Forgiveness

[sojourner]

At least those who pick the Bible as inerrant are picking a standard by which to measure things. The way you use the Scriptures is like trying to build a car our of fog. If personal opinion is the highest standard then anarchy is the natural result and every religion simply means "whatever I want it to mean" which is using six words to say nothing.

That's a pretty low standard, though. And this isn't about "picking and choosing." it's about weighing the veracity of scripture through a variety of scholastic processes that are based upon the sense of the community, not the opinion of an individual.
Therefore, religion is not "whatever I want it to mean." It's more "whatever we determine it to mean."

 

[sojourner]

He did refer to himself as "the good shepherd" and "I lay my life down for my sheep." There are lots of places in Scripture where Jesus made it clear that he intended to die and for a purpose.

"From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life," the purpose being "...to give his life as a ransom for many."

Could be the gospel writer writing after the fact, to explain the act, or to assign meaning to it.

 

[sojourner]

Finally! Someone who understands and agrees with the OP.

The question then is why was the crucifixion necessary? Considering that forgiveness by its nature does not require sacrifice and that the life of Christ was a living example of forgiveness and his instructions to his disciples was to forgive without limits, why then did God require a sacrifice. The two are in conflict with one another.

God didn't "require a sacrifice." It's only necessary if one buys into the theology of "substitutionary atonement."

 

[sojourner]

Don't get me wrong. This is not my hangup. I don't believe that the New Testament is accurate by any standards. But in order to be a Christian you do have to take the "words of Christ" as that and nothing other. Otherwise, there is no real point in referring to the Scriptures.

No, you don't. the Bible is the witness of the Church, not the autobiography of Jesus.

 

[Riverwolf]

What do you mean?

Would happiness be as cherished as it is without feeling sadness?

(Keep in mind, this argument is based on the idea of there being a heaven and hell, which I don't believe.)

To those who suffer and stay true to God, their reward in heaven is greater than one who did not suffer, even though they technically get the same reward.

To us, food is simply food. To one who is starving, food is greater than all the treasures of the world.

Haven't you heard the song, "Through Heaven's Eyes," from the Prince of Egypt soundtrack?

 

[slave2six]

That's a pretty low standard, though. And this isn't about "picking and choosing." it's about weighing the veracity of scripture through a variety of scholastic processes that are based upon the sense of the community, not the opinion of an individual.
Therefore, religion is not "whatever I want it to mean." It's more "whatever we determine it to mean."

And what do the Church Fathers have to say on the matter?

 

[slave2six]

Could be the gospel writer writing after the fact, to explain the act, or to assign meaning to it.

If it has meaning then what does it mean?

 

[slave2six]

God didn't "require a sacrifice." It's only necessary if one buys into the theology of "substitutionary atonement."

And if you don't read any of the Old Testament, the Gospels, or the Epistles.

 

[slave2six]

the Bible is the witness of the Church, not the autobiography of Jesus.

Meaning that the Church is more important than Christ? I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[slave2six]

Would happiness be as cherished as it is without feeling sadness?

(Keep in mind, this argument is based on the idea of there being a heaven and hell, which I don't believe.)

To those who suffer and stay true to God, their reward in heaven is greater than one who did not suffer, even though they technically get the same reward.

To us, food is simply food. To one who is starving, food is greater than all the treasures of the world.

Haven't you heard the song, "Through Heaven's Eyes," from the Prince of Egypt soundtrack?

Yes. Clearly you are right. I just find it futile to assign a lot of weight to "meaning" in the context of "It is so much more meaningful because I know what it's like to have suffered...." I mean, in the grand scheme of things, are we really better off more fully appreciating peace because we know what war is like? I don't think so. The trauma and the suffering make peace more meaningful, certainly. But I don't know anyone who has seen someone close to them who was a slave to drugs or alcohol who would not have much more preferred that the druggie/alcoholic had never known (and caused) such torment even though they are now clean and living a sober life. I mean, good on ya if you've gotten out of that kind of hell but who would choose that history over innocence?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes. Clearly you are right. I just find it futile to assign a lot of weight to "meaning" in the context of "It is so much more meaningful because I know what it's like to have suffered...." I mean, in the grand scheme of things, are we really better off more fully appreciating peace because we know what war is like? I don't think so. The trauma and the suffering make peace more meaningful, certainly. But I don't know anyone who has seen someone close to them who was a slave to drugs or alcohol who would not have much more preferred that the druggie/alcoholic had never known (and caused) such torment even though they are now clean and living a sober life. I mean, good on ya if you've gotten out of that kind of hell but who would choose that history over innocence?

Is it better to remain a child, having everything done for you and being, on the whole, unable to take care of yourself, or is it better to suffer through adolescence and become a productive, independent adult?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I do believe that His death effected the outpouring of grace necessary for salvation. He stands in the place of the many before God, He "drinks deeply of the darkness of man's God-forsakenness", and endures the righteous hot indignation of the Father. The sinful nature is slayed in His Body.

In the shedding of His Body and Blood, as the gift of the Father to the world, all people can stand inside Him if they would partake in Him. Here, inside Christ and of their own free-will, they can experience human nature as it is untainted by disobedience- in fact, as it is in victory over sin.

God destroys sin for us- an act which we could not accomplish- but he does not force its defeat on us. We must come to the One in Whom it was put to death.

 

[slave2six]

Is it better to remain a child, having everything done for you and being, on the whole, unable to take care of yourself, or is it better to suffer through adolescence and become a productive, independent adult?

I don't see that suffering and growing necessarily have to go hand in hand. It does not take being homeless to know that acquiring a skill, learning to cook, etc are good things that allow for a stable and more fruitful life. Nor does it require that someone stab you to know that knives are sharp and need to be handled properly. We are intelligent beings who are able to maintain knowledge and wisdom. "Experience is the best teacher, but he is a fool who learns only from his own."

