posted
...but I'm growing increasingly tired of hearing insistence from the zealous that Jesus is a savior.
I respect the guy, and I recognize he set off quite possibly the largest movement -- or at least the most powerful and influential, over time -- in history, but how does his execution "save" me? How does his death render my sins, an already shaky concept, forgiven? And if it does, why are so many religions insistent on the idea of original sin -- wouldn't the two cancel each other out?
I realize I'm asking the trademark, straw-man questions that all the idiot atheists in the conversion brochures ask -- "But I'm happy living my life of decadent sin! Well, except for this aching hole in my heart... Oh, will Jesus find it in his heart to forgive me?" -- but I'm honestly curious.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mentioned it elsewhere, but letting people kill him even though he was God broke a universal law of justice, allowing God to extend mercy to others. Also, I personally believe he suffers for all sins whether they are repented of or not. Eh, I am sinning most of the time I am on Hatrack so it is not for me to discourage you from heaping more sin on the cosmic plate.
posted
Well, to understand how his death atones for your sins you have to understand and accept that he wasn't a man dying for your sins, he was God, assuming a human form so that he could bear the sins of humanity.
If you don't accept that he's God, then he couldn't have saved you.
You also would need to accept the fact that you are a sinner in NEED of redemption.
From your post, I get the feeling that those two things aren't foregone conclusions with you, so I would only look silly trying to convince you of something it's impossible to convince you of unless you accept those two things. Make sense?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea is that he is the ultimate martyr, Eddie. He "walked the walk" more than almost any other human in history, and with the exception of Ghandi, each of those other figures are now religious figures.
But that doesn't clear anything up.
To get a better idea of atonement, you must understand the practice of sacrifice in Hebrew temples of the time, which was meant to help purify one in the eyes of their god. Jesus' sacrifice was his holy self, which took the place of all the lesser offerings, making acceptance of his sacrifice the criteria for spiritual purification in the eyes of the very same god for eternal salvation. Without at least a rudimentary understanding of the meaning of sacrifice in different religions, it's impossible to understand fully the sacrifice of Christ for mankind.
It's not like some shampoo commercial where Jesus "is gonna wash that sin right out of your soul," it's more along the lines that man is sinful by nature, but can be forgiven or "cleansed" spiritually by accepting the sacrifice that was taken place not only for the people alive at the time of the sacrifice, but for people of all time.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, I can sit here and spout scripture and give him my personal testimony all day. All week. But, none of that is going to matter if he doesn't accept those two facts. If he's immovable on those facts, then nothing I can say will have any effect.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I accept both of those facts, or at least am willing to accept them, but I have to agree. I don't understand the fundamentals of how Christ's death saves believers.
(Or could save me)
[ March 03, 2004, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must not have been clear enough in my first post. My question's not just focused on the whys, but the hows.
Belle, let's assume Jesus was a god, not a man. And let's assume he decided to take a human form. And let's even assume he did so to "bear the sins of humanity."
How exactly does one go about bearing the sins of humanity? What actions did Jesus take to accumulate the sins of humanity, and how exactly did he "bear" them himself? What evidence or reasoning is available to support these assumptions?
If all that's a given, then I can see some bizarre holy loophole in the contract damning Jesus to hell for all the sins he was bearing at his time of death, but he can't go to hell due to his status as a god, therefore the sins are rendered null and void. Still, that's a ridiculous number of assumptions to be making. I may as well say Santa's atoning for the sins of the world by his repeated nightly voyages around the world to bring happiness to a world of sorrow. With enough assumptions, it's certainly at least as plausible.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I don't accept those things, and yet I agree perfectly. Your bias is coloring your answer.
Book, I would suggest looking into the Hebrew cleansing rituals performed before entering temple during the time of Jesus (and before, and even after, though the process is slightly altered). Once you understand the idea of sacrifice for atonement in the historical sense, then the idea of Jesus as the "ultimate sacrifice" becomes a bit clearer. It's why he's called the "Lamb of God" after all: Jesus was supposed to be the representative sacrificial lamb for mankind. That's an easy concept to grasp, but to understand why requires a rudimentary understanding of (at least) Hebrew (or more religious) sacrifice.
And Lalo, does that help?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How exactly does one go about bearing the sins of humanity?
He "walked the walk." Like I said, all others who have been recorded as doing that throughout history are either religious figures themselves or have existed within the last century. He epitomized the concept of "purity" or perfection, just like the white lamb or the white dove is used in sacrifice.
quote:What actions did Jesus take to accumulate the sins of humanity, and how exactly did he "bear" them himself?
See above.
quote:What evidence or reasoning is available to support these assumptions?
What assumptions? That Jesus led an impressively remarkable life? That's pretty much accepted by historians. That he accepted the accusations against him without attempt to escape? Once again, historically accurate. Otherwise, you're asking for "evidence" on spiritual issues, in which case you're asking for a circular discussion. I'm giving you the reference, context, and historical precedence by which his crucifixion is considered atonement for man. Whether or not you wish to accept the worthiness of Jesus as a proper sacrifice—and the viability of sacrifice itself—is a totally different matter, and is your decision.
What about my explanation do you not understand? I'm betting it's the idea behind sacrifice for atonement to begin with. It's a common lack of understanding in predominantly Protestant Christian culture (even if you're not Christian, you live in the culture).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To get a better idea of atonement, you must understand the practice of sacrifice in Hebrew temples of the time, which was meant to help purify one in the eyes of their god. Jesus' sacrifice was his holy self, which took the place of all the lesser offerings, making acceptance of his sacrifice the criteria for spiritual purification in the eyes of the very same god for eternal salvation. Without at least a rudimentary understanding of the meaning of sacrifice in different religions, it's impossible to understand fully the sacrifice of Christ for mankind.
