Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Thief]

But see, that's the shame, isn't it? If his death was heroic, it seem unjust that nothing really changed. One would wish that a hero should not die in vain.

Not altogether a loss....everyone dies....anyway.
But His death was not the saving grace....anyway.

His salvation lays in those teachings.
His crucifixion is more like an exclamation point...if I may be so vulgar.

His teachings may have dissolved into oblivion had it not been for
the trial and execution.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Now, that is true.

 

[sojourner]

I have had similar disagreements over definitions with forum members... for those willing to establish a common set of terms, these disagreements were quickly addressed, but for those unwilling to do so it merely becomes a case of saying 'okay fine, I am walking away now' (though they often seem to feel this validates their own position and gives them license to suggest you personally or your position are at fault)

In any case however, back to the point of the thread, the concept of the NEED for Jesus to die is an interesting one, as it seems to suggest that God (or perhaps merely God the Son) wanted to forgive sins but could not do so without living life as a human and suffering death. That implies some limit to the capacity to forgive sins.

See, that's part of my argument here. This concept does at least two bad things: 1) it reduces God's power in being able to effect salvation. 2) it demands some kind of blood payment.

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

What IF however the sacrifice was not intended to forgive sins, but rather to provide a path for people to achieve forgiveness by presenting them with a 'truth' of gods existence and the message of how to achieve forgiveness for sins; in that case the death and resurrection were more about achieving credibility of the message that Jesus gave (because being brought back to life superseded understanding of what is possible, hence supporting claims about either divine origins or support) - including that path to forgiveness as well as hopefully reducing the amount or severity of sin by providing them with teachings about how they should live.

((remember I do not believe in an Abrahamic god, I am merely following a rational path given the assumption of Jesus' divine nature and the nature of sin and forgiveness are both true))

 

[sojourner]

But see, that's the shame, isn't it? If his death was heroic, it seem unjust that nothing really changed. One would wish that a hero should not die in vain.

That's why we can't hang our salvation upon our belief in a substitutionary atonement. it would mean that Jesus' death is not efficacious enough to overcome our sin of turning away from belief.

 

[sojourner]

What IF however the sacrifice was not intended to forgive sins, but rather to provide a path for people to achieve forgiveness by presenting them with a 'truth' of gods existence and the message of how to achieve forgiveness for sins; in that case the death and resurrection were more about achieving credibility of the message that Jesus gave (because being brought back to life superseded understanding of what is possible, hence supporting claims about either divine origins or support) - including that path to forgiveness as well as hopefully reducing the amount or severity of sin by providing them with teachings about how they should live.

((remember I do not believe in an Abrahamic god, I am merely following a rational path given the assumption of Jesus' divine nature and the nature of sin and forgiveness are both true))

The crucifixion doesn't buy God's love for us. But it does show God's love for us. Jesus was unwilling to save his own life by allowing his message to be gagged.

 

[survivalapocalypserecipes]

Hello,

All begin in the Heaven.

Satan blamed God that he is selfish and not loving.
He accused God ...

The punishment for sin is death - as we already know.
Every person would have to die and did not had another chance for an everlasting life IF , someone did not die for us instead.

God proved that he is LOVING and He is willing to give his only Son to die instead of us.
There is no such LOVE than this...

Satan did not think that God will give his Son to die for our Sins - and this way God won the battle against Satan and proved Satan as a liar.

 

[jasonwill2]

Hello,

All begin in the Heaven.

Satan blamed God that he is selfish and not loving.
He accused God ...

The punishment for sin is death - as we already know.
Every person would have to die and did not had another chance for an everlasting life IF , someone did not die for us instead.

God proved that he is LOVING and He is willing to give his only Son to die instead of us.
There is no such LOVE than this...

Satan did not think that God will give his Son to die for our Sins - and this way God won the battle against Satan and proved Satan as a liar.

Satan is not a liar, Yahweh and Jesus are the liars.

First of all, the guy they call "Satan" isn't named Satan or Lucifer, he is much older than all of them. Actually, the Christian idea of Satan doesn't exist. When people talk of Satan, the god of our flesh, they unwittingly are talking about a millions of year old deity that created life on earth that is a specific form of God. "Satan" is his title, as it is Hebrew for Accuser and Adversary. He made us in his image.. in his blueprint, and from him we adapt as adversarial creatures who strive for survive and live well. And he accuses us of our weaknesses so that we can grow. He doesn't do this out of any huge test, but more out of necessity because the law of conservation of mass and energy says that we can't create something out of nothing. And so we must work hard to survive by taking energy (or food in this case) from one place to another. So we have to compete with one-another for resources. This is part our our Satanic nature, and the guy that rules our flesh, that people happen to call "Satan" is the guy that made us.

Satan is god (in a specific form).

