What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?

[Justin108]

I have been asking this question over and over on this forum and no theist has ever been able to address it. They try, but once I give my rebuttal to their attempts, they eventually stop replying. Hopefully I can get an answer this time.

Note: This topic is specifically for Christians who believe Jesus' death was necessary for us to have our sins forgiven.

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?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 3 by Justin108]

Do you understand the difference between being able to do something and it being the right thing to do?

Who determines what is the right thing to do? God?

Why would God determine that the right way to deal with the problem of sin is to have an innocent being be brutally slaughtered.

Who determined that sin would be inherited? God? Why did he determine it to be this way? Why would it be considered right or just that we inherit the sin of our parents?

[shnarkle]

I have been asking this question over and over on this forum and no theist has ever been able to address it. They try, but once I give my rebuttal to their attempts, they eventually stop replying. Hopefully I can get an answer this time.

Note: This topic is specifically for Christians who believe Jesus' death was necessary for us to have our sins forgiven.

I'm not really qualified to answer this question according to your stipulations. However, I do think that I can answer it with some qualifications. I will agree to this belief of Christians, but qualify it by saying that it isn't that all humanity hasn't been forgiven, but that they are completely unaware that they have been forgiven. This ignorance can range anywhere from an inability to see that they have done anything wrong in the first place to a belief that there is anything that they can do to be forgiven. The fact that humanity has been forgiven must be revealed.

A transcendent deity is beyond justice, mercy, etc. A transcendent deity surpasses all understanding of justice and mercy. Therefore, whatever means are effected by a transcendent deity will also surpass these concepts.

In other words, justice is served, but justice is a natural consequence of this deity's primary objective.

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

If God can do anything, and God did do something, or more accurately caused something to be done according to his will, then what's the problem? The problem is that you don't like what God actually did, or caused to happen. So your argument isn't really that god can do anything, but that god should have done something else, correct?

A God that can do anything can do something idiotic, therefore this is not the kind of deity we would want handing out justice. The Greek gods come to mind. They can do quite idiotic things. No, we want a God that will do what is wise, not just whatever he feels like doing just because he can. We want a god that can only do what an omnipotent and all wise god would do.

Perhaps you think or feel that evil disobedient people should be punished, or put out of their misery. Perhaps we might ask why people do evil. How do people become evil? We have thousands of years of history as well as a number of different fields of study that show that people who are abused, especially children tend to abuse others as well. We see this happening generationally on many levels. Children who are beaten by their parents may beat their children or they may do the exact opposite and spoil their children rotten. In both cases, we're dealing with multigenerational child abuse.

We also see how when a person who has been brutally abused, and is compelled to do the same to others; is able to see what they're doing is wrong when someone who they have brutally beaten comes to them and tells them that they forgive them. This isn't justice, it's bigger than justice. It is a countermeasure that stops the unjust behavior, and allows for healing and reconciliation.

This has been observed scientifically to affect not just the person harmed, the person who did the harm, but even bystanders, anyone who witnesses this act of forgiveness.

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?

I think a better analogy would be the raped girl forgives the rapist, or perhaps a man who gets drunk, drives into another vehicle killing the other driver, but not before the man asks his father to forgive the drunk driver. The father of the dead driver then goes to court, asks the judge and jury to show leniency and release the drunk driver to the dead man's father who then invites the drunk driver into his home to inherit what was supposed to go to his dead son.

Who has been wronged here? The dead son, correct? The dead son is dead. Who is left? The father. He decides. It shouldn't be up to the court system as they haven't lost a son. The father is the only one who is left to grieve for his lost son, and he has decided that he wants to make the drunk driver the heir to his estate. He's going to love the man who killed his son as if he were his son. Does this sound like justice? It doesn't sound like justice to me, but then who am I to judge what this guy wants to do with his estate? It's his son that is gone, not mine. Who am I to decide what should happen to the drunk driver when I wasn't the one who was wronged?

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

Guilt without punishment is just the opposite side of the coin. In reality there is no guilt either. There was, but the guilt has been removed.

We don't want to see that the guilt has been removed. We want to remove the guilt ourselves, or deny that the guilt exists in the first place. This isn't about justice at all. It's about an ontological fact. The reality is that we're all so screwed up we can have no accurate idea. However, there are clues. We just need to look at the world around us.

[Justin108]

If God can do anything, and God did do something, or more accurately caused something to be done according to his will, then what's the problem?

The problem is it was unnecessary. Christians have been calling Jesus' sacrifice the most selfless act in history, but if it was unnecessary then Jesus' sacrifice is about as selfless as someone cutting their wrists to show you how much they love you

The problem is that you don't like what God actually did, or caused to happen.

Oh I'm fine with God forgiving us. I'm just not fine with Jesus needing to suffer and die for it

A God that can do anything can do something idiotic

But why would he?

I think a better analogy would be...

There's nothing wrong with my analogy

Man = rapist
God = victim
Jesus = guy going to jail on behalf of the rapist

It fits perfectly

the raped girl forgives the rapist, or perhaps a man who gets drunk, drives into another vehicle killing the other driver, but not before the man asks his father to forgive the drunk driver

Again, the issue isn't forgiveness. The issue is Jesus dying for it. Your analogy is just a bunch of people forgiving someone, but where's the sacrifice? Where's the "Jesus being crucified" in this analogy? In my analogy, the man who goes to prison on behalf of the rapist is Jesus being crucified. So prison = crucifixion. In your analogy, who goes to prison? Who ends up crucified?

Guilt without punishment is just the opposite side of the coin. In reality there is no guilt either. There was, but the guilt has been removed.

How was the guilt removed?

We don't want to see that the guilt has been removed. We want to remove the guilt ourselves, or deny that the guilt exists in the first place.

Who's "we"?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 3 by Justin108]

Do you understand the difference between being able to do something and it being the right thing to do?

Who determines what is the right thing to do? God?

Of course God! Who else would be in a position to know any action that has or will ever happen and know the short and long term effects of that action?

Who determined that sin would be inherited? God? Why did he determine it to be this way? Why would it be considered right or just that we inherit the sin of our parents?

I have already dealt with these issues, I'll re-post the link in case you missed it

inheritance & sin
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 335#381335

Blame & inheritability
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 418#381418

[Justin108]

I'll consider it after you answer my question and provide evidence that what you say is true.

Evidence for what exactly...?

As for your question, I assume you're referring to this one?

Do you understand the difference between being able to do something and it being the right thing to do?

Yes I understand there is a difference.

Moving on. Can you please explain to me how making sin an inheritable trait was the "right" thing to do?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by OnceConvinced]

I actually wonder how Christians can look at themselves in the mirror knowing that an innocent man took the punishment for their atrocities. Surely it would be more honourable to stand up in front of God and say "I did those things. I should suffer the consequences. It's completely immoral for Jesus to suffer on my behalf."

What atrocities, I may ask? In my eyes, it is even more unjust for Christians to consider themselves guilty of a collective sin, of something that some mythical proto-ancestor did.

[shnarkle]

The problem is that you don't like what God actually did, or caused to happen.

Oh I'm fine with God forgiving us. I'm just not fine with Jesus needing to suffer and die for it

Right we got that already.

A God that can do anything can do something idiotic

But why would he?

Because this is what you're suggesting by a god that CAN DO ANYTHING. A god that can do anything wouldn't necessarily do the right thing or the wisest thing. A god that would necessarily do the wisest thing, wouldn't necessarily do anything. You are claiming that he should have done something other than what he did do. Why? Because he should be a god that CAN DO ANYTHING. Therefore you're claiming god is an idiot. This is the god you see in these stories, right?

I think a better analogy would be...

There's nothing wrong with my analogy

Man = rapist
God = victim
Jesus = guy going to jail on behalf of the rapist

It fits perfectly

No, it doesn't.

Man = rapist
Jesus=victim who forgives rapist setting rapist free. The narratives themselves supply the best analogy with the release of Barabbas.

the raped girl forgives the rapist, or perhaps a man who gets drunk, drives into another vehicle killing the other driver, but not before the man asks his father to forgive the drunk driver

Again, the issue isn't forgiveness.

Actually it is precisely the issue. You're just choosing to ignore it so you can claim it makes no sense.

The issue is Jesus dying for it. Your analogy is just a bunch of people forgiving someone, but where's the sacrifice?

the son in the wrecked automobile. The father taking the drunk in as his own son.

Where's the "Jesus being crucified" in this analogy? In my analogy, the man who goes to prison on behalf of the rapist is Jesus being crucified. So prison = crucifixion. In your analogy, who goes to prison? Who ends up crucified?