All that is requisite is that someone wiser than us instruct us on what to avoid and what to pursue. A parent is useful in this regard. Not that the parent will do everything for you. A good parent will teach you how to be self-sufficient. It is every good parent's joy to see their child become a person who no longer needs the parent. It is every child's joy to be independent of their parents and yet to honor them for raising them up to become so.

My grandfather was abandoned by his father at the age of 5 and was raised by a truly awful woman who beat him every day because he "did something wrong today." When my uncle was born, my grandparents literally lived under a tree with a tarp as a roof and a hole in the ground to keep their perishables in. They went on to raise four children and even though my father's childhood was not without its dramatic challenges, it was better than his fathers. And my childhood was better than my father's, although not perfect. My children have consequently had pretty good childhoods. I have one grown child, three adolescents and one entering into adolescence. None are or have been required to "suffer through adolescence" to "become a productive, independent adults." All of them speak to me openly about their lives and are willing to hear me out when I offer advice or relate stories that are pertinent to their situation. They are the first in at least five generations of my family to attend college or to even believe that they can have professional careers as business owners, medical doctors, etc. My grandfather suffered far more than I ever have. I can tell you from his life that such suffering was not a benefit to him or to his wife and family nearly as much as my lack thereof has been for mine.

To my mind, it is the religious person who refuses to step out of childhood and to grow up to maturity. It is because of this that I debate on this forum because I simply cannot believe that God can be defined as "good" in any sense of the term and still be responsible for setting up things in the way that Christianity explains life. I believe there is a God and that by definition He must be good, although it seems clear that he/she is not present as a "personal" God in the sense that my parents were present and personal in my life. But this is a relatively new realization to me. Having been indoctrinated in a hyper-religious family, all of my mental energies were spent in understanding God from within the framework of Christianity. I was never taught why Christianity was true. I was simply told that it was. It wasn't until I began to evaluate the thing as a whole, rather that merely accepting the premise, that I realized how absurd the premise upon which Christianity is based really is. I am firmly convinced that thinking is better than believing.

 

[slave2six]

I do believe that His death effected the outpouring of grace necessary for salvation. He stands in the place of the many before God, He "drinks deeply of the darkness of man's God-forsakenness", and endures the righteous hot indignation of the Father. The sinful nature is slayed in His Body.

So, you do accept the premise that the human sacrifice was required before God was willing/able to render the "outpouring of grace necessary for salvation." This was the premise of the OP. But it seems clear to me that in order to believe this one has to assume that God is sub-human simply because every human is capable of forgiving/outpouring grace on someone who has offended or sinned against them and it is precisely this ability to show grace without prerequisites that makes forgiveness/grace such a powerful force. It is also the central theme to the life of Christ, a life that did not demonstrate the need for sacrifice in order to affect reconciliation but rather that simply poured out forgiveness and instructed his followers to do the same. This is in stark contrast to the death of Christ and the purpose that you describe above.

In the shedding of His Body and Blood, as the gift of the Father to the world, all people can stand inside Him if they would partake in Him. Here, inside Christ and of their own free-will, they can experience human nature as it is untainted by disobedience- in fact, as it is in victory over sin.

There is not one Christian in all of history who had victory over sin or who, after becoming Christian, lived a life "untainted by disobedience." Not one. Paul calls the Christian "a new creature; the old has passed away, the new has come." But this is completely untrue. Every Christian has the same lusts and battles with "sin" as they had before and every one of them succumbs at one point or another. If the "old has passed away" then such things are impossible. If you miraculously turn a koala into a dolphin, you won't find it sitting on a branch chomping on leaves. A new creature which has shed off "the old" would similarly be unable to do the things that the old creature did.

God destroys sin for us- an act which we could not accomplish- but he does not force its defeat on us. We must come to the One in Whom it was put to death.

This is rather like saying that just because we won the war doesn't mean that the Nazis are no longer in power and therefore Jews in Germany are still at risk of being gassed to death. That makes no sense at all.

 

[Diederick]

I think the gruesome death of Jesus has been invented to make people feel guilty. I really can't think of any other purpose to it, especially not since you point out that God can forgive without any sacrifice.

Then again, Jesus can be considered the ultimate scapegoat. Sacrificing the son of a Deity seems pretty huge.

 

[sojourner]

And what do the Church Fathers have to say on the matter?

the Church Fathers aren't the only people in the community. My particular group is more revisionist than simply asking "what they said."

 

[sojourner]

And if you don't read any of the Old Testament, the Gospels, or the Epistles.

First, this isn't an OT Church. Second, the gospels and epistles can be interpreted either way. it's up to us to find an interpretation that is humane, morally responsible, and theologically sound.

 

[sojourner]

Meaning that the Church is more important than Christ? I don't understand what you are saying here.

No, meaning that the Bible is what it is. The Church wrote, compiled, edited and canonized the Bible. The Bible is the witness of the Church. Therefore, the "Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it" argument is moot.

 

[slave2six]

the Church Fathers aren't the only people in the community. My particular group is more revisionist than simply asking "what they said."

Meaning that your group simply does what it wants and uses whatever is convenient to support it rather than considering whether they are conformed to some outside authority. Again, such a religion is meaningless and without value as it is built on anarchy.

 

[slave2six]

First, this isn't an OT Church. Second, the gospels and epistles can be interpreted either way. it's up to us to find an interpretation that is humane, morally responsible, and theologically sound.

Respectfully but no it isn't. That would be like walking with Jesus and listening to him, being taught by him and then saying that you'll take his teachings into consideration. The student is not above his master. Your problem is that you have no master.