Why was a sacrifice needed at all?

[nobspeople]

It's said Jesus came as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. But to whom did the sacrifice matter? God? If Jesus was also god, in a way (like some claim), he was sacrificing himself to himself...? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
If Jesus is not god, then Jesus sacrificed himself to god. Why does god need a sacrifice at all? Some would say 'god can't be with sin' or the like. But why not? Surely, if god is the god it's said it is, god could change any 'rule' set up (as god itself had to set up the 'rule') and not require such a painful, terrible sacrifice? Isn't god 'enough' that being in its presence would, for lack of a better term, vaporize or negate all sin? God is greater than all sin (as some claim) then why is a sacrifice needed)
For discussion:
Why would god need a sacrifice if god created everything that is and had the ability not to need a sacrifice at all?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Even if it was true, it was unfair for the blame to be applied to all Jewish people even at the time, let alone thereafter. ...

Nice to see that we are no very far from each other. I can agree especially with this, I think it is wrong to accuse all Jews.

I don't know whether you do not take seriously that there has to be something more to Jesus dying on the cross as something planned by God, than just a resurrection that they saw. But maybe you have a case. ...

Thanks. Another reason for it can be this:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

But I think that would not necessary mean that Jesus should have died in horrible way.

Yeaaahh... I suppose the same lesson would have been taught if Jesus had died of old age some time after the Jewish war and resurrected then (1). I think it would have worked and without having to blame the Jews (through the Sanhedrin and whatever crowd they'd got together (according to the gospels) and excuse the Romans from blame for killing Jesus. I think it's wrong to accuse ANY Jews of killing Jesus (even metaphorically - I've been accused of killing Jesus by not being a Christian) as despite what Matthew (nobody else) wrote, no god (or religion) worth a cuss would blame their descendants.

(1) "There's still a couple of stones left upon another"

"Shaddup"

[1213]

...I think it's wrong to accuse ANY Jews of killing Jesus ...

Even if they were guilty?

[1213]

... Having to work to survive is life, not slavery,...

I agree with that. Having to pay for government is.

[Purple Knight]

But the human condition is not the same as chattel slavery, which is the ownership as property of one person by another.

I own the Queen of England. She is my property.

Now, it doesn't change her situation or affect her in the slightest for me to say that, and neither would legal ownership of her, in and of itself, change her situation. For me to hurt her or commit injustice against her, I would have to actually do things to her. And if I did those things to her, it wouldn't matter one hill of ant turds whether I had a bunch of papers I made up and stamped and agreed with my fellows meant I owned her.

Slavery is not an empty definition. Slavery is terrible, and to be terrible, you must commit terrible acts against actual people.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I think it's wrong to accuse ANY Jews of killing Jesus ...

Even if they were guilty?

That's the point. Even if some were, that is no reason to blame Jews for that Now. The crimes of the parents do not get visited on the children in any morality worth a tinkers' cuss. And religion with a doctrine like that is vile and should be rejected.

... Having to work to survive is life, not slavery,...

I agree with that. Having to pay for government is.

It isn't. No more than having your bank account hacked, or wallet stolen. It's infuriating, but slavery is not what it is.

But the human condition is not the same as chattel slavery, which is the ownership as property of one person by another.

I own the Queen of England. She is my property.

Now, it doesn't change her situation or affect her in the slightest for me to say that, and neither would legal ownership of her, in and of itself, change her situation. For me to hurt her or commit injustice against her, I would have to actually do things to her. And if I did those things to her, it wouldn't matter one hill of ant turds whether I had a bunch of papers I made up and stamped and agreed with my fellows meant I owned her.

Slavery is not an empty definition. Slavery is terrible, and to be terrible, you must commit terrible acts against actual people.

Rulership is not the same as slavery. It is government. It is sometimes bad, sometimes good. Sometimes rulership gets as bad as slavery. Sometimes it's ok and even beneficial (stopping demagogues grabbing power) Democracy has been something we had to tinker with but it has made its' case as even kingdoms and dictatorships like to claim to be Democratic.

Slavery is something else. Even beneficial slavery is considered bad. I sometimes think that the utterly irresponsible should have their lived controlled for their own benefit and society. We do it with a jail system, but if course the idea is to rehabilitate them, not have them as permanent property you can sell on Ebay or leave to your kids in a will.

Slavery rather than power or control, is something very specific and is what we used to have as a norm and is something the Bible seems perfectly fine with, while accepting that those enslaved don't like it. It is absolutely on a par with the view of American slavery even by those who knew it was bad but.." don't get rid of it just yet" ...and those where the Good Slavers.

[Purple Knight]

Rulership is not the same as slavery. It is government. It is sometimes bad, sometimes good. Sometimes rulership gets as bad as slavery. Sometimes it's ok and even beneficial (stopping demagogues grabbing power) Democracy has been something we had to tinker with but it has made its' case as even kingdoms and dictatorships like to claim to be Democratic.

No, I don't think rulership is the same as slavery. I think sometimes it encompasses slavery. And I don't agree with 1213 that all rulership is slavery or that being forced to pay for government is necessarily slavery. I think some forms of taxation are. If I am forced to labour for you, with no good reason, simply because, then I am a slave. I check this box as we are all enslaved to the Federal Reserve (which is a private business, not part of the government) because we may only pay our taxes in dollars. No amount of corn or chickens is enough if those corn or chickens never benefit the Federal Reserve. Unless I sell an item to someone who got money from the Federal Reserve I am just going to lose all my stuff. It'll all be repo'd, though I supposedly own it.