 

[survivalapocalypserecipes]

I think that Satan is Lucifer - the ex-leader of angels in Heaven.

When he begun to envy the position of GOD, he wanted to be GOD - he sinned.
No creature can be equal or greater than it`s creator.
I belive Lucifer was created by God.

I have to remind you of something.

If you are with Satan you should know that you are fighting along a defeated ruler of this world.
Satan knows the END is near so he tries to lead us wrong and tries to convince as many people he can that God is a Liar - but we know GOD is LOVE - because he give his only Son to die for us and save us from the domination of Evil

 

[sojourner]

Well, folks...


There goes the neighborhood.

 

[jasonwill2]

I think that Satan is Lucifer - the ex-leader of angels in Heaven.

When he begun to envy the position of GOD, he wanted to be GOD - he sinned.
No creature can be equal or greater than it`s creator.
I belive Lucifer was created by God.

I have to remind you of something.

If you are with Satan you should know that you are fighting along a defeated ruler of this world.
Satan knows the END is near so he tries to lead us wrong and tries to convince as many people he can that God is a Liar - but we know GOD is LOVE - because he give his only Son to die for us and save us from the domination of Evil

That's so nice, but I have Christians who will agree with me that Lucifer is not Satan as well as 99% of all the Jews to ever live. As well there was no Satan in Judauism, but rather many Satans as Satan is just a title that was given to both angels and mortals. Also history agrees with me as well.

Now certainly this guy that rules over our flesh IS a Satan, but he is not the only Satan. Satan is just a title with a specific meaning, of which the god of flesh (and of life) would qualify under.

Below are four links, I do not have the inclination to dig into my bookmarks to find more at this time as I doubt that you will even look at those. However I have a whole lot more sources backing me up on this. It seems to me that Christianity just added the idea. If you read these perhaps it will encourage you to research it more from different viewpoints.

about Lucifer not being Satan:

Lucifer is not Satan

Lucifer = Planet Venus, not Satan - PROOF, page 1


about Satan not being just one guy in Judaism but many:

Satan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/judaism-dir/126000-jewish-view-satan.html


Also, Satan isn't fighting a losing battle, he is god himself as the spiritual incarnation and the god of life as different from his larger self, the God of Everything who I call "Leviathan". How can god lose? To kill god is to kill reality (I'm a pantheist), so anyone waging war against the god of our flesh is waging war against their very nature and our creator.

The Christian god is doing this (I'm also a polytheist), but he knows he can't destroy Satan, nor does he want to. He wants to exploit the true god as a scapegoat so that he can have more people follow him. Satan isn't the one wanting worship, the Christian god is. Satan asks no one to follow him, but to just be their selves. If Satan wanted worship or to wage war against god, wouldn't he be more proactive in doing so? As far as I can tell there are very, very few people who explicitly follow Satan. I'm talking of no more than in the hundreds of thousands, meanwhile like a third of the world is Christian and still a lot Islamic. It seems to me that Satan isn't the one who wants all the attention. You don't see Satanists shoving conversion tracs into peoples' faces after all.

 

[jasonwill2]

Well, folks...


There goes the neighborhood.

It's inevitable when those who wage war on my god make inccorect statements towards his intentions, history, and nature.

I stand to correct them on both my personal theological grounds and on the actual history of said figure as treated by the actual religion that came up with the word: Judaism. As well, I also explain how it was changed from just a title to some big scary bad guy. There are many Satans, but of course the god of our flesh is a Satan as we are all Satans made in an adversarial nature just so that we can survive. Without the satan within us all humanity would of died out to it's predators and enemies long ago.

 

[sojourner]

Hello,

All begin in the Heaven.

Satan blamed God that he is selfish and not loving.
He accused God ...

The punishment for sin is death - as we already know.
Every person would have to die and did not had another chance for an everlasting life IF , someone did not die for us instead.

God proved that he is LOVING and He is willing to give his only Son to die instead of us.
There is no such LOVE than this...

Satan did not think that God will give his Son to die for our Sins - and this way God won the battle against Satan and proved Satan as a liar.

Simplistic and formulaic. And adds nothing new to the thread that hasn't already been put out there.

 

[sojourner]

Satan is not a liar, Yahweh and Jesus are the liars.

First of all, the guy they call "Satan" isn't named Satan or Lucifer, he is much older than all of them. Actually, the Christian idea of Satan doesn't exist. When people talk of Satan, the god of our flesh, they unwittingly are talking about a millions of year old deity that created life on earth that is a specific form of God. "Satan" is his title, as it is Hebrew for Accuser and Adversary. He made us in his image.. in his blueprint, and from him we adapt as adversarial creatures who strive for survive and live well. And he accuses us of our weaknesses so that we can grow. He doesn't do this out of any huge test, but more out of necessity because the law of conservation of mass and energy says that we can't create something out of nothing. And so we must work hard to survive by taking energy (or food in this case) from one place to another. So we have to compete with one-another for resources. This is part our our Satanic nature, and the guy that rules our flesh, that people happen to call "Satan" is the guy that made us.

