Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

It's a metaphor.

I would have to say that someone who is pushing for something literalistic shouldn't have to resort to metaphor to make his point.

 

[waitasec]

I would have to say that someone who is pushing for something literalistic shouldn't have to resort to metaphor to make his point.

perhaps he was trying to speak your language.

 

[PolyHedral]

example: A firefighter goes into a burning building and saves a man...however the firefighter died. The man he "saved" owes a debt to his savior to live a life that will honor the man who gave his to save him. If that man does evil with the rest of his life, then the good selfless firefighter died for nothing.

I would have to say that someone who is pushing for something literalistic shouldn't have to resort to metaphor to make his point.

It's not Heathen Hammer's metaphor. However, since it is a very simple one, could you please respond to the question?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There are no firemen in the bible who start fires.

God is the fireman who started the fire, in this lame metaphor. If it were not for the connection of one person's sin to all other persons [something which God seems to be against in most other cases] who themselves did not commit that sin, we wouldn't owe anybody anything. Please continue to disagree for it's own sake.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I would have to say that someone who is pushing for something literalistic shouldn't have to resort to metaphor to make his point.

The Irony Meter just blew off the dashboard.

 

[InChrist]

God is the fireman who started the fire, in this lame metaphor. If it were not for the connection of one person's sin to all other persons [something which God seems to be against in most other cases] who themselves did not commit that sin, we wouldn't owe anybody anything. Please continue to disagree for it's own sake.

God did not start the fire. Adam and Eve did by choosing to sin. This infected human nature and the tendency or propensity to sin has been passed on to all humans. Each person chooses to commit their own sins, not the particular sin of Adam or Eve. Each person must pay the penalty for their sins unless they are covered by Christ's payment for the sins of the world on the cross.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

God did not start the fire. Adam and Eve did by choosing to sin. This infected human nature and the tendency or propensity to sin has been passed on to all humans. Each person chooses to commit their own sins, not the particular sin of Adam or Eve. Each person must pay the penalty for their sins unless they are covered by Christ's payment for the sins of the world on the cross.

I understand that's what you think, but in the context of the metaphor you're wrong. Well, as well in the context of morality, for reasons I already explained; basically you proved my point with your words "This infected human nature and the tendency or propensity to sin has been passed on to all humans." - that was the moment God acted and thus, HE is responsible. You are stopping the flow of responsibility one step before its author in order to not blame God for the obvious setup.

And no matter what you say we are responsible for Adam and Eve's sins; inborn Original sin is the proof.

 

[InChrist]

I understand that's what you think, but in the context of the metaphor you're wrong. Well, as well in the context of morality, for reasons I already explained; basically you proved my point with your words "This infected human nature and the tendency or propensity to sin has been passed on to all humans." - that was the moment God acted and thus, HE is responsible. You are stopping the flow of responsibility one step before its author in order to not blame God for the obvious setup.

And no matter what you say we are responsible for Adam and Eve's sins; inborn Original sin is the proof.

The scriptures do not teach that we are responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. We are responsible for our own sins.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The scriptures do not teach that we are responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. We are responsible for our own sins.

The concept of Original Sin in all men shows that scripture does in fact, teach this.

You did not eat the apple. That really answers the question definitively, I'm afraid.

 

[InChrist]

The concept of Original Sin in all men shows that scripture does in fact, teach this.

You did not eat the apple. That really answers the question definitively, I'm afraid.

Maybe you have the wrong understanding about the concept concerning original sin. When Adam and Eve were first created before they sinned I believe they had perfect communion with God their Creator. They were indwelt by the Spirit of God and their thoughts were God-conscious. Yet they had freedom of thought which they used to listen to and follow the words of the serpent and disobey God. Once they did this the Spirit left them due to sin, they became self-conscious, and separated from God. The resulting separation from God is the way in which their sin impacted their descendents. So again, each person is guilty of their own particular sins, not Adam and Eve's specific sin.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Maybe you have the wrong understanding about the concept concerning original sin. When Adam and Eve were first created before they sinned I believe they had perfect communion with God their Creator. They were indwelt by the Spirit of God and their thoughts were God-conscious. Yet they had freedom of thought which they used to listen to and follow the words of the serpent and disobey God. Once they did this the Spirit left them due to sin, they became self-conscious, and separated from God. The resulting separation from God is the way in which their sin impacted their descendents. So again, each person is guilty of their own particular sins, not Adam and Eve's specific sin.

I do not have a wrong understanding. I am simply making an unpleasant observation based on exactly what scripture says.

If Adam and Eve were created, they did not possess the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was specifically left out of their makeup. One thing that scripture is very hard about is the intent behind the sinner; the knowledge of God's laws, which are deliberately broken by the person who sins, lies very heavily behind the visceral approval Christians give when they are made aware of a sinner paying for their sin.

The problem with this however, is, as I mentioned, that Adam and Eve were prevented, by God, from understanding Good from Evil. Thus they were unaware of the concept of disobedience, nor could they understand the concept of consequences regarding sin. Therefore, their punishment, individually, is unjust, because they were essentially idiot children specifically when it came to the idea of right and wrong.

Then, we come to the separate injustice of passing this unjust verdict on to all subsequent people.

If Adam and Eve were conceived whole, as spotless beings without the stain of Original Sin, then we must ask what exactly changed about them, the instant the ate the Apple. Is Original Sin some kind of physically inbred detail, in other words, is it in our genes literally to sin? Or, is it only a spiritual aspect? If it is a spiritual aspect then there is no rational ability whatsoever to question the fact that it is God's deliberate fault that we all have this tendency. Only God' willful power could alter some aspect of our spirit.

If instead it's genetic, then we come to another look at the same fact of God's guilt: Adam and Eve were once genetically without sin, so, why deliberately allow their offspring to have this 'mutation', but rather why not fix it immediately? If Adam and Eve were able to be made that way, then the blueprint is already there, the creator simply allowed the faulty version to be reproduced instead. You cannot deny it when I say that God makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the passing on of sin to either of them, at any time, when telling them not to eat of the Tree. So the idea that they knew of the consequences is blown apart, particularly in this most important aspect of it; the passing of Original Sin is by far the most important detail about eating of the Tree and it's never mentioned by God once. Only after it's already too late does he gloat about it. So he deliberately lies by omission about it.

In either case it would be God's direct 'magic' which would cause this mutation; it's nothing natural in terms of cause/effect. So it was a deliberate 'miracle' performed by God himself.

So again, each person is guilty of their own particular sins, not Adam and Eve's specific sin.

Though you repeat the same incorrect statement, no, if we are born with Original Sin in place, we are held responsible for it too. Whether it is spiritual or genetic, we still die and we still need saving. Nobody can create nor impose such a situation on us except for God. The inbred tendency to sin itself is punishment for that first sin, in which not a single one of us ever took actual part. If there is punishment, then we are being held responsible.

As a side note:

I believe they had perfect communion with God their Creator. They were indwelt by the Spirit of God and their thoughts were God-conscious.

You can define exactly what this means, if you so choose, but on its face these ideas are just prosy words that don't mean anything. You will have to justify how being in 'perfect communion' and having the spirit 'indwelt' can still allow one to make mistakes of this magnitude. Merely tossing in the idea of free will doesn't provide any rational argument in the face of these poetic phrases. Please clarify this conundrum of how spiritual perfection can allow for spiritual mistakes.

 

[Thief]

I do not have a wrong understanding. I am simply making an unpleasant observation based on exactly what scripture says.

If Adam and Eve were created, they did not possess the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was specifically left out of their makeup. One thing that scripture is very hard about is the intent behind the sinner; the knowledge of God's laws, which are deliberately broken by the person who sins, lies very heavily behind the visceral approval Christians give when they are made aware of a sinner paying for their sin.

The problem with this however, is, as I mentioned, that Adam and Eve were prevented, by God, from understanding Good from Evil. Thus they were unaware of the concept of disobedience, nor could they understand the concept of consequences regarding sin. Therefore, their punishment, individually, is unjust, because they were essentially idiot children specifically when it came to the idea of right and wrong.

Then, we come to the separate injustice of passing this unjust verdict on to all subsequent people.

If Adam and Eve were conceived whole, as spotless beings without the stain of Original Sin, then we must ask what exactly changed about them, the instant the ate the Apple. Is Original Sin some kind of physically inbred detail, in other words, is it in our genes literally to sin? Or, is it only a spiritual aspect? If it is a spiritual aspect then there is no rational ability whatsoever to question the fact that it is God's deliberate fault that we all have this tendency. Only God' willful power could alter some aspect of our spirit.

If instead it's genetic, then we come to another look at the same fact of God's guilt: Adam and Eve were once genetically without sin, so, why deliberately allow their offspring to have this 'mutation', but rather why not fix it immediately? If Adam and Eve were able to be made that way, then the blueprint is already there, the creator simply allowed the faulty version to be reproduced instead. You cannot deny it when I say that God makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the passing on of sin to either of them, at any time, when telling them not to eat of the Tree. So the idea that they knew of the consequences is blown apart, particularly in this most important aspect of it; the passing of Original Sin is by far the most important detail about eating of the Tree and it's never mentioned by God once. Only after it's already too late does he gloat about it. So he deliberately lies by omission about it.

In either case it would be God's direct 'magic' which would cause this mutation; it's nothing natural in terms of cause/effect. So it was a deliberate 'miracle' performed by God himself.
Though you repeat the same incorrect statement, no, if we are born with Original Sin in place, we are held responsible for it too. Whether it is spiritual or genetic, we still die and we still need saving. Nobody can create nor impose such a situation on us except for God. The inbred tendency to sin itself is punishment for that first sin, in which not a single one of us ever took actual part. If there is punishment, then we are being held responsible.

