfill our pre-earth choices has nothing to do with our Lord or His free will. Our losing our free will to the enslaving addictive power of sin by choosing to sin has nothing to do with our Lord.

Only some Christians believe we have a free will here on earth but they usually define it in special ways but the Christians who don't know this says nothing about our Lord's free will.

Unless of course we were scheduled in God's book to be non believers before we were ever born as well. Which means God scheduled us to hell.

Well yes, those condemned already are indeed scheduled to hell BUT NOT BY GOD'S COMMAND BUT BY THEIR FREE WILL REJECTION OF GOD'S FREE OFFER OF SALVATION.

First HE told us of the natural consequence of rejecting HIM as their GOD.
Then they rejected HIM anyway, believing HIM to be a false god and a liar.
Then HE called the judgement against them, condemning them to the fate they refused to accept.
Then the judgement was postponed to accommodate those who did accept HIM as their GOD, coming under HIS promise of salvation, who became evil by rebelling against the judgment until they could be redeemed and repatriated.
Then.........earth.

I'm sorry to be so repetitious and writing this out so often but people seem to forget what I've written in half a day...or less.

Where in my apology do you find my belief system Pointless? But then I do agree - the point of the Gospel is salvation and redemption which is not shared by all as important.

Other pointless accusations, unsupported by references:
Where in what I wrote is something unfair and to whom?
What contradicts what in my writing to make it self contradictory?
Or are you arguing about some other (specific?) brand of Christianity that suits your pov as an easy target?

[marco]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

The idea is that we allowed him to win us all over to his side. Hence, he has the right to govern us.

So much theory is washed into this little pronoun, "we." Humanity does not act as a unit though one may erroneously judge it to do so. Atonement requires human consensus in sin; we don't have that.

As for the Devil over-reaching, and God using dramatic trickery, surely this is speculation along the same lines as guessing the categories of angels: thrones, dominions, virtues, powers ....