What would you do?

[OscarB63]

Aw ok, there is a difference though, with your analogy and my understanding of my faith. It wasn't my choice to sacrifice Him, it was His. My choice is in choosing to acknowledge His sacrifice or not. Also, your analogy presumes that Jesus would suffer the same length of sentence that I got and deserved. This is not the case. Jesus overcame both death and hell which is not something I would be capable of doing.

there you go, he has already made the sacrifice, the choice is either to accept that he did it for you or it's all bull****.

 

[Goshin]

Aw ok, there is a difference though, with your analogy and my understanding of my faith. It wasn't my choice to sacrifice Him, it was His. My choice is in choosing to acknowledge His sacrifice or not. Also, your analogy presumes that Jesus would suffer the same length of sentence that I got and deserved. This is not the case. Jesus overcame both death and hell which is not something I would be capable of doing.

Exactly, thank you. Jesus made the choice, and He made the sacrifice. The only question is whether you accept and honor that sacrifice, or reject it.

No offense to those of other faiths intended; we're discussing Christian theology within the context of why Christians believe what they believe.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Once upon a time there was a man who raped a 6 year old and went to prison. One day his wife came to visit him in prison, and she had the most wonderful news! The Judge had agreed to set him free if his wife went to prison and served his sentence for him. His wife was completely innocent, and loved him so much that she would gladly take his place. The only catch was that it was his choice. All he needed to do was sign the release papers, and he would go home a free man, while his wife remained in prison getting raped by the inmates.

If the man loves his wife more than his own life, what will he choose? Will he choose to accept his own punishment rather than let his wife suffer on his behalf? Or will he instead rejoice in how much his wife loves him and raise his hands in gratitude after signing away her freedom in exchange for his?

The situation is more like the wife already having served the punishment and then going "oh by the way, I already did it, so you don't have to"

 

[X Factor]

The problem I've always had with it is, "Why did God decide he had to sacrifice anyone? Just forgive! He made us imperfect beings in the first place.

Because He's a just God too, and justice has to be served. His mercy was in sacrificing His Son.

I mean absolutely no disrespect, by the way.

No offense was taken, Maggie.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Exactly, thank you. Jesus made the choice, and He made the sacrifice. The only question is whether you accept and honor that sacrifice, or reject it.

No offense to those of other faiths intended; we're discussing Christian theology within the context of why Christians believe what they believe.

I'm not certain how others could find this offensive. I reject the salvation of the Christ because I don't need it; I have my honor and I am either worthy to face my gods or I am not. Someone would have to be pretty insecure in their faith to be offended by the Christ's offer, whether they accepted it or not. The Jews are happy with their original covenant and the Muslims believe their god forgives them directly, and nobody else has any cause to be concerned about their standing with the Christian god. Intolerance of the Christian faith is as petty and pointless as any other act of religious intolerance.

Personally, I find your theology fascinating. Even growing up in a nominally Christian family in a nominally Christian nation, I have a hard time understanding some of the moral principles espoused by Christians.

 

[Goshin]

I'm not certain how others could find this offensive. I reject the salvation of the Christ because I don't need it; I have my honor and I am either worthy to face my gods or I am not. Someone would have to be pretty insecure in their faith to be offended by the Christ's offer, whether they accepted it or not. The Jews are happy with their original covenant and the Muslims believe their god forgives them directly, and nobody else has any cause to be concerned about their standing with the Christian god. Intolerance of the Christian faith is as petty and pointless as any other act of religious intolerance.

Personally, I find your theology fascinating. Even growing up in a nominally Christian family in a nominally Christian nation, I have a hard time understanding some of the moral principles espoused by Christians.

At the core of it, it isn't really complicated.

God made Man. God defined sin as doing what He had forbidden. Man sinned.
God is perfection and holiness. He cannot have fellowship with sin and imperfection. Therefore Man severed himself from God.

A way had to be found to bridge this gap, a way to create a link between the Divine and the Mundane, the Holy and the sinful.

Jesus was that way. That persona/avatar/aspect of God known as the Son was born as a mortal Man. He lived the life we live, in the world we inhabit, among its temptations... but did not sin. His nature and blood were Holy and suitable for making such a bridge.