Both the son and the father make a sacrifice. The son asks his father to forgive the man who is responsible for his death, and the father does exactly that and his forgiveness is complete. This is a sacrifice that really isn't a sacrifice at all. You choose to ignore the message that the authors are presenting in favor of your own understanding. This is why I point out that I don't really agree with the Christian perspective, but can work with it by pointing out that the justice is a tertiary consequence. This is why the sacrifice isn't really a sacrifice at all. God's forgiveness is what is paramount, and it is exemplified with the forgiveness of the drunk driver who is then freed from the condemnation of the justice system because of those who have been wronged, the victims have forgiven the drunk. This trumps the justice system which for all intents and purposes has become our god.

We have this as part of our justice system today. A jury has no right to ignore the rule of law, but they do have the power to ignore the rule of law. When they see that it would be an injustice to ignore the wishes of the victim, they can ignore the rule of law.

I was on a jury years ago where a man was framed for homicide by the sheriff's department. The law was clear; he was guilty according to the law, but the law didn't see the frame job by the sheriff's department. The jury saw through the frame and ignored the law.

The man was literally guilty of being drunk and driving drunk, and having a BAC well over the legal limit. These were uncontested facts. We found him innocent of all charges even though he was guilty according to the law.

Guilt without punishment is just the opposite side of the coin. In reality there is no guilt either. There was, but the guilt has been removed.

How was the guilt removed?

Forgiveness. Forgiveness trumps guilt. Forgiveness trumps the justice system.

We don't want to see that the guilt has been removed. We want to remove the guilt ourselves, or deny that the guilt exists in the first place.

Who's "we"?

We is everyone on this planet; in this case, especially you. You don't want to see Jesus forgiving the people who are crucifying him. This is explicitly stated in the gospel narrative. He is forgiving his accusers and executioners within the context of a judicial procedure. He explicitly states this from the cross he is being crucified on. He is performing a sacrifice that isn't really even a sacrifice. He says that he is laying down his life because he has denied himself. What he has the power to do is beyond any justice system. They can take his body and crucify it, but they aren't crucifying who he is.

The justice system has condemned him of treason; he is innocent, but forgives within our own system of justice because we have no idea what we're doing, nor do we have any idea of true justice. He doesn't have to do any of this. It is truly an injustice, but his forgiveness trumps all standards of justice.

The narrative illustrates this with Pilate finding him innocent, and then having him scourged and crucified anyways. The climax is when he is hanging on the cross and says, "I forgive these idiots; they haven't got a clue what they're doing".

Forgiveness trumps the justice system.

[Hawkins]

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

That's where your mistake is. It's not a matter of ability but a matter of legitimacy. If He can pardon anyone at will, His realm is no longer a lawful realm but a lawless realm.

You can imagine that if the president of US can free anyone from jail as he wishes and by his own will. Then is it US still a country of rule of law?

[Justin108]

It's not a matter of ability but a matter of legitimacy.

How is sacrificing Jesus "legitimate"?

If He can pardon anyone at will, His realm is no longer a lawful realm but a lawless realm.

He already broke his own law by allowing Jesus to die in our stead.

"The soul that sins shall die." - Ezekiel 18:20

Jesus was not the soul that sinned, so why did he die for us? By allowing Jesus to take our place, God is breaking his own law

You can imagine that if the president of US can free anyone from jail as he wishes and by his own will.

I'd be much more disturbed if the president allowed innocent people to go to prison on behalf of guilty people (as Jesus died on behalf of us)

[Hawkins]

It's not a matter of ability but a matter of legitimacy.

How is sacrificing Jesus "legitimate"?

If He can pardon anyone at will, His realm is no longer a lawful realm but a lawless realm.

He already broke his own law by allowing Jesus to die in our stead.

"The soul that sins shall die." - Ezekiel 18:20

Jesus was not the soul that sinned, so why did he die for us? By allowing Jesus to take our place, God is breaking his own law

You can imagine that if the president of US can free anyone from jail as he wishes and by his own will.

I'd be much more disturbed if the president allowed innocent people to go to prison on behalf of guilty people (as Jesus died on behalf of us)

I tried to explain to you in the other thread. It's not difficult to understand. Without Jesus' blood, humans cannot be saved legitimately.