As a side note:
You can define exactly what this means, if you so choose, but on its face these ideas are just prosy words that don't mean anything. You will have to justify how being in 'perfect communion' and having the spirit 'indwelt' can still allow one to make mistakes of this magnitude. Merely tossing in the idea of free will doesn't provide any rational argument in the face of these poetic phrases. Please clarify this conundrum of how spiritual perfection can allow for spiritual mistakes.

To answer your last line....
Freewill requires that 'hands off' technique.
God may ask...plead...suggest...threaten....even kill....
but to press His will directly into your thoughts....
would take away that one item that makes you....'you'.

And you become even more of a unique spirit....
when left to your own thoughts and...failings.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Killing isn't 'hands off'

 

[waitasec]

Maybe you have the wrong understanding about the concept concerning original sin. When Adam and Eve were first created before they sinned I believe they had perfect communion with God their Creator. They were indwelt by the Spirit of God and their thoughts were God-conscious. Yet they had freedom of thought which they used to listen to and follow the words of the serpent and disobey God. Once they did this the Spirit left them due to sin, they became self-conscious, and separated from God. The resulting separation from God is the way in which their sin impacted their descendents. So again, each person is guilty of their own particular sins, not Adam and Eve's specific sin.

then it wasn't perfect.

in addition to that, how were they supposed to understand the moral consequence of their choice when they couldn't understand the difference between good and evil since this story plainly lays out that they were ignorant of good and evil and forbidden to know about good and evil.

you say they had a choice. but the choice is meaningless unless they understood what the consequences meant...they did not...they were ignorant of good and evil.
iow, how could they make the choice not knowing that obeying was good?

original sin is the disclaimer for why we ALL die.

even saved people die and get sick (oddly enough they aren't supposed to get sick according to mark 16). this new covenant has moved the goal post to a realm that isn't even verifiable. this concept of original sin contradicts the fact that it is impossible to be a moral person with out the spirit of the lord in them...which is absolutely false. and you know it.

there isn't anything a believer can do that a non believer can't. why?
because they are both humans...born with the same capability to rationalize and empathize and have the same capability to imagine and learn from their experiences.

if anything, the concept of original sin perpetuates the notion that we are fundamentally evil which robs the individual of the opportunity to fully accept themselves. in order to accept oneself one needs to come to terms with their limits...but the notion of being fundamentally evil prevents that because they are not even worthy of being considered in the first place.

imagine telling your child, 'you are fundamentally evil but if you emulate me i will take care of you.'

 

[sojourner]

perhaps he was trying to speak your language.

I'm simply insisting that we be realistic with the texts, based upon cultural awareness and understanding. Since the fireman metaphor does not appear in the text, I don't understand either why he's using it, or what his point is -- unless it's to illustrate a twisted interpretation of some kind. since he's insisting that the laws be taken literally by us, I'd have to say that's what his motivation is here. Except that his insistence carries neither sense nor authority. Merely nuisance.

 

[sojourner]

It's not Heathen Hammer's metaphor. However, since it is a very simple one, could you please respond to the question?

Why? It has nothing to do with the text. It has everything to do with interpretation, and an insistence that the interpretation is "what the text says."

 

[sojourner]

God is the fireman who started the fire, in this lame metaphor. If it were not for the connection of one person's sin to all other persons [something which God seems to be against in most other cases] who themselves did not commit that sin, we wouldn't owe anybody anything. Please continue to disagree for it's own sake.

That's not what the Bible says. Since there are no firemen in the bible, why don't we simply stick to exegeting and interpreting the actual text, instead of playing games with other stuff?

Perhaps you could point out the precise text to which you are referring? Many times, lifting something out of context and creating a whole theology based upon that text is the wrong thing to do.

 

[sojourner]

The Irony Meter just blew off the dashboard.

...and the needle wrapped itself around your neck.

 

[sojourner]

I do not have a wrong understanding.

Your understanding is not congruent with a developed exegetical understanding of the text.

I am simply making an unpleasant observation based on exactly what scripture says.

You're "observing" nothing. You're interpreting a text out of context and claiming "it is what it is."

 

[waitasec]

I'm simply insisting that we be realistic with the texts, based upon cultural awareness and understanding. Since the fireman metaphor does not appear in the text, I don't understand either why he's using it, or what his point is -- unless it's to illustrate a twisted interpretation of some kind. since he's insisting that the laws be taken literally by us, I'd have to say that's what his motivation is here. Except that his insistence carries neither sense nor authority. Merely nuisance.

in order to sell something you have to create a demand for it, correct?
so in order to sell the idea that christ is our saving grace from death/hell, or what have you, one would have to create the idea that we need saving...now in the case of the context of the gospels and paul's letters...their savior was going to come back and bring the kingdom with him and save them from the bad guys...the romans....since the temple was destroyed and all the disciples died along with paul and his cronies...those that were left behind had to reconcile the obvious by improvising on what jesus "really meant", and created a demand to want to get to heaven...a way to avoid perishing/eternal sleep/hell or what have you.

it's all rather simple....well at least for me it is