Mageth

An interesting theory I've recently read about the incarnation and crucifixion (in C. G. Jung's Answer to Job) is that, in addition to the redemptive purpose (reconciling us with god and delivering us from the consequences of sin and god's wrath), the primary purposes were to bring God to consciousness (God was previosly in an "unconscious" state, lacking self-reflection and often not consulting his own omniscience, and was jolted into realization of this during the Job account - God realizing Job was more moral, and conscious, than he), make God concrete in nature, and to reconcile God with man (to make reparations for the wrongs God had done man - see Job and other OT stories). Humanity is delivered from fear of God (God of the OT) in addition to being delivered "from their sins".

I think I got that basically right. An interesting view, I must say.

Theophage

Howdy again, Eric :^)

For many years I felt very much like you seem to feel, I could not understand why Christ needed to die to forgive our sins.

Excellent! And then you gained that understanding, right? God clued you in to why this was done? Please share it with me...

Christ died to forgive us our sins, this feels like we are born with a debt to pay back-we owe Christ.

I'm sorry, it doesn't feel that way to me.

This would be like saying that when we are born we have a million pound debt to pay back,

I don't remember asking to be born, thus I have no debt due to it.

we feel guilty being in debt, and we cannot be free until we have paid back this debt.

I seriously doubt that anyone feels guilty about this debt except those who are already Christians and already believe this way. I certainly don't. Do you have any counterexamples?

I don’t believe that we were created to feel indebted to Christ.

Neither do I. In fact, I don't feel indebted to Christ, so apparently I turned out okay, right?

Logically it should be within God’s power to say your sins are forgiven, and that would be the end of it.

Yes, logically it would, however CJD disagrees with you and I there.

Logically, If God does not benefit from the death and resurrection of Christ, and if Christ did not benefit, then it seems the resurrection was more for man’s benefit somehow.

You forgot an option: it didn't benefit anyone and was needless. If, indeed, it does benefit mankind, you could tell me what that benefit was, yes?

Maybe Christ is giving us something and also asking us to do something in return.

You'd think that the Word of God would be a bit more explicit on that point than merely raising a "maybe" wouldn't you? But then again, if he is asking us to do something in return, then it wasn't an unconditional selfless act was it? More like a means to an end. Your theology seems to be tying itself into knots here.

I feel the answers hang on the greatest commandments, faith, hope and charity.

And the necessary reason for the crucifixion and sacrifice of Jesus is....? Come on man! If you know, don't keep me hanging!

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Theophage

This is very similar to what Beastmaster wrote earlier in reference to Joseph Campbell's viewpoint. Very interesting and very logical if we assume the existance of a very human/flawed deity.

Mageth

You're right - I'd forgotten this was the thread beastmaster had mentioned that on, actually, and I've read Jung's book since I read that post. I suspect Campbell may have based his view on Jung's work - he was heavily influenced by Jung.

Jung's book (Answer to Job) is an interesting, if difficult, read, if anyone wants to delve into this topic a bit more. In it, Jung gives his admittedly subjective opinion on why such a flawed, "unconscious" deity actually makes more sense in the context of the Biblical texts (understanding God that way certainly helps one to make sense of otherwise hard-to-swallow OT descriptions of God, and on the need for incarnation and crucifixion).

Doctor X

As much as I enjoy Jung and regularly blast Synchronicity from my stereo to remind the Great Unwashed that, once, some time ago, bands made music, methinks those slaughtered by YHWH in the stories found him rather "concrete."

--J.D.

Devilnaut

Hi Theophage.


To orthodox Christianity, the object of separation is sin, and this is what I address with my argument. If you believe it is something other than sin which separates man and God, then my argument simply doesn't apply to your beliefs.

But this is exactly what I'm saying. What would you say sin is, in essence? I'd call it deviation, or interruption. Original sin is the deviation from the path of God. The path of God is an uninterrupted wave of events, the product of a single "intention". The original sin is the creation of "things", the separation of God (where God is defined as "all that is") into parts. This means that after original sin, humans suddenly have the perception of "things". With the perception of things (two things: good and evil. Their world is cut in halves) comes the responsibility of choice. With the responsibility of choice comes the perception of the chooser as the "origin" of the choice, also known as the perception of an intentional will or ego (or identity). This was the original sin against God.


