Defend the Christian notion of Jesus' Dying for our sins

[fredonly]

I posted the following question in the subforum: Theology, Doctrine and Dogma:
Why did Jesus have to die for our sins?

I provided some background Christian theology to this, but my basic problem is that the very notion of Jesus dying for our sins implies that God is unjust. He's unjust in the following ways:

1) Some Christians believe all humans inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve, for their sin against God (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). I submit that it is unjust and vengeful for a God to punish the descendants for the sins of ancestors.

2) Regardless of whether Jesus suffering and death was atonement for Adam and Eve, or for the sins that we ourselves commit - this implies that God's law allows for substitutionary (or vicarious) punishment. This has two things wrong with it:
a) it implies that forgiveness by God is impossible in the absence of punishment. and
b) Sin demands punishment - but not necessarily punishment of the perpetrator. Another can receive the punishment for you! Even if this works in one, and only one, case - Jesus, there's still no justice here. What is the relevance of punishment unless the perpertrator receives it?

It seems as if the authors of this theology considered sin to create a cosmic imbalance that is only corrected by administering a punishment. i.e. if a murder is committed, there is an imbalance which can be corrected by someone getting punished. Perhaps anyone.

Questions for debate:
1) Is the Christian God a JUST God? If so, please explain the justice of substitutionary punishment.
2) Is the Christian God vengeful? If not, please explain the rationale of punishing descendants for the crimes of an ancestor.
3) If God wanted to forgive humans, why the rigamarole of sending his Son (AKA Himself) to earth to suffer and die and thus earn this forgiveness vicariously? Why not grant amnesty, a reprieve without the unnecessary bloodshed?

Indeed, it is a heartwarming notion to suggest that Jesus, the perfect human being, was so selfless that he would suffer and die for our sins. But to accept that this was both required and possible has some unsavory implications for this ostensible "God of Love."

Anyone can certainly respond to the questions, but I am really hoping to hear some defense by Christians.

[bjs]

Im afraid id give you dogma so I wont answer then.

mormon boy51,
I encourage you give your answer. In a question like this there is nothing wrong with dogma as long as you can provide a reason why you believe it.

[bjs]

Jesus stepping in as our substitute is not a necessary Christian belief. It is probably the most common understanding in the modern world, but not the only one put for throughout Christian history. The Bible only says that we were doomed because of our sin, but by the death of Christ we have the opportunity to be forgiven. We are left to figure out how that works on our own. My guess is that we are not told the details because it doesnt matter " we know the means of salvation and God does not tend to answer why questions.

However, I think that Jesus as our substitute is an acceptable way of thinking. I do not think that the two things said to be wrong with this idea are actually wrong.

a) it implies that forgiveness by God is impossible in the absence of punishment. and

If we are considering a perfectly just being, then ignoring sin would be a break in justice. God has said that the wages of sin are death, and if there is sin but no death then God has been made a liar. For God to remain just then there can be no forgiveness in that absence of punishment or sacrifice.

To put this another way, for me to forgive there must be a sacrifice on my part. If someone breaks my window, then to forgive them I must pay for the window. If someone insults me, then to forgive them I must bear that insult. To forgive costs me something. All sin is a sin against God. For God to forgive He must bear the cost of sin " but that is meaningless since nothing we can do can cost God anything. In the death of Jesus God has brought meaning to the cost and made visible the invisible cost of forgiveness. He has made the sacrifice of sin something that we can understand " the sacrifice of life.

b) Sin demands punishment - but not necessarily punishment of the perpetrator. Another can receive the punishment for you! Even if this works in one, and only one, case - Jesus, there's still no justice here. What is the relevance of punishment unless the perpertrator receives it?

Again, I dont think there is a problem here. If I wrong someone then another person can step in to take my punishment as long as it is acceptable to both the person I wronged and the person who is taking my punishment (and, I suppose, to me).

Have you ever seen the movie Coach Carter? It was not one of Sam Jacksons best films, but it contains a good analogy. In that movie a kid quit the basketball team but then asked to rejoin the team. The coach said that to rejoin he had to run 1,000 laps around the gym before the first game (or something like that " I forget the exact detail). When it became clear that he would never finish his 1,000 laps in time, other players stepped up and said that they would run laps for him. The coach agreed, and each lap the other students ran counted for the boy who wanted back on the team.

And this seems right. The players agreed to accept the punishment in place of the perpetrator, and the coach allowed it. Either could have said no, but as long as everyone agreed can we say that it was unjust? In a similar way, if someone willingly steps in for the punishment of my sin and God allows it, what crime has been committed?

[bjs]

1) Some Christians believe all humans inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve, for their sin against God (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). I submit that it is unjust and vengeful for a God to punish the descendants for the sins of ancestors.

Since we are not given a detailed explanation of this, Christians are left to consider it for ourselves. There have been a few different answers to the question. Personally, as a long time fan of Plato, I take the platonic approach.

Plato said that what we see in the world is an expression of the underlying reality or true form. For instance, what makes a chair a chair? Think of all the different types of chairs you have seen " with four legs, with one leg and a wide base, with or without arms, made of wood, made of leather, made of plastic, able to fold, with a headrest there are so many different expressions of chair that there must be some underlying reality or form of chair-ness. Or how can I say that a diamond, a newborn baby, and a rainbow are all beautiful. There must be some true form of beauty that is expressed before us.

