What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?

[Justin108]

This is arguably the core of the Christian faith that Jesus died for our sins and made it possible for us to live for eternity in heaven... but why did Jesus have to die in order for us to have our sins forgiven?

God makes the rules. There is no "God HAD to sacrifice Jesus" because God can do anything.

Christians often say that God cannot let sin go unpunished as it would be unjust; but is it any more just to sacrifice an innocent man on behalf of a guilty man? If a man rapes a little girl and the man's brother offers to go to prison on his behalf, would this be justice?

If god is satisfied by punishment without guilt (Jesus), why is he not satisfied with guilt without punishment?

[The Tanager]

You seem to be making a heck of a lot of presumptions in all this. Sorry, but I just see way too much mumbo jumbo in what you are saying. I’m not trying to be insulting or anything and apologise if it seems that way.

I'm not taking it as such. Thanks for seeking clarification instead of just pretending you understand me. I think that benefits us both. You aren't settling for a possible straw man understanding to reject and it keeps me challenging my views with strong critiques rather than straw man critiques, if that expression makes sense, and to tighten my expressions of my belief. There is a danger in using analogies, but I don't see any way around it. If I just state the belief, you (rightly so) ask, but what does that mean? And the way to talk about it is in analogy. Perhaps there are better ways to say what I'm trying to say, but I'm not sure what they are.

I’m still not seeing why Jesus was needed for God to “put a bit of himself into us�. I’m not seeing why “sharing in a perfect surrendering of the human nature� is needed for God to achieve anything.

God made humans for a relationship with Him as our Creator and Guide. This puts surrender (in one sense of that word) on the human side of the relationship to begin with. We want to be our own guides and refuse this surrender. We are no longer capable of surrendering all the way. Only a perfect being could surrender all the way, but they have no need to do so.

If God becomes human, however, He now can surrender that human nature perfectly to the Divine fulfilling the relationship human natures were created for. Our problem, however, is that we must do the surrendering. Joe Schmo's surrender (or Jesus' surrender) says nothing itself about me surrendering. To perfectly surrender, since I can't do it myself, I need some kind of access to this perfectly surrendered nature to change myself. I need to learn how He did it and gain the ability needed to do it myself. Just like I need to learn how to excel at sports from people who excel at them. I need to learn how to write letters from someone who knows how to do it well.

But in the case of surrendering to God as my guide, I am unable just to watch and learn. I actually need bits of that nature to be put into me. I need my nature to become just like that nature. I must share in it or I am stuck, because it is the only human nature that has ever done what I need to do in my human nature. christianity says God does share that nature with us.

Does that clarify anything at all? What are the presumptions I'm making?

Like performing an act that hurts someone else and you didn’t realise it hurt them. Happens all the time here on Earth. Even good intentions some times harm others.

And you consider this sin or evil as opposed to suffering?

If our nature is being changed in that manner, then it very much sounds like we are slowly being turned into robots.

Why does our nature being changed mean we are necessarily turning into robots? It just means we are becoming different than we are. There are different ways to be changed.

Not all of us do. Only some of us. Many do their evil without fear, guilt, remorse or conscience. I am suggesting that ALL humans should be endowed with these things, just as all are ALL endowed with pain and physical limitations.

What evidence do you believe points to all humans not being endowed with such things? Even if some people no longer feel fear, guilt, remorse, conscience, etc., I would think at some point they felt it, perhaps barring a few rare exceptions, just like with those who are unable to feel physical pain. Dulling ourself to deterrents is different than not having any to begin with.

I see love as a feeling… an emotion… and if you love you naturally act on those feelings. I do not see actions as love, but would expect actions to come as a result of love, however that does not always happen. Bust Nak gave a great example. There are also people who just aren't very good at showing their love. I for one love my parents but aren't always that good at showing it some times.

