The Christianity Thread

edited 21st Nov '11 2:52:12 PM by Justice4243

OK, so he says, but how does he know that to be the case? How could he know that to be the case? And how does it work? How does one person's temporary suffering pay for everybody else's eternal suffering? None of that makes any sense to me.

If I were ruler of my own country, and declared that all dissidents were to be captured and tortured, but then instead imprisoned my own son for three days before letting him live in my castle, that would basically be the same thing, right?

The very link you mentioned establishes multiple models that are similar, but don’t work the same way. So it’s not like this is the only model necessary to explain the practice.

That being said, Barnes is one of the most prominent Protestant Bible commentators in all history, and the quote was just small portion of his commentary on a single verse. If you scroll down to “Barnes’ Notes on the Bible” on this page you can read his very lengthy reasoning.

Some of what happened to Jesus was potentially fulfilling prophecy. Also, it was something of a metaphorical atonement ritual as was discussed. So unless your kingdom example has room for prophetic scripture; penance rituals; and repealing or at least, explaining of old rules by establishing you have the right to do so , it’s not an apt analogy.

What I don't get is a god accepting himself as sacrifice.

This is potentially getting into Trinity vs no-Trinity and/or the divine nature of Jesus, which theologians have been debating for centuries.

In a way, the very idea that Jesus was divine in some nature or another probably helps the case of him being a "perfect sacrifice". But some reject the notion that he was "God", anyhow, and it’s worth noting that Catholics and other Churches seem to have a slightly different model than the one we’re discussing, so the nature of Jesus may be seen as differently when this particular ideology regarding the nature of his sacrifice.

edited 21st Nov '11 3:44:14 PM by Justice4243

Um, the way I see it, Jesus was an aspect of God (but not the whole being, which means when people like Lawyerdude go on about how mean God is when they're talking only of God the Father, they're missing something big), but he was also the first time God, or PART of God, had been vulnerable. He was tempted, he got hurt, he was scared, he cried in pain and fear and anger. All very human things. Maybe THAT was the sacrifice God made, ultimately.

I mean, obviously the aspects have some level of individuality from each other, while still not being seperate people as we see them...or maybe they ARE seperate people as WE see them, but the same person on the level that, well, GOD operates on. It's very...tricky... But when God chose to make part of himself vulnerable, maybe on some level he was making all of himself vulnerable. If Jesus had fallen to temptation, would God still be God?

Part of the thing that complicates this so much is that humans really have no proper frame of reference for how a triplicate being works. We know roughly how a single being works, and how three beings work, but a triplicate being is different.

edited 21st Nov '11 3:51:58 PM by Katrika

He also didn't seem to want to die, or at least, not the way he expected it to happen, despite understanding it was for the best.

He certainly seemed to believe he was sacrificing something.

Wouldn't Jesus being seperate from God make Christanity go against the First Commandment?

And if they are part of a whole it'd be like paying gift tax for passing money from one hand to the other. Also if being human would be the sacrifice wouldn't each and every human going through the same be sacrifice enough?

edited 21st Nov '11 4:19:44 PM by Qeise

Not being human. Being human an able to actually be hurt in a meaningful sense when you couldn't before.

The (Mormon) explanation I've most commonly heard for the reason Christ needed to be sacrificed is aptly described by a parable:

There once was a man who wanted to buy a new car. To do this, he had to get a loan from his wealthy neighbor. However, when the time came around, he couldn't pay the money back. They got into an argument, the Debtor demanding that the wealthy man be Merciful, while the wealthy man maintained that Justice had to be served. They could not reach an understanding. At just that moment, however, the debtor's friend walked in. He had money, and he offered to give the wealthy man his money, but only if the debtor would pay him back. In this way, Mercy was given, and Justice was met.

The man is us, the car is worldly pleasure, the money is sin, the wealthy man is God, the mediator is Jesus.

God, by necessity, must be both endlessly merciful and endlessly just. The only way this could happen is through a mediator, who has to take the initial hit.

Does that answer the question?

Just a clarification, Sheep. You mean the wealthy man is God the Father, not God.

Yes, thank you. Though, to be fair, when people use the term 'God', they generally mean the Father, especially when they use 'Jesus' in the same sentence. And, compounding this, Mormons never say 'God the Father', as they will always call Jesus or the Spirit by those terms.

Yeah, I just figure that as long as the issue of the Trinity had been brought up...

edited 21st Nov '11 5:41:15 PM by Katrika

@Sheep: Where is the Mercy in your parable? The lender received Justice; he received the money he was owed. The borrower didn't receive Mercy; he was in the same position as before, except owing the same money to a different person that he still can't repay. The rich friend didn't grant either Justice or Mercy; he received another person's obligation to him. And the borrower only has himself to blame for his situation; he voluntarily incurred a debt he was unable to repay.