How does bloodshed "unmake" the "creation of an intentional will", and why would God create something like that if he knew it needed to be unmade?

Well by bloodshed I assumed you meant destruction. The spilling of blood just signifies this.

I agree that God would not create anything that he knew needed to be unmade. But I don't think God created the will, and this is the whole point. If he had created it it would not have been made in sin.


Regardless, these questions do go outside the scope of what I was asking for in this thread. Thanks anyway,

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

That's fine, but keep in mind that this means that you might not get an adequate answer..

Theophage

How very, very true

Eric H

Hello Daniel,


I do not consciously recall any direct revelations from God. Belief and faith have been a gradual process one day at a time, it came about by searching for a greatest good in the Bible, and doing something.

I think it is just as easy to read the Bible and search for negative or evil intentions, we find the evidence that we want to find. In a way the Bible can seem to give us the freedom to justify what we want to do.

We start of from a very different belief, so I would not expect you to see the crucifixion as any form of debt, but that is how it came across to me originally.

I know many Christians find other meanings also, so I won’t dwell on the point.

Maybe Christ is giving us something and also asking us to do something in return.


You'd think that the Word of God would be a bit more explicit on that point than merely raising a "maybe" wouldn't you?

I often use the word maybe because I am using interpretations, any of which could be suspect.



Peace

Eric

Eric H

Hello Daniel,

It would be a means to an end if the benefit were directly for God, but!!

If God loves humanity unconditionally as he loves himself!!

And if he wants nothing back from us that would be for his own personal gain!!


My reasoning is what can I give to God that would be directly for his benefit, I could give him a burnt offering of a bull or a lamb maybe. But God created the bull and the lamb, these things already belonged to God, It would only be me returning Gods property.

What can I give to God, which he didn’t already create and own already?

The greatest thing I can do in a practical way is to love my neighbour as I love myself, second greatest commandment.

The greatest thing I am COMMANDED to do is love God, but I have never met God, so how can I do that in a practical way?

In other words the greatest commandments are aimed directly for the benefit of my neighbours, and only indirectly for the benefit of God.

I believe the doing something for God willingly and voluntarily, is not a means to an end for God.

Interpretations again.

Peace

Eric

Theophage

It's like trying to nail jello to the wall...

Eric, it's been fun dancing with you, but I'm afraid my feet are getting tired. "What dance would that be," you ask? The dance around a simple argument I offered on the original post on this thread. I understand that criticisms of the argument may not be nearly as simple or direct as the argument itself, but I was definitely expecting better than this.

When the question of the necessity of Jesus' crucifixion came up, you gave some vague answers about:

1) The need for Jesus to demonstrate to the crowd that he had the power to forgive sins (alluding to the fact that the crucifixion was just such a demonstration), and

2) That there were reasons for the crucifixion other than merely the forgiveness of sins (implying that the crucifixion was indeed necessary, just not for forgiveness).

When I brought to your attention that in the story of the paralytic (just to use a single example) that the healing of the man was indeed sufficient for those witnessing that the forgiveness of sins, you discontinued that objection and brought up another, namely:

3) That Jesus necessarily decided on the crucifixion before the world was even created (thus implying that Jesus was able to forgive due to his decision to be crucified, rather than from the crucifixion itself.

I then brought up the fact that merely deciding to be crucified was insufficient to substitute for the crucifixion itself, and thus could not confer an ability to forgive alone. In addition, I asked for support for (2), what specific other reasons was the crucifision for that made it necessary.

Instead of the answers to these relatively simple questions, I get lots of dancing and irrelevant ideas. This is exactly what CJD has given me regarding his objection to my argument (functionally the same as your (3) above).

Please folks, if you can't answer the questions, then just say so. If you can, don't beat around the bush and just do it.

As for Amos and Devilnaut, I really don't understand their objections well enough to respond to effectively, so I hope they can both forgive me for not doing so unless they can explain themselves a bit more clearly.

Thank you all for your participation in this thread, I found it very enlightening.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark