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?

[Zetesis Apistia]

[Replying to post 515 by Zetesis Apistia]

God is bound by truth and logic. He cannot make two and two five. So God does have limits even though he is all powerful.

Why can't he make 2+2=5?

Because if you alter what is true then nothing can be trusted.

[Justin108]

That's nice. So do you have any new arguments yet?

Yes. Suppose you had a son or a daughter that robbed someone and the person gave you a proposition. He would let him / her go if you took the bullet for them. Would you do it?

No. He has to face the consequences of his actions. What's your point?

What if they were going to kill him / her, and they gave you the opportunity to do a short prison term on their behalf. They would consequently be set free. Would you do it?

Yes I would. But if this is your idea of an analogy, it fails in many ways. In this scenario, the judge who sentences my children is someone other than myself. In God's case he is both the judge and the one who "stands in" for my sins. This would make no sense in this analogy because then I would be the judge who sentences my children to death but then decide to take their place. It would make no sense. Why would I do that? If I had the power the judge has, I would simply not sentence them to death in the first place.

[czyz]

It is my opinion that vicarious redemption is an immoral preachment. One can serve another's sentence but they cannot take away the personal responsibility of the transgressors.

The term "scapegoating" is founded in ancient tribal cultures where priests and shamans would symbolically load the sins of the tribe on a goat and drive the goat into the desert to die, thus relieving the tribe of their sins.

We are told that we had a part in the Jesus sacrifice even though it happened (supposedly) before we were born. We had no say in this event occurring, we were not present at the event, and if we were present, many of us would have likely tried to stop the torture and execution of an innocent person.

This entire belief system is in response to the original sin concept of Adam & Eve which has been entirely debunked by biblical scholars, science, anthropology, archaeology,, and evolution. If Adam and Eve never existed why was it necessary for the vicarious redemption as described in the New Testament?

[Zetesis Apistia]

No he can't. Free will means God forfeits his ability to control our will. That frees us to do evil.

Freeing us to do evil doesn't logically means we would do evil. One doesn't automatically lead to the other. Which means it's logically possible to "skip the headaches" and still give us freewill.

I agree. All of us have the ability to do evil, but many people choose to govern themselves in spite of there potential to do evil. So evil can exist in the minds of people and people still not do it. Its called integrity

So why did he make evil? He didn't...It is the contrast of love. It is a necessary component in order for love to exist.

If that's true then there wouldn't be any love in heaven given that there wouldn't be any evil there.

Evil doesn't have to be malignant to exist. It only needs to exist in the form of awareness. Evil will not exist in heaven in a malignant state, but in a dormant one. It will only exist in our awareness of it. I think our experience on earth is turning everyone off to it. After living on this hell hole I doubt anyone will want to mess a good thing up in heaven. IMO

Animals dont think evil exists so to them it doesn't. It only does to humans. Why?

Because of our big brains. (Humans being animals debate aside.)

Harm still exists to wild animals because they cause harm all of the time. But they don't know they are causing harm. So they have no awareness of good versus evil but they still commit acts of harm and they have no clue that they have done wrong. So to the lion evil doesn't exist but he still kills things. You want to remove our desire to do evil and maybe even our awareness of it, but then how would we know when we are causing harm?

God is bound by truth and logic. He cannot make two and two five. So God does have limits even though he is all powerful.

Sure, but I was talking about material limitations, God is not bound by those. Here are some examples: I give a family a sum of my money, he needs to be responsible with it and not spent it all on video games, because of material limition that he needs that money for something else. I let someone hold my baby, he needs to be responsible and hold the baby carefully, because of material limition that the baby is fragile.

Sure, but the moment you put something in someone elses power they don't have to honor your wishes and often people don't. But even if we had no desire to cause harm or even if we didn't have a concept of good and evil, we still live in a fragile world where things can be hurt. The problem then would be that we would be able to cause harm, but since we couldn't define harm we would go our merry way as though nothing bad happened. I have to know that hurting people is bad before I can abstain form doing so with purpose of mind.

My experiences after salvation have removed all of my personal doubts. I am quite convinced in what I believe. So we roll the dice. I say bring on the dice.

Ok, so you are confident with the odd, that's fine as long as you are aware that you are risking as much by being a Christian, as I am risking by not being a Christian; and your potential gain for being a Christian, is exactly the same as my potential gain for not being a Christian.

I rely more on personal experience for my salvation that I do evidence. In fact my personal experience with God is evidence within itself. I have lived with god and i have lived without God. I understand both ends of the spectrum by experience.

[Zetesis Apistia]

That's nice. So do you have any new arguments yet?

Yes. Suppose you had a son or a daughter that robbed someone and the person gave you a proposition. He would let him / her go if you took the bullet for them. Would you do it?

No. He has to face the consequences of his actions. What's your point?

What if they were going to kill him / her, and they gave you the opportunity to do a short prison term on their behalf. They would consequently be set free. Would you do it?

Yes I would. But if this is your idea of an analogy, it fails in many ways. In this scenario, the judge who sentences my children is someone other than myself. In God's case he is both the judge and the one who "stands in" for my sins. This would make no sense in this analogy because then I would be the judge who sentences my children to death but then decide to take their place. It would make no sense. Why would I do that? If I had the power the judge has, I would simply not sentence them to death in the first place.

Lets approach this one step at a time. So how would it be justice if you did time for someone elses crime? How are you OK with that? By your answer I assume that you do not think it illogical for one innocent person to pay for the crimes of a guilty person.

[Zetesis Apistia]

It is my opinion that vicarious redemption is an immoral preachment. One can serve another's sentence but they cannot take away the personal responsibility of the transgressors.

The term "scapegoating" is founded in ancient tribal cultures where priests and shamans would symbolically load the sins of the tribe on a goat and drive the goat into the desert to die, thus relieving the tribe of their sins.

We are told that we had a part in the Jesus sacrifice even though it happened (supposedly) before we were born. We had no say in this event occurring, we were not present at the event, and if we were present, many of us would have likely tried to stop the torture and execution of an innocent person.

This entire belief system is in response to the original sin concept of Adam & Eve which has been entirely debunked by biblical scholars, science, anthropology, archaeology,, and evolution. If Adam and Eve never existed why was it necessary for the vicarious redemption as described in the New Testament?

Christians are still judged for their sins. They enter into a correctional phase with God where he disciplines them for their sins on a daily basis.

[czyz]

Zeitesis wrote...

Christians are still judged for their sins. They enter into a correctional phase with God where he disciplines them for their sins on a daily basis.

You make the claim sir, now please provide proof, using third party corroborated evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Bust Nak]

I agree. All of us have the ability to do evil, but many people choose to govern themselves in spite of there potential to do evil. So evil can exist in the minds of people and people still not do it. Its called integrity.

So you accept it is possible to create someone with integrity without making us robots. Which goes back to my original challenge: If it is logically possible for God to create us with the potential to do evil and yet with integrity, why didn't God create us with the potential to do evil and yet with integrity? i.e. skip the headaches?

Evil doesn't have to be malignant to exist. It only needs to exist in the form of awareness. Evil will not exist in heaven in a malignant state, but in a dormant one. It will only exist in our awareness of it.

Then there need not be malignant evil in the garden of Eden to begin with - you are once again affirming that God could possibly have skipped the headaches without making us robot. So why didn't he?

I think our experience on earth is turning everyone off to it. After living on this hell hole I doubt anyone will want to mess a good thing up in heaven. IMO

Sure, but logically it's entirely unnecessary according to the other stuff you are telling me. Doing it the way God did according to the Bible is less than optimal, not least of which is the number of damned souls.

Harm still exists to wild animals because they cause harm all of the time. But they don't know they are causing harm. So they have no awareness of good versus evil but they still commit acts of harm and they have no clue that they have done wrong. So to the lion evil doesn't exist but he still kills things.

Sure. Or as I would put it, they aren't moral agents.

You want to remove our desire to do evil and maybe even our awareness of it, but then how would we know when we are causing harm?

We can keep our aware of evil to satisify your idea that love can only exist in contrast of the awareness of evil. I do think it's a much better idea to remove our desire to do evil, that doesn't affect our free will, won't make us into robots. As for your question how we know when we are causing harm, well, without the desire to do evil, we wouldn't have been an original sinned in the first place and harm only came into the world with sin.

Sure, but the moment you put something in someone elses power they don't have to honor your wishes and often people don't. But even if we had no desire to cause harm or even if we didn't have a concept of good and evil, we still live in a fragile world where things can be hurt. The problem then would be that we would be able to cause harm, but since we couldn't define harm we would go our merry way as though nothing bad happened. I have to know that hurting people is bad before I can abstain form doing so with purpose of mind.

You are only reinforcing my point - this is only a problem in a fragile world where things can be hurt, no such material limitation would exist unless God wills it.

I rely more on personal experience for my salvation that I do evidence. In fact my personal experience with God is evidence within itself. I have lived with god and i have lived without God. I understand both ends of the spectrum by experience.

Ok, I can understand that.

I want a part in your other conversation too:

So how would it be justice if you did time for someone elses crime?

It's not justice at all.

How are you OK with that?

By being an emotional person who is willing to put personal desires ahead of justice.

By your answer I assume that you do not think it illogical for one innocent person to pay for the crimes of a guilty person.

It's not logical at all, it's a decision based on emotional attachent to ones son/daughter. I would say it's understandable for one innocent person to choose to pay for the crimes of a guilty person.

[Justin108]

That's nice. So do you have any new arguments yet?

Yes. Suppose you had a son or a daughter that robbed someone and the person gave you a proposition. He would let him / her go if you took the bullet for them. Would you do it?

No. He has to face the consequences of his actions. What's your point?

What if they were going to kill him / her, and they gave you the opportunity to do a short prison term on their behalf. They would consequently be set free. Would you do it?

Yes I would. But if this is your idea of an analogy, it fails in many ways. In this scenario, the judge who sentences my children is someone other than myself. In God's case he is both the judge and the one who "stands in" for my sins. This would make no sense in this analogy because then I would be the judge who sentences my children to death but then decide to take their place. It would make no sense. Why would I do that? If I had the power the judge has, I would simply not sentence them to death in the first place.

Lets approach this one step at a time. So how would it be justice if you did time for someone elses crime? How are you OK with that? By your answer I assume that you do not think it illogical for one innocent person to pay for the crimes of a guilty person.

Ok one step at a time then. The reason I would do time for them is because in your scenario, my children are being sentenced to death for robbery. This is already not justice. I cannot see how theft would deserve the death penalty. However, before you mentioned that they would be killed, I did say that I would have my children do the time since they deserve it. But they do not deserve death. And so I plan on rescuing the only way I can; by taking their place. I do not stand in for them because I think it ok for an innocent person to take the place of a guilty one. I stand in for them because I do not believe they deserve death for simple robbery.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Zeitesis wrote...

Christians are still judged for their sins. They enter into a correctional phase with God where he disciplines them for their sins on a daily basis.

You make the claim sir, now please provide proof, using third party corroborated evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Most certainly....
1st Corinthians 11:32 Yet, in being judged by the Lord, we are undergoing discipline, so that we may not have judgement passed upon us with the rest of the world.