Satan is god (in a specific form).

sounds like a rip-off of Gnosticism to me.

 

[sojourner]

It's inevitable when those who wage war on my god make inccorect statements towards his intentions, history, and nature.

I stand to correct them on both my personal theological grounds and on the actual history of said figure as treated by the actual religion that came up with the word: Judaism. As well, I also explain how it was changed from just a title to some big scary bad guy. There are many Satans, but of course the god of our flesh is a Satan as we are all Satans made in an adversarial nature just so that we can survive. Without the satan within us all humanity would of died out to it's predators and enemies long ago.

Hmmm...
I'd like to hear Jay's opinion on this. Seems to me that if Judaism came up with it, They'd be worshiping yours, rather than theirs.

 

[jasonwill2]

sounds like a rip-off of Gnosticism to me.

Gnosticism says that the material world is an illusion and that it is evil and that Yahweh is the demigure, I belive none of those things. Yahweh, if he even exists, is just some disillusional god (I'm a polytheist too remember). There are lots of gods so to me he is just one of several that I acknowledge the existence of.

Hmmm...
I'd like to hear Jay's opinion on this. Seems to me that if Judaism came up with it, They'd be worshiping yours, rather than theirs.

Actually your mixing up what I was saying. I was saying that the word "satan" has a specific meaning, and that it isn't the name of the grand supreme enemy of god. Rather Satan is a title meaning "accuser" or "opposition" or "Adversary". In Israel there used to be several entities called "satan", both angelic and mortal.

I am saying that my god, which is not a Jewish god, fits the description of the title Satan, and so I give him that title. But I am also saying saying that my god IS the god of our flesh, and that Christianity misidentified this god of our flesh as some big bad guy that wants to take god the creator's place. But of course the Christians think Yahweh is the creator, when in fact he is not. That is another god, of whom the god I call Satan is a specific manifestation of.

Does this make sense? I choose for semantic reasons to call my god "Satan", which take root in Judaism. I also am saying that I agree that Lucifer is not Satan because the evolution of that idea can be traced, and it does not stack-up to what a satan actually is, much less Ha-Satan in the book of Job who was working for Yahweh.

 

[sojourner]

Gnosticism says that the material world is an illusion and that it is evil and that Yahweh is the demigure, I belive none of those things. Yahweh, if he even exists, is just some disillusional god (I'm a polytheist too remember). There are lots of gods so to me he is just one of several that I acknowledge the existence of.



Actually your mixing up what I was saying. I was saying that the word "satan" has a specific meaning, and that it isn't the name of the grand supreme enemy of god. Rather Satan is a title meaning "accuser" or "opposition" or "Adversary". In Israel there used to be several entities called "satan", both angelic and mortal.

I am saying that my god, which is not a Jewish god, fits the description of the title Satan, and so I give him that title. But I am also saying saying that my god IS the god of our flesh, and that Christianity misidentified this god of our flesh as some big bad guy that wants to take god the creator's place. But of course the Christians think Yahweh is the creator, when in fact he is not. That is another god, of whom the god I call Satan is a specific manifestation of.

Does this make sense? I choose for semantic reasons to call my god "Satan", which take root in Judaism. I also am saying that I agree that Lucifer is not Satan because the evolution of that idea can be traced, and it does not stack-up to what a satan actually is, much less Ha-Satan in the book of Job who was working for Yahweh.

Thanks. That makes much better sense. Obviously, I don't follow that line of theology, myself. To me, God is God. Doesn't matter who thought up the idea, or what name is attached. God is God. Some people see God in several manifestations, or in a pantheon. Some (like me), see God as one Being.

So, back to your construct: Is sin, or separation from this God (Satan is your nomenclature), a problem that Satan needs to correct? Or do we correct it? Or is it even a problem to begin with? Does your construct include some kind of soteriology? If so, who is your soter? I'm asking because you're posting in a thread in which we're debating the forgiveness of sin, and if Jesus had to die in order to effect that forgiveness.

 

[jasonwill2]

Thanks. That makes much better sense. Obviously, I don't follow that line of theology, myself. To me, God is God. Doesn't matter who thought up the idea, or what name is attached. God is God. Some people see God in several manifestations, or in a pantheon. Some (like me), see God as one Being.

So, back to your construct: Is sin, or separation from this God (Satan is your nomenclature), a problem that Satan needs to correct? Or do we correct it? Or is it even a problem to begin with? Does your construct include some kind of soteriology? If so, who is your soter? I'm asking because you're posting in a thread in which we're debating the forgiveness of sin, and if Jesus had to die in order to effect that forgiveness.