The Bible says that we have all sinned in Adam. That is, when sin entered the world what it is to be human changed. We are no longer without the knowledge (in the biblical sense) of sin. We all sinned in Adam because the very nature of humanity " the underlying reality of human-ness " has been changed to include sin. We have inherited guilt because we have inherited sin in our very nature.

[sleepyhead]

Hello zzyzx,

>>>I have been debating Christian Fundamentalists / Literalists / Biblicists for years, and have yet to encounter a coherent argument in favor of the biblical "gods" or religious dogma. Would you care to try?<<<

Funny you should invite me to try. I just started a thread on "question about a belief" yesterday claiming the EC material is coherent. Hopefully someone will respond.

[Rexifican]

I think your questions are fantastic. But, we are talking of religion which I believe is an early form of law and order.

Religion shaped our community. It stopped all things bad as Jesus had died for us, giving us a clean slate to forget our sins of the Old Testament and follow the path.

Sins start way before Jesus. Look at Leviticus. Moses I think was the first Jesus but he didnt die for us, or give us a clean slate. He just dictated the rules from God.

Jesus was the Scapegoat. I think he was real but one hell (bad pun) of a talented man. He changed lives and those who got close to him and those that knew and loved him wanted to redeem his death by normal Roman punishment at that time. Therefore he Lived. He died not for punishment of speaking against the state, but for the follys of mankind. Therefore his legacy continued and kept order amongst his followers so not to lose faith for their caring, sharing, and lawfulness against the turmoil at that time in our history.

To me, him and his followers pretty much in the early days started the path to working as one. Creating order for those hard up, despised, and sickly. Giving them hope. The majority of civilsation at that time were poor, rejected, and had to follow rules that they did not agree with - no liberty. Jesus was punished by his father to create empathy and determination to seek what they wanted amongst those who believed him and the 12 (13) other disciples that followed him. Jesus - he was a break in the injustice (that was a pun I am giggling at).

So did he die for our sins? Well I must agree, reading Leviticus, God was a pain in the ass, I would have rather lived under Stalin. But Jesus came along and changed minds. His father was kind but benevolent. The stage for society.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Rexifican,

Welcome to the forum. What theological position will you represent in debate?

Well I must agree, reading Leviticus, God was a pain in the ass, I would have rather lived under Stalin. But Jesus came along and changed minds. His father was kind but benevolent.

Kind???? Benevolent????

Is this the same "god" that, according to bible tales, drowned all of humanity except eight on a cruise (including newborns and unborn) " the greatest act of genocide known to man? Kind? Benevolent?

If Jesus was "different" from the "god" character " but was, according to tales, part of the same being, does that suggest multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia?

The stage for society.

It is not surprising that a society based upon the "god" of the bible reflects the characteristics portrayed " jealous, angry, hostile, condemning, judgmental, egocentric, murderous, genocidal.

[Adamoriens]

The Bible says that we have all sinned in Adam. That is, when sin entered the world what it is to be human changed. We are no longer without the knowledge (in the biblical sense) of sin. We all sinned in Adam because the very nature of humanity " the underlying reality of human-ness " has been changed to include sin. We have inherited guilt because we have inherited sin in our very nature.

Is it just to kick the dog for being dog-like?

It wasn't the knowledge of sin that Adam and Eve ate from. They partook of the knowledge of good and evil, and for that they were punished. The theme of the story seems to be that childish ignorance is preferable to sober knowledge; which I reject.

Religion shaped our community. It stopped all things bad as Jesus had died for us, giving us a clean slate to forget our sins of the Old Testament and follow the path.

You presume that Jesus really wanted to abolish Old Testament law. I don't think he did (Matthew 5:17-20).

[Grim_railer]

jesus never died for our sins he rose again, so basically he wants revenge.

[naz]

jesus never died for our sins he rose again, so basically he wants revenge.

LOL You have to be completely obliterated to write a comment like that.

[KillerOfTheSun]

I think your questions are fantastic. But, we are talking of religion which I believe is an early form of law and order.

Religion shaped our community. It stopped all things bad as Jesus had died for us, giving us a clean slate to forget our sins of the Old Testament and follow the path.

Sins start way before Jesus. Look at Leviticus. Moses I think was the first Jesus but he didnt die for us, or give us a clean slate. He just dictated the rules from God.

Jesus was the Scapegoat. I think he was real but one hell (bad pun) of a talented man. He changed lives and those who got close to him and those that knew and loved him wanted to redeem his death by normal Roman punishment at that time. Therefore he Lived. He died not for punishment of speaking against the state, but for the follys of mankind. Therefore his legacy continued and kept order amongst his followers so not to lose faith for their caring, sharing, and lawfulness against the turmoil at that time in our history.

To me, him and his followers pretty much in the early days started the path to working as one. Creating order for those hard up, despised, and sickly. Giving them hope. The majority of civilsation at that time were poor, rejected, and had to follow rules that they did not agree with - no liberty. Jesus was punished by his father to create empathy and determination to seek what they wanted amongst those who believed him and the 12 (13) other disciples that followed him. Jesus - he was a break in the injustice (that was a pun I am giggling at).

So did he die for our sins? Well I must agree, reading Leviticus, God was a pain in the ass, I would have rather lived under Stalin. But Jesus came along and changed minds. His father was kind but benevolent. The stage for society.

" ...reading Leviticus,god was a pain in the ass,I would have rather lived under Stalin. But Jesus came along and changed minds. His father was kind but benevolent."

In one instance you say god is kind,and in the former you said its a " pain in the ass ".....even thou just using the book of Leviticus you see god's " kindness" in the most morbid and immorally ways.