You can hate someone and still bless them with wonderful kind acts. The bible even says to bless our enemies. I do not see that as love either, because if you harbour ill will, there’s no love there. A sex slave may do everything their master tells them and act like they love that person by performing services, but that certainly does not mean they love their slaver.

Then we are simply talking about two things and using different terms. I do use the term 'love' to describe both the feeling and the choice to bless others in spite of how we feel about them. To me the action of blessing those we hate holds higher virtue, in part, because it will begin to change how we feel about them.

[myth-one.com]

I see no reason why all humans could not have been made to struggle with with decisions about doing good or doing ill, yet always choosing the good. Just because I decided to choose the more ethical choice does not mean I couldn't have chosen otherwise.

If mankind never sins, then mankind would be equal to God.

But man is not equal to God.

[bluethread]

What about helping to pay the police officers for their services?

They will already be getting paid through other means (just like priests would be)

Police = tax payers dollars
Priests = Financial offerings, tithes and gifts.

OK, if it is burnt up, it is a waste. If it is given to those who do the work, it is excessive. It looks to me like you are looking for a scapegoat. Oh, sorry, that would be a waste wouldn't it?

Are you saying that if the fine did go to fund police parties, you would not slow down next time you drove through that town?

Not at all. Why would you come to that conclusion? I would however be kicking up a big fuss about paying the fine.

So, it serves as a reminder. That is the point. You may not like it, but it works.

[OnceConvinced]

And the way to talk about it is in analogy. Perhaps there are better ways to say what I'm trying to say, but I'm not sure what they are.

I tend to use analogies a lot myself. Maybe they might help me try to get what you are saying.

I’m still not seeing why Jesus was needed for God to “put a bit of himself into us�. I’m not seeing why “sharing in a perfect surrendering of the human nature� is needed for God to achieve anything.

God made humans for a relationship with Him as our Creator and Guide. This puts surrender (in one sense of that word) on the human side of the relationship to begin with. We want to be our own guides and refuse this surrender. We are no longer capable of surrendering all the way. Only a perfect being could surrender all the way, but they have no need to do so.

Sorry but I’m not seeing the logic behind this statement. Why are we no longer capable of surrendering all the way? This seems like a presumption on your part.

If God becomes human, however, He now can surrender that human nature perfectly to the Divine fulfilling the relationship human natures were created for. Our problem, however, is that we must do the surrendering. Joe Schmo's surrender (or Jesus' surrender) says nothing itself about me surrendering. To perfectly surrender, since I can't do it myself, I need some kind of access to this perfectly surrendered nature to change myself. I need to learn how He did it and gain the ability needed to do it myself. Just like I need to learn how to excel at sports from people who excel at them. I need to learn how to write letters from someone who knows how to do it well.

So are you saying here that we learn to perfectly surrender due to the example that Jesus gave? So then we can perfectly surrender too?

What is it we do to “perfectly surrender (surrender all the way)�? Can you define this? Please explain what is the difference between imperfect surrendering and perfectly surrendering.

But in the case of surrendering to God as my guide, I am unable just to watch and learn. I actually need bits of that nature to be put into me. I need my nature to become just like that nature. I must share in it or I am stuck, because it is the only human nature that has ever done what I need to do in my human nature. christianity says God does share that nature with us.

I’m simply not seeing why God couldn’t have achieved exactly the same thing without Jesus. Insert that nature into us so that we can perfectly surrender then explain to us how to perfectly surrender. I don’t see how Jesus dying on the cross is teaching us how to perfectly surrender. Maybe once you explain what perfect surrender is I might be able to figure that out.

Like performing an act that hurts someone else and you didn’t realise it hurt them. Happens all the time here on Earth. Even good intentions some times harm others.

And you consider this sin or evil as opposed to suffering?

It could be. It depends what the situation is. But there’s not supposed to be any suffering in Heaven either. So to prevent sin/suffering there’s gonna have to be some serious limitations imposed on our freewill.

If our nature is being changed in that manner, then it very much sounds like we are slowly being turned into robots.

