may

hi
The answer to your question is no, God did not pay a ransom to himself because Jesus is not God.He is Gods only begotten son, the bible always harmonizes when the correct interpretation is applied .The bible does not teach the manmade trinity doctrine ,Jesus is not part of the trinity

Hyndis

For the vast majority of Christians, this position is heresy.

Orthodoxy Christianity is a rather minor sect as compared to the Roman Catholic Church and various protestant sects. While removing the trinity doctrine also removes some of the silliness of the problem, there's still the problem of why God set up the system in the first place.

Why does God require sacrifice at all?

Why can't people just genuinely be sorry?

may

Hi

Yes, you are correct,this position is regarded as heresy by the vast majority of so called christians, still, when we think about it , the majority does not make something correct if it is wrong, God did not set up the trinity doctrine.

capsaicin67

may:That could be true for any number of incorrect or absurd statements, if we rationalize them after the fact. That seems to me to be a problematic peg to hang one's hat on.

capsaicin67

Hyndis: Seems reasonable to me.

Sacrifices were a part of of the culture and story in a much more routine way back when a lot of this stuff started being generated. I suspect that the reason it "stuck" is that it added a layer of guilt and indebtedness to grease the skids of the matter.

First, you should have been sorry for "letting god down" you bad human, second, he bailed you out by setting his son up to be killed....you OWE him BIGTIME! I think it just works on the guilt trip and shame level better than no guilt trip, as far as finessing the flock into the pens...er...pews.

People "accept Jesus" insincerely just as they can say they "are sorry" insincerely. So it isn't any more effective on that level.

What matters is if the person believes in the values endorsed, and if they regret a course of action and want to genuinely subscribe to a new course of action. In my mind. And I can do that even without the supernatural. But it doesn't manipulate me on as many levels, and that might be perceived as a disadvantege to those that want to herd me into their particular pen to be fleeced and harvested for the benefit of their club.

HerrAxel

Are you saying Jesus was an outlet for God's anger, a "punching bag" if you will? And since when is God concerned about appearing to be a "pushover"?

He's hardly loving anyway. He killed 42 children for taunting a man who was bald. I'm wondering why that murder would be a sin for us, but not for God. Is there a double standard? Who's going to atone for God?

Who was offended when God killed all the first born of Egypt?

Would you regard the genocide of all the world's children in the great flood as a perfect execution of justice?

-

llamaluvr

What about all the places where he says stuff like "I and the father are one" (John 10:30)? It's awful hard to interpret that statement as meaning anything other than he's one with God in some facet.

Your position isn't considered heretical because most people disagree with it. It's heretical because it contradicts scripture.


mindovermyth, I think the best way to look at this is through the lens of an engineer. An engineer might have all the possible tools needed to build any conceivable bridge. However, even if he technically can, the parameters of his environment will cause him to only be able to build a small subset of any bridge he could think of. Gravity will force him to have a strong foundation, wind will force him to make it stable enough not to blow over, the movement of water will force him to make the base out of non-corrosive materials, etc.

Now, replace the engineer with God. If he's all-knowing, he should be able to conceive of a virtual infinitude of plans for humanity. However, like the bridge builder, he still has to work within constraints, such as logic, morality, and the need to preserve man's free will. The only real difference is that these conditions would be self-imposed, rather than part of an inheirited environment. Even if we consider these design decisions rather than part of the initial conditions, I'm sure you can see some utility in him choosing to preserve the logical integrity of the universe, uphold his standard of what is good, and allow humans to freely choose their allegiances.

If God considers those preconditions as being unnegotiable, we're left with a much smaller set of possibilities for God redeeming mankind. I'm no genius, but I'm having a tremendously hard time thinking of anything that could actually do this better than Christ's crucifixion did.

I do agree that my description of the rationale behind it is simple. I think it is basically accurate, but there's a lot more that could be said about it. A resource I enjoyed was RC Sproul's Saved from What?. It's a quick 100+ page overview of all the theological details of atonement. I'd draw from it more, but I can't find it :-/ ...I'll have to look for it when I go home for break.

Anyway, to guage whether or not the crucifixion was a success, one really needs to define the point where they think God should be allowed to hoist the "Mission Accomplished" banner. If his primary aim was to provide a way for any human to be allowed to not have to bear the eternal penalty for his own sins, then I think the crucifixion was wildly successful. If a perfect sacrifice satisfies God's wrath, then salvation for all men is here, and discussion is at an end. What do you think his goal should have been?


HerrAxel, I don't know if punching bag is exactly the most accurate way of describing it, but, eh, maybe it is. He did take out all his anger against the sins of men on Jesus. Also, it's not that he's "concerned" with being a pushover, it's that he just isn't going to be one. As a perfect judge, he knows the law, states the law, and doesn't deviate from it. If he does it any other way, he's no longer a perfect judge.

I'm extremely doubtful that any innocent man, except I guess Jesus, has ever been smitten by God. It's important to note, however, what God is taking away in the stories you have recounted. He's not damning anybody to hell. He's dealing out earthly punishments for sin. Granted, if they were acting as the Bible says they were acting, we might deduce that a high percentage of the affected people would be in Hell, but all we know from these passages is that he took their lives. We know nothing of their eternal state.

If God made the world and was that serious about people not sinning, it only makes sense that the natural world backs up the notion that sin is bad. Activities that are considered sinful generally shouldn't be good for your earthly health or your eternal health. We see that in the OT as people getting smitten, and in modern times with sexual promiscuity increasing one's odds of contracting deadly diseases, among other things.

Hopeful Monsters

... has some relevance to this Topic

Ahab

Usually the version (or interpretation) of the crucifixion that most atheists are confronted with is the evangelical/fundamentalist one: god is completely merciful and completely just and the only way he could allow us bad sinners back into his heavenly kingdom was to literally pay off the debt for our sins. The part about justice being emphasized.
There are other non-heretical interpretations. One being that this was god's way of showing that he would do anything for us including dying. It was an act of love and not a fulfillment of justice. And by becoming sin (as it says somewhere in the N.T.) he took on responsibility for his messed up creation. It was his way of saying: "look I know things are messed up down here but I created you and I take responsibility for this mess. And by sacrificing myself through love I am showing you a way to make things less messy down here."

Not going to try and defend this as a logical and coherent philosophy. But there are many Christians who see this as an empowering act of love and not as a threat to be used to persuade unbelievers to convert to the faith.

may

Hi,again if the correct interpretation is applied all of the bible harmonizes.
(john 10; 30)
“I and the Father Are One�

THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being “one� with the Father. At John 17:21,22, he prayed to God that his disciples “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . that they may be one just as we are one.� Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.—See also 1Corinthians 1:10.