I see two things as sin, trying to kill god and denying your "self". Denying yourself, as you are part of god and god is in you, is like trying to kill part of god. So this is trying to kill god through yourself.

Likewise when people hurt people when not for vengeance or self-defense, or hurt animals when not for food or self-defense, this is denial of Self through the person, which is like-wise like trying to "kill" god.

But killing god is impossible as he is the Universe, so in reality True evil is impossible. To truly commit evil would to be to end everything. So in essence sin is a temporal thing. Most of the time people can fix this by "acceptance of self" in the case that the crime is committed against yourself. if it's committed against someone else, then you have to make it right with them and have them forgive you OR they can make it right by getting their vengeance. Either way will work.

The only real long-term consequence only occurs when a bunch of sin builds up, and it damages our souls. Our souls are different than our spirits. The soul is the living part of our spirit that is part of our flesh, or in other words our personalities and egos. When most people die their souls die, but their spirits break-up into wisps. So I guess a lot of un-paid (not forgiven or vengeance taken against) sin would make the soul less likely to cling to the spirit on death. So if someone lives a life of hurting others for no good reason, then it stands to reason that when they die that's just that. For those who's souls stay more or less intact after death, they get to become either gods or lesser entities.

But even for those people the death of the soul and the breaking of the spirit into the elemental pieces is more like the deepest of deep slumber, where you have no conciousness, and no dreams. So what is left of the core piece of the spirit still exists and experiences, but the sin filled person really doesn't suffer a whole bunch in the end.

 

[sojourner]

I see two things as sin, trying to kill god and denying your "self". Denying yourself, as you are part of god and god is in you, is like trying to kill part of god. So this is trying to kill god through yourself.

Likewise when people hurt people when not for vengeance or self-defense, or hurt animals when not for food or self-defense, this is denial of Self through the person, which is like-wise like trying to "kill" god.

But killing god is impossible as he is the Universe, so in reality True evil is impossible. To truly commit evil would to be to end everything. So in essence sin is a temporal thing. Most of the time people can fix this by "acceptance of self" in the case that the crime is committed against yourself. if it's committed against someone else, then you have to make it right with them and have them forgive you OR they can make it right by getting their vengeance. Either way will work.

The only real long-term consequence only occurs when a bunch of sin builds up, and it damages our souls. Our souls are different than our spirits. The soul is the living part of our spirit that is part of our flesh, or in other words our personalities and egos. When most people die their souls die, but their spirits break-up into wisps. So I guess a lot of un-paid (not forgiven or vengeance taken against) sin would make the soul less likely to cling to the spirit on death. So if someone lives a life of hurting others for no good reason, then it stands to reason that when they die that's just that. For those who's souls stay more or less intact after death, they get to become either gods or lesser entities.

But even for those people the death of the soul and the breaking of the spirit into the elemental pieces is more like the deepest of deep slumber, where you have no conciousness, and no dreams. So what is left of the core piece of the spirit still exists and experiences, but the sin filled person really doesn't suffer a whole bunch in the end.

Mk. We don't see eye-to-eye on some stuff. On other stuff, we do. Your construct appears to be fairly humanistic. So is mine.

 

[1robin]

I see two things as sin, trying to kill god and denying your "self". Denying yourself, as you are part of god and god is in you, is like trying to kill part of god. So this is trying to kill god through yourself.

Likewise when people hurt people when not for vengeance or self-defense, or hurt animals when not for food or self-defense, this is denial of Self through the person, which is like-wise like trying to "kill" god.

But killing god is impossible as he is the Universe, so in reality True evil is impossible. To truly commit evil would to be to end everything. So in essence sin is a temporal thing. Most of the time people can fix this by "acceptance of self" in the case that the crime is committed against yourself. if it's committed against someone else, then you have to make it right with them and have them forgive you OR they can make it right by getting their vengeance. Either way will work.

The only real long-term consequence only occurs when a bunch of sin builds up, and it damages our souls. Our souls are different than our spirits. The soul is the living part of our spirit that is part of our flesh, or in other words our personalities and egos. When most people die their souls die, but their spirits break-up into wisps. So I guess a lot of un-paid (not forgiven or vengeance taken against) sin would make the soul less likely to cling to the spirit on death. So if someone lives a life of hurting others for no good reason, then it stands to reason that when they die that's just that. For those who's souls stay more or less intact after death, they get to become either gods or lesser entities.

But even for those people the death of the soul and the breaking of the spirit into the elemental pieces is more like the deepest of deep slumber, where you have no conciousness, and no dreams. So what is left of the core piece of the spirit still exists and experiences, but the sin filled person really doesn't suffer a whole bunch in the end.

Where do you get all your theology? Is it one source or many?