Why does our nature being changed mean we are necessarily turning into robots? It just means we are becoming different than we are. There are different ways to be changed.

We are having a desire to sin being altered to having no desire. We are having limiters put on us. The more actions we have stifled as a result of editing our program the more robotic we’re going to become. Imagine if you have a computer program with lots of features and you start cutting those features. The computer program becomes less and less flexible. More and more robotic in it's actions.

If this is not turning us into robots and its not violating our freewill then why didn’t God just do this in the first place? Change our natures so that we wouldn’t be so sinful and rebellious? Why couldn’t he have just made us “different than we are� back then?

It just seems you are trying to bring in double standards here. If our natures are changed on earth you want to say it’s violating our freewill, but when it comes to heaven then suddenly it’s “oh we are just becoming different.�

Not all of us do. Only some of us. Many do their evil without fear, guilt, remorse or conscience. I am suggesting that ALL humans should be endowed with these things, just as all are ALL endowed with pain and physical limitations.

What evidence do you believe points to all humans not being endowed with such things?

Even if some people no longer feel fear, guilt, remorse, conscience, etc., I would think at some point they felt it, perhaps barring a few rare exceptions, just like with those who are unable to feel physical pain. Dulling ourself to deterrents is different than not having any to begin with

All you need to do is look at the behaviour of certain humans and see the lack of remorse and care they exhibit. Some do things without fear of consequences. Some do things without any consideration for the wellbeing of others. You can see this sort of stuff from a very early age.

If you study personalities, you will learn that we are born with different temperaments. These determine how we interact with people and live our lives. Some people have more compassion than others. Some have little compassion. I have even done Christian studies about this.

I would recommend this book:



Study stuff like this and you will see that not all humans are naturally endowed with the same wonderful personality characteristics.

It is possible to push through fear and guilt and some things like that but how many people who want to do evil things ever have to? For many cruel people, hurting others is easy as it’s part of their nature. For me I could do evil things but I wouldn't want to have to face the guilt. I've often wished I could have sex with beautiful women I know. I could probably rape them if I really wanted too. But I wouldn't want to have push through the remorse and the guilt... the fear of ramifications... the not being able to live with myself. What's the point? Why would I? It really makes no sense... unless I was mentally ill.

I see love as a feeling… an emotion… and if you love you naturally act on those feelings. I do not see actions as love, but would expect actions to come as a result of love, however that does not always happen. Bust Nak gave a great example. There are also people who just aren't very good at showing their love. I for one love my parents but aren't always that good at showing it some times.

You can hate someone and still bless them with wonderful kind acts. The bible even says to bless our enemies. I do not see that as love either, because if you harbour ill will, there’s no love there. A sex slave may do everything their master tells them and act like they love that person by performing services, but that certainly does not mean they love their slaver.

Then we are simply talking about two things and using different terms. I do use the term 'love' to describe both the feeling and the choice to bless others in spite of how we feel about them. To me the action of blessing those we hate holds higher virtue, in part, because it will begin to change how we feel about them.

I don’t see how doing “loving� actions to someone you hate is loving. That’s a paradox. You can’t have love and hate someone at the same time.

My comment was in response to you saying that if we lose our freewill we lose the ability to love. With my definition of love, I don’t see how we would lose it. Nothing can stop how we feel about someone. I’m not even seeing how it would stop anyone using your definition. If we choose to do good and bless a person, I’m not seeing how God preventing us from doing evil (putting limiters on us) is going to stop us from doing good deeds. It’s only going to stop us from doing evil deeds.

[OnceConvinced]

What about helping to pay the police officers for their services?

They will already be getting paid through other means (just like priests would be)

Police = tax payers dollars
Priests = Financial offerings, tithes and gifts.

OK, if it is burnt up, it is a waste. If it is given to those who do the work, it is excessive. It looks to me like you are looking for a scapegoat. Oh, sorry, that would be a waste wouldn't it?