Slavery is something else. Even beneficial slavery is considered bad. I sometimes think that the utterly irresponsible should have their lived controlled for their own benefit and society. We do it with a jail system, but if course the idea is to rehabilitate them, not have them as permanent property you can sell on Ebay or leave to your kids in a will.

I have the same thought. I think if someone murders someone else's family there is a debt, and he should be forced to labour for that person. I may not be for this idea in our racially unequal society that is likely to prison-mill black people into slaves for crimes they didn't commit, but I'm for it in theory.

Slavery rather than power or control, is something very specific and is what we used to have as a norm and is something the Bible seems perfectly fine with, while accepting that those enslaved don't like it. It is absolutely on a par with the view of American slavery even by those who knew it was bad but.." don't get rid of it just yet" ...and those where the Good Slavers.

Slavery being something specific is fine. I say it's when one person is forced to labour for another.

When definitions break down and become non-useful is when you uncouple them from describing reality and instead use them to describe what something technically counts as in some system that has no bearing on reality. I can own the Queen of England on paper, I can agree with my fellows that I own the Queen of England, and it does factually nothing to her until I start actually doing things to her.

[TRANSPONDER]

The matter of semantic is basic, because people have to agree on their definitions otherwise we get get confusion, and misunderstanding, not to say deliberate fiddling through equivocation.

An obvious one is Faith -belief. Very similar, but a definition (Godfaith is not on a par with belief in the workings of physics or chemistry) has to be arrived at otherwise the religious debate becomes confused. So slavery is the ownership of one person as the property of another. Rulership, indeed democracy, can encompass slavery but it is not slavery within the definition. Slavery as in having to work for a living rather than on state handouts, being owned and treated as property by your brutal and dominating marriage partner (until she divorces you) has been called slavery. Family ties can look like slavery (notably in Fundamentalist Christian households) but they don't comply with specific definitions. The ownership of persons as property; financial assets that you can sell, how you treat them being irrelevant. After all, freeing a slave was a thing, in ancient Greece just as in pre 20th c America so. Freedom was not slavery and slavery was not freedom, even though even the free had to make money somehow, and they had to observe government law. That 'slavery' to life and society is just something we have evolved and (grumbling) have to live with; slavery isn't.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

It is the same mathematics I mentioned in another thread. By the degree of free will given to the angels, there will be 2/3 angels surviving the Final Judgment of Law. By the degree of free will granted to humans, it is expected that there will be less than (how less will depend on how much more free will is given to humans) 1/3 humans passing the same Final Judgment. This is however under the circumstance that there is no interaction between angels and humans. The future Heaven is for angels and humans to live together with God. So the interaction between angels and humans must be counted in. The story of Eden indicates how this math shall be calculated. Under the bad influence of the 1/3 fallen angels, the result is that no humans can be saved as angels are much more intelligent and capable than humans. Under their influence (Satan's influence) humans will all become captive in the end.

Now the figures are,
No interaction between angels and humans: 2/3 angels saved, less than 1/3 humans saved.
With interaction then: 2/3 angels saved, 0% humans saved.

It means humans cannot be judged by the same set of Law applied to angels, or else none of them can be saved (that is, as the Scripture put, no one is righteous, not even one!)

A better judgment can be provided is a subjective judgment from God Himself instead of the objective Law. Law can only take effect to judge one's past and one's behavior. God however can judge one's heart and even one's future. However, a justification must be made such that humans can be judged this way (a better way) alternatively. To put it another way, in order for humans to be judged differently than the angels, a justification must be made. This justification is the sacrifice of Jesus (God the Son), such that humans can be LAWFULLY judged using an alternative way.

Now the figures are,
With the Final Judgment of Law: 2/3 angels saved, and 0% humans saved (due to influence cast from bad angels).
With Jesus' sacrifice, which makes it possible for a judgment of covenants (instead of Law): less than 1/3 humans are saved.

Mathematical means makes more sense than an invisible, magical deity in the clouds, though more clinical than not.
I'm curious as to where where you get your figures?

[1213]

…Even if some were, that is no reason to blame Jews for that Now….

Ok, I thought you meant that not even the ones who were guilty. I agree that, people who have not done the wrong thing, should not be held guilty.

It isn't. No more than having your bank account hacked, or wallet stolen. It's infuriating, but slavery is not what it is.

I think taxation is very different than single atrocity like theft. Taxation is continuous atrocity, makes person work for government and therefore is the same as slavery. But, I could agree that it can also be called continuous legalized theft.

[TRANSPONDER]

…Even if some were, that is no reason to blame Jews for that Now….

Ok, I thought you meant that not even the ones who were guilty. I agree that, people who have not done the wrong thing, should not be held guilty.

It isn't. No more than having your bank account hacked, or wallet stolen. It's infuriating, but slavery is not what it is.

I think taxation is very different than single atrocity like theft. Taxation is continuous atrocity, makes person work for government and therefore is the same as slavery. But, I could agree that it can also be called continuous legalized theft.

No....The way I see it is that the provision of social amenities is a labour -saving device that we pay for. True, it can be payment for an inadequate product or extortion with no service. Those are abuses that we get in any area where the user pays and that's why we need government and regulation. But in principle taxation is the same as paying for work - we pay people to provide our water, take away our trash and provide our electricity. It's too easy for people to think that these things are a natural product that we have a right to.

Government and taxation is NOT anything to do with slavery, not even prison is, or even if we had indentured servitude - those things are intended to rehabilitate someone into society. Slavery is a piece of property owned like you car or computer. If you total it, it's a nuisance as you have to buy a new one, but otherwise, at best a regret for property you'd gotten attached to...