Mankind as a whole rejected Jesus and chose to torture and execute Him on the Cross. Jesus could have prevented this, but the object of his life was show us God in himself, but not exerting His power to save himself or serve his own self. The shedding of Divine blood and the sacrifice of the Holy for the sinful created that bridge between God and Man. It is not just Jesus' death, you see, but also his life, his resurrection and his ascention that are important. He walked the path first, creating the bridge, by living as a man and dying as one, then rising from the dead as only the Divine could, ascending and "blazing the trail" to Heaven and to God.

The first step in following that trail is to believe and accept it.

 

[Panache]

I find your analogy to be lacking in relevance and correlation.

A more apt comparison would be something like this:

Private Joe made a stand, fighting a rearguard action so that the rest of his platoon could escape. In the process of doing so, he was wounded and captured, then tortured to death.

Some of his platoon-mates honor and respect him for making this sacrifice that saved their lives. Others mock and deride him, saying that he was simply trying to play the hero and hoping to survive and win a medal. If you were Private Joe's father, who would YOU invite to supper in your home? Those who mocked your son's sacrifice, or those who honored and respected him and tried to be like him?

No analogy is perfect, but I'd say mine is quite a bit closer...

No action of mine or yours or anyone's can keep Jesus from the Cross. That is done and over. All we can choose is whether to accept this act as a substitutionary sacrifice and atonement that we claim for our own and honor, or reject for whatever reason. I made my choice years ago, and stand by it.

That analogy is fine, but it means that the lives of those wo mocked Private Joe are just as saved as the lives of those who honored him. It is a universalist analogy.

 

[Panache]

Because Jesus, who is sinless, is a much greater sacrifice than I am. With me, I wouldn't be a sacrifice at all since I would just be getting what I deserve. Jesus, though, suffering punishment He didn't deserve makes His suffering worth more even if it's not eternal as mine would be.

Ok. But you started with an assumption that it was somehow better for Jesus to suffer for a few hours than for you to suffer for eternity. If Jesus is a comparably greater sacrifice, then His hours o suffering are equal to your eternity of suffering. Wouldn't you rather accept the punishment yourself than see equal punishment visited on someone you love?

 

[Panache]

The situation is more like the wife already having served the punishment and then going "oh by the way, I already did it, so you don't have to"

That's cool. So it isn't your choice whether to accept Jesus as your substitute or not. That is reasonable. It would seem to suggest however that God (being Just as He is) will no longer punish anyone, since the sentence has already been served. Ergo, all of humanity is saved and Hell is just reserved for Satan and his angels now.

 

[Panache]

I used to wonder why folks like the OP author raise questions about Christianity, but never seem to have the inclination or the gumption to query religious authorities like priests and pastors who studied the milieu in seminary school. It is akin to asking Joe Blow probing questions about physics and expecting a Feynman reply.

The only sensible motivation I can conjure in this regard is that learned information is at best a peripheral consideration.

Do you wonder the same thing about people who raise questions about politics on this forum instead of having the inclination or the gumption to query political authorities like politicians and political science professors?

Or people who raise questions on the economics forum instead of having the inclination or the gumption to query economic authorities like economists?

I suppose I could email some pastor and try to provoke him/her into some kind of debate, but it isn't much fun pestering someone who is just minding their own business, tending to their own flock.

People here are presumably looking for a debate just like I am, so it seems like the most appropriate place.

 

[American]

That analogy is fine, but it means that the lives of those wo mocked Private Joe are just as saved as the lives of those who honored him. It is a universalist analogy.

What do you have to back this up?

 

[nonpareil]

Do you live in some imaginary world where all Christians share the exact same beliefs? The hypothetical addresses the concept of substitutionary atonement and the "Divine Exchange." According to many Christians "Jesus will suffer whatever sinners will suffer" is exactly what God said:



If you choose to become a participant in this exchange, it means allowing Jesus to suffer the full punishment of your iniquity so that you don't have to.

No, I live in a world where the majority of Christians believe the acknowledgement of Christ and repentence of sin are the requirements to get into heaven.

If you actually know where in the bible (which book, which part) it says what you quote, instead of from some random guy I don't know, I can actually read it and learn something new.

 

[nonpareil]

Because He's a just God too, and justice has to be served. His mercy was in sacrificing His Son.

No offense was taken, Maggie.

Why would you say he's "just"?

The God in the bible is harsh and vindictive. And what about the whole turn the other cheek thing Jesus espoused?



Don't read the part below if you get offended by criticism of Christianity:



The fact is the story of Christianity would not be as interesting without Jesus being killed in a cruel way. Jesus is killed in a cruel way not because God is "just", he's killed in a cruel way to arouse sympathies and bring everyone into that story, that religion. Having a martyr becomes the central point of Christianity.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

God made Man. God defined sin as doing what He had forbidden. Man sinned.
God is perfection and holiness. He cannot have fellowship with sin and imperfection. Therefore Man severed himself from God.

See, what I don't grasp is this connection between holiness and perfection, with this notion of purity that runs through the entirety of Judeochristian thought. Your god commanded warfare and bloodshed. He commanded that his children be fruitful and multiply. We are commanded to live in the world, to sully our purity and our innocence, even as we aspire to holiness.

This isn't criticism of your god; there's nothing wrong with warfare and fornication. I just don't see how he can be too pure to embrace his creations after they have done what they were designed for.

I admire your Christ, but I can't understand why he was necessary.

 

[Panache]

What do you have to back this up?

What do you mean? That is what the anaolgy said:

"Private Joe made a stand, fighting a rearguard action so that the rest of his platoon could escape."

The entire point of this analogy as compared to the one I presented in the OP is that the soldiers didn't have a choice in whether Private Joe gave his life for them or not. Joe gave his life for his entire platoon, not just the ones that worshiped him.

 

[Tashah]

I'm still at a loss to explain why some people have an almost obsessional compunction to constantly attack and/or belittle something which they are not interested in.

 

[reefedjib]

The idea that Jesus died for all our sins I find pretty ridiculous. We still sin and karmic debts must be paid. We reincarnate in order to work off karmic debts through multiple lifetimes. I do believe that accepting Christ and turning our hearts to God/Christ can atone our sins.

 

[Panache]

I'm still at a loss to explain why some people have an almost obsessional compunction to constantly attack and/or belittle something which they are not interested in.

Do you know anyone who does this? I don't. Personally, I only ever attack and belittle things that I am interested in.

 

[molten_dragon]

Well, the only way I'd be convicted of raping a 6-year old is if I was wrongly convicted, and in that situation I'd sure as hell never let my wife take my place in there.

 

[MaggieD]

No, I live in a world where the majority of Christians believe the acknowledgement of Christ and repentence of sin are the requirements to get into heaven.

Do you think that the hundreds of billions of people who have gone before us and died without knowing about Christianity are destined for what Christians call hell? Do you really believe that your God (he's mine, too, by the way) is so unyielding that he would condemn these people to eternal damnation? See, I don't. My God would never do that. Never.

 

[reefedjib]

Do you think that the hundreds of billions of people who have gone before us and died without knowing about Christianity are destined for what Christians call hell? Do you really believe that your God (he's mine, too, by the way) is so unyielding that he would condemn these people to eternal damnation? See, I don't. My God would never do that. Never.

That's why there is reincarnation.

 

[Tashah]

Personally, I only ever attack and belittle things that I am interested in.

Well then, I'll pray for your wife or significant other.

 

[Panache]

Well then, I'll pray for your wife or significant other.

You see the logical fallacy there right?

 

[X Factor]

Ok. But you started with an assumption that it was somehow better for Jesus to suffer for a few hours than for you to suffer for eternity. If Jesus is a comparably greater sacrifice, then His hours o suffering are equal to your eternity of suffering. Wouldn't you rather accept the punishment yourself than see equal punishment visited on someone you love?

I knew you'd eventually get around to asking me a question like this. Fortunately, Jesus has already made the sacrifice and it's not on me to make that decision. I'm grateful Jesus gave Himself up on the cross for me, that I might be saved from what I deserve. Still, trying to answer your question honestly, would I take His place if I could have? It's humbling to admit, but my answer is no.

 

[Panache]

I knew you'd eventually get around to asking me a question like this. Fortunately, Jesus has already made the sacrifice and it's not on me to make that decision. I'm grateful Jesus gave Himself up on the cross for me, that I might be saved from what I deserve. Still, trying to answer your question honestly, would I take His place if I could have? It's humbling to admit, but my answer is no.

Do you think it is more virtuous to hide behind a fall guy, even a willing one, than to face the consequences of your own actions?