The only way to satisfy Justice and Mercy in that situation would be for the rich friend to pay off the debt and ask for absolutely nothing in return. The lender is paid off, the debt is redeemed (not forgiven), and the rich friend forgoes any right to receive repayment.

If a person owes me money, then I can demand repayment or forgive the debt. And a debt is a voluntary obligation. I can't impose a debt onto another person without his or her consent. And nobody can impose a debt on me without my consent. And nobody can forgive a debt owed to anybody but himself.

I fail to see what this story is supposed to illustrate.

If the person wasn't expected to pay their new creditor right away, I.E. they where given an extension, that would certainly cover "mercy".

That doesn't address Justice whatsoever. The debtor basically just got free money.

edited 21st Nov '11 10:34:46 PM by Justice4243

Sure it does. The creditor already received Justice; he got what was owed to him.

And if you're talking about buying the debtor an extension, is that what the metaphor of Jesus means? That believers only get additional time to pay their "debt" that they can never repay anyway?

Yes, because all metaphors are perfect.

I don't expect metaphors to be perfect, but I do expect them to be apt.

What Justice and Sheep seem to be saying is that we sin in order to obtain worldly pleasure, as if God would give us the ability to experience pleasure but then threaten us with punishment if we dare to enjoy it. That's just sadistic.

edited 22nd Nov '11 6:58:07 AM by Lawyerdude

Why do you think God put an apple tree in front of Adam and Eve and told them not to eat any? He only wanted to watch them squirm.

DAT GOD

No, he was too stupid to figure out that two non-sapient imbeciles would fail to follow his orders and that a snake who was also stupid didn't manage to get them to eat from both trees on time.

Please stop insulting my beliefs.

"No, he was too stupid to figure out that two non-sapient imbeciles would fail to follow his orders and that a snake who was also stupid didn't manage to get them to eat from both trees on time."

"He also didn't seem to want to die, or at least, not the way he expected it to happen, despite understanding it was for the best."

Best interpretation ever:

edited 22nd Nov '11 9:00:28 AM by kashchei

Oh, in the name of Hastur.

This is a summary of some of the main theories regarding the exact nature of Christ's Sacrifice. As one can see, there are a number of different alternatives — I won't go into any detail, and to be honest I am not sure if I understand the matter enough to even try, but this certainly is something Christianity gave a lot of thought about.

One way to think about it that I find useful (but I am not sure if it is entirely correct) is the following one: sin, ultimately, induces a separation between man and God. This separation is also often called a "punishment" for the sin; and while this is not incorrect, I think that the term "punishment" gives the wrong impression. The point is not that God gets pissy at those pesky disrespectful humans and marks them for a good old-fashioned smiting; it's instead humans who, out of their own will, decide to detach themselves from God — and hence, from the sole source of everything that is good.

Now, this gap between man and God is not something that can be surpassed through mere human strength. But on the other hand, it's not something that can be dealt with unilaterally by God: this would mean infringing on the free will of human being, which is a very big no-no.

So, what we apparently need is a human being to answer in a total way to God's invitation, and take upon himself to recover the connection between Man and God. Jesus was this man — the only one who could have done that, really — and the Crucifixion was the way in which He did it.

Could He have used some different way? Perhaps, I am not sure. But whatever the "solution" would have been, I am quite sure that it would have required a "perfect human being" to answer to God's offer of reconciliation, in the name of all of humankind. And this "perfect human being" would have suffered for that, badly. Saying that sin carries a penalty is misleading; rather, I would say that sin is its own penalty, and you do not get rid of it by refusing its consequences.

This is way more confused than I intended it to be, and, as I said, I am not 100% sure that it is correct — please feel free to correct me if you spot mistakes!

edited 22nd Nov '11 9:17:16 AM by Carciofus

Let's not overthink it. If you're questioning why the sacrifice is so potent, see how you feel about dying for all of humanity.

It seems a little off for what we're discussing considering once the substitute is in place it simply goes away.

It might be something of an apt metaphor for the original covenant being completed, though suggests no further action is required on the debtor. As we discussed, there is some degree of action that's required from adherence to Christianity besides just believing.

Where are you getting the "they can never repay anyway" idea from? The idea is they CAN pay through Jesus's terms.

Which actually makes a lot of sense considering Jesus's terms where a bit less strict than the formulaic rules of the OT.

Let's keep the snarky and ill-conceived alternative character interpretations out of the thread, shall we?

This thread has been less a discussion and more an excuse for people grind their axes for many, many pages now. It'd be nice if we can have some actual discussion without people figuring out how much venom they can inject with their posts and get away with it.

edited 22nd Nov '11 10:40:05 AM by Justice4243