Looking for a scapegoat? I don't know what you mean. I'm simply questioning the morality and logic of brutally slaughtering innocent beings to atone for someone's sins.

Are you saying that if the fine did go to fund police parties, you would not slow down next time you drove through that town?

Not at all. Why would you come to that conclusion? I would however be kicking up a big fuss about paying the fine.

So, it serves as a reminder. That is the point. You may not like it, but it works.

So you're comparing a financial fine to the brutal slaughter of an animal? Let's not even stop at animals. Let's talk about the HUMAN sacrifice of Jesus after all that's what this thread is about. No one got to eat him. His body was shoved in a tomb afterwards. So paying a speeding fine is the equivalent of killing a human being?

Having an animal or even a human killed is a good reminder in your books? That's all moral and fine from your point of view? Not primitive, cruel or barbaric?

[sf]

Saying that God can't create beings that are both perfectly good and free-willed because those two attributes are in conflict is insufficient as an explanation.

However you may define the fishy terms of "perfectly good" and "free will", they are supposedly compatible as attributes of God, so you also have to explain why they are logically compatible in God while they are not in humans.

I don't recall ever hearing the old, tired argument about 'you can't be good unless you are free to choose evil,' better refuted.

Certainly this perfect creator God could have made beings who are good, but who have the ability to choose; the fact that they choose good does not mean they did not have the ability to choose evil.

What is good anyway besides the opposite of bad (or evil)? There would be different levels of good things that the creature could choose, right? A kind of good deed versus a really good deed. You could just move the divider of good and evil to be between those then.

[Danmark]

Saying that God can't create beings that are both perfectly good and free-willed because those two attributes are in conflict is insufficient as an explanation.

However you may define the fishy terms of "perfectly good" and "free will", they are supposedly compatible as attributes of God, so you also have to explain why they are logically compatible in God while they are not in humans.

I don't recall ever hearing the old, tired argument about 'you can't be good unless you are free to choose evil,' better refuted.

Certainly this perfect creator God could have made beings who are good, but who have the ability to choose; the fact that they choose good does not mean they did not have the ability to choose evil.

What is good anyway besides the opposite of bad (or evil)? There would be different levels of good things that the creature could choose, right? A kind of good deed versus a really good deed. You could just move the divider of good and evil to be between those then.

Excellent question! It reminds me a famous phrase from Justice Potter Stewart, in his concurrence in Jacobellis v. Ohio,1964) regarding obsenity, "But I know it when I see it." Good and evil, like art, may be hard to define, but most of us know it when we see it. Most of us would agree that helping others and refraining from hurting them is good. Most of us whether religious or not, have an instinct to be helpful. If someone drops a pencil, there is at least an impulse to pick it up for them.

There is evidence to suggest that even babies are attracted to good and people or characters they see as 'good,' that is the characters that are not violent to others. And there is the famous TED talk by Franz de Waal that publicized the fact animals have morality. By 'morality' he speaks of a sense of fairness, empathy, and reciprocity.

So, however imprecise the definition may be, I believe we humans are essentially good. We certainly have a tendency to self maximize as well, but these two qualities are involved as competing forces. I disagree with the Biblical idea that we are born into sin, but certainly no one, or very few are perfectly altruistic at all times.

At any rate, looking to the Biblical myths as generating such questions, I see no reason a creating 'God' could not have made an animal that was basically good, but also sometimes struggled with his tendency to be 'good' when great, temporary reward tempted him to be selfish.

[FarWanderer]

Saying that God can't create beings that are both perfectly good and free-willed because those two attributes are in conflict is insufficient as an explanation.

However you may define the fishy terms of "perfectly good" and "free will", they are supposedly compatible as attributes of God, so you also have to explain why they are logically compatible in God while they are not in humans.

Otherwise, it's (4), To create perfectly good beings with a free will that will always choose in accordance with their good nature. Or you could concede that saying those two attributes are incompatible really does mean that either God isn't perfectly good, or that he doesn't have free will (he is an omnipotent "goodness robot").

