Interesting read, very controversial

New Castles

Read something today, that I thought was very interesting. It screams in the face of thousands of years of Christian belief. It expresses the authors belief that Jesus's sacrifice was in vain.

"If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge."

Just thought I'd post it and see where it goes and try to get some good opinions.

myauntfanny

Well, I have real big problem understanding the idea of salvation through christs death, on the same grounds. I just can't see how the suffering and/or death of a person who didn't commit the crime, can take away the guilt of the person who did. I've asked loads of people, no one seems to be able to help me understand it. But I read an article in Time magazine that at least showed me that no one understands it, not on logical grounds anyway. It said there have been various theories over at least a 1000 years, and listed a few. None of them made sense to me.

funkyderek

The idea of the "ransom" is patently absurd. The culprit and the victim are one and the same - all humans. The one paying the ransom and the one demanding that the ransom be paid are one and the same - God. The payment is the life of an innocent man (and/or God, the absurdities of theology complicate matters). Many of the culprits (and victims) are people who were not born when the debt was incurred, nor when it was payed. The payment is only valid for those who believe it to have been paid (and/or those who think/behave in a vaguely defined way, essentially at the whim of God) , and even then not immediately or evidently so.

New Castles

i'll be honest I never gave it second thought, just believed in it. This guy is very convinced...

Can you believe this was written almost 200 years ago?

truthseeker1

This kind of self sacrifice is often protrayed against terrorists who take hostages. Like "Let everyone go, and take me instead". So is god a terrorist?

Stefanie

Let everyone go, and take me instead". So is god a terrorist?

Good piont! I dont know about Terrorist but he/it is one mean F*cker, if he even does exist.

New Castles

whoa stef, you ok??

Amazing1914

First: The problem with your theory is that Adam and Eve sinned against God and did not commit a crime against some human legal system. No human system in a democratic nation would execute a person for eating a piece of fruit. (This is a whole discussion all by itself, and gives serious rise to the intent and rationality of either the Bible or God himself.)

Second: It is, according the the Bible, Adam and Eve who placed us in a position of diminished capacity with respect to being perfect and holy in the sight of God. We were condemned 'legally' in God's eyes before we were born or had committed a sin or crime. Sin was passed on to us as an inborn defect, handicapping our capability to be righteous. No human system would convict a person before they were born. And, human systems might convict a person with dinminished capacity, but would place them in a situation where they could get help, rather than in a regular jail ... except in Texas.

Third: Jesus saved us, not from our guilt, but by accepting punishment in our place. He took responsibility for us, much as a parent might accept the conviction of a minor child. In Oregon, for example, a parent can go to jail for the crimes of their children. So, this concept does work in human law in some locations. Your theory does not in any way refute the religious theory and concepts found in the Bible.

Jim W.

New Castles

not my opinion...Thomas Paine's.

Stefanie

Sorry.

Interesting read, very controversial

Share this