By free will I basically mean that no outside force is forcing one to make a specific decision.

This is trivial or nonsensical. What is a "decision" to an entity under the absolute control of an external force?

For God to make humans who, by nature, can never choose evil is for an outside force to determine one's will (by determining their nature).

Be that as it may, I don't see why it matters.

First off, it's not an issue of "can never choose evil" but "will never choose evil".

Now, let's replace the word "evil" with the words "to eat rocks", and see if what you're saying makes sense:

For God to make humans who, by nature, will never choose to eat rocks is for an outside force to determine one's will (by determining their nature).

Utter nonsense now, right? God made my body (supposedly) such that eating a rock would be grossly unpleasant, dangerous, and otherwise utterly meaningless for me. I would never eat a rock. I am not even tempted to. Is this some indication that I don't have free will? Of course not.

With God there is no outside force forcing God into any decision.

To me it seems that God is being "forced" into making (having made) particular decisions every time a theist opens their mouth.

The incoherence I was trying to point to was not that free will and perfect goodness can't go together, but that free will and perfect goodness forced upon one from the outside can't go together. Because I do believe humans could have always chosen the good. We didn't.

How about God? Is he free to choose evil? Has he been? Will he always be?

[FarWanderer]

Saying that God can't create beings that are both perfectly good and free-willed because those two attributes are in conflict is insufficient as an explanation.

However you may define the fishy terms of "perfectly good" and "free will", they are supposedly compatible as attributes of God, so you also have to explain why they are logically compatible in God while they are not in humans.

I don't recall ever hearing the old, tired argument about 'you can't be good unless you are free to choose evil,' better refuted.

Certainly this perfect creator God could have made beings who are good, but who have the ability to choose; the fact that they choose good does not mean they did not have the ability to choose evil.

What is good anyway besides the opposite of bad (or evil)?

Here's my take on it.

"Good" is a dynamism towards existence. "Bad" or "evil" is a dynamism towards nothingness, "evil" being a subset of "bad" distinguished by the involvement of personal will.

Notably, bad/evil is self-contradictory in that it must use the power of existence in order to effectively drive towards nothingness. Take a serial killer for example. It is thanks to the society that gave him life and gave his world order that he is able to commit his evil actions that undermine and destroy that very society.

Destroying evil in the name of good is also somewhat self-contradictory for similar reasons. Executing that serial killer, even for a "greater" good, won't change the fact that it's a destructive act. "Justice" is often just pretending that necessary (?) evil isn't really evil.

There would be different levels of good things that the creature could choose, right? A kind of good deed versus a really good deed. You could just move the divider of good and evil to be between those then.

I don't think so. A given act may have both good and evil aspects, but those aspects are qualitatively distinct from each other. A perfectly good person would never choose to kill anyone under any circumstance. Although, in a world containing evil, perfect good may not accomplish the greatest good.

[Bust Nak]

So, what part of this are you calling 'love'? The feeling that is being kept to one's self? The act of keeping this feeling of affection to one's self? Something else?

The first part, love is a feeling. The act is an act not feeling, hence not love.

By free will I basically mean that no outside force is forcing one to make a specific decision. For God to make humans who, by nature, can never choose evil is for an outside force to determine one's will (by determining their nature). With God there is no outside force forcing God into any decision. The incoherence I was trying to point to was not that free will and perfect goodness can't go together, but that free will and perfect goodness forced upon one from the outside can't go together.

If it is one's nature then by definition it's not an outside force, no? Google says nature is defined as the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. Freewill-ed beings created good by nature is not incoherent at all.

If mankind never sins, then mankind would be equal to God.

But man is not equal to God.

Hence the problem of evil. A good and omnipotent deity, by necessity, could only create beings equal to himself. We are not equal to God, therefore Christians have a logical contradiction.