John, I must not understand. I was under the distinct impression that the god of Abraham rejected sacrifices.
Assuming he doesn't, I'm still confused as to how Jesus' sacrifice (being the most important sacrifice to date), and acceptance thereof, is qualification for spiritual salvation. Assuming nobody else sacrificed anything to this god, if I sacrificed a bull, would acknowledgement of that sacrifice qualify everyone else for salvation? That is, are you claiming that acknowledgement of the greatest sacrifice (whatever it may be) to a god is the criteria for salvation?
Also, I have serious issues with the idea of original sin. If my grandfather killed someone, should I be held responsible for it? I realize you don't (presumably) subscribe to this philosophy, but if anyone does, I'd be interested in hearing the mechanics of inherited sin.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I really admire you for putting these questions out there. Here's a quote the kind of sums up what I believe about the atonement of Jesus Christ:
quote:"The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the foreordained but voluntary act of the Only Begotten Son of God. He offered his life, including his innocent body, blood, and spiritual anguish as a redeeming ransom (1) for the effect of the Fall of Adam upon all mankind and (2) for the personal sins of all who repent, from Adam to the end of the world." Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
In short (it's hard to sum it up I guess), the fact that Jesus was both man and God made him the only person that could pay the price for our sins. I believe He paid the price in Gethsemane and on the cross, even experiencing the withdrawal of the presence of God.
He also accomplished the resurrection because of his Godly power.
quote: "Resurrection is the reunion of the spirit with an immortal physical body. The body laid in the grave is mortal; the resurrected physical body is immortal. The whole of man, the united spirit and body, is defined in modern scripture as the "soul" of man. Resurrection from the dead constitutes the redemption of the soul."
It was all three of these things: Gethsemane, the crucifixion, and resurrection that make him the Savior of all mankind. He has said that if we keep his commandments, our sins can be forgiven. Had he not interceded, we never ever could have been forgiven and would have lived in a fallen state without a chance for redemption (because of the original fall of Adam.)
(This is the reason that Mormons don't believe in the original sin. While Adam's transgression made it so that we're all 'natural men and women' and instrinsically sinners, we're responsible for our OWN sins. Not anyone else's.)
quote: It's not like some shampoo commercial where Jesus "is gonna wash that sin right out of your soul," it's more along the lines that man is sinful by nature, but can be forgiven or "cleansed" spiritually by accepting the sacrifice that was taken place not only for the people alive at the time of the sacrifice, but for people of all time.
John sums it up rather nicely here too.
I'm sorry I'm not better at articulating, but I can give you scads of links if you'd be interested in reading any of them.
I hope you find what you're looking for.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is, are you claiming that acknowledgement of the greatest sacrifice (whatever it may be) to a god is the criteria for salvation?
Nope. Jesus commands in the New Testament for us to keep his commandments. The Sermon on the Mount is a great start. It also says in James that "Faith without works is dead." Salvation requires good works on our part and not idle belief.
But, salvation was made possible by His sacrifice.
And see my above comments about original sin. I don't believe in it either.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I get the gist of the question now. I misunderstood.
I will answer this. But tomorrow. Time for bed, and I will want to think about this. I want to give you MY view, what I believe, and I will also try to bring in some opinions of more learned Biblical scholars and theologians than myself. That will take time to compile. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you're mistaken about the sacrifice thing. It's not a practice now, but was in Jesus' time (and for some time after).
And Original Sin isn't a passing down from your grandfather to you of sins, it's the precedent of Adam and Eve's sin that "stains" or made imperfect all of the souls of their descendants. In other words, only original man (and woman) was pure, and since the fall, no one (but Jesus, if you believe) has been.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Lalo I disagree with Narnia. I do not believe any works are necessary for salvation. Faith without works is dead, merely means that if one has true faith, your works will bear it out.
The Bible doesn't give any other criteria other than the belief in Jesus Christ. The Thief on the cross wasn't baptized and didn't have time to do any good works after he believed in Jesus and yet he was in Paradise with Jesus that very night.
Now, this is gonna start a whole slew of posts from people who disagree with me, but I'm in the camp of "nothing but Jesus", where as quite a few others (mormons, baptists, etc.) are in the "baptism is necessary and maybe other things too" camp.
This is one of those lovely doctrinal differences. Thing is, from my standpoint it doesn't matter - get baptized, not get baptized if you believe on Jesus you're saved. So I'm more inclusive. Me, inclusive on something! Wonders never cease.
Edit: Gah, I can't get names straigt. I'm too tired. Be back tomorrow.
[ March 03, 2004, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narnia, you kinda got it mixed up there with Eddie's question. The salvation itself can be had by acceptance, but if you don't live according to that acceptance, then you never really accepted in the first place. Apparently, god doesn't allow for indian-given faith. Anything more specific becomes doctrinal, and is more interpretation instead of literal translation of events. And with the numerous variances in doctrine, that could make things confusing really quick.
Example: the post above this one. It's not about denominational differences, because I don't think Lalo's question was meant to be that complicated.
[ March 03, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we mean the same thing. I don't count acceptance and actually acting on that acceptance as the same thing, but that's just from my view. I got a little doctrine in there, but that's bound to happen when I'm trying to explain myself (and not doing a very good job.) Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I understand what the confusion is all about. So I will repeat what I understood from my christian upbringing (had I only known those endless sunday school classes would be useful to me someday):
We are humans. Therefore we sin. Since we sin, we deserve to be punished. God decided to take the punishment we deserve every day of our lives, and take it upon himself. Jesus effectively became the whipping boy for all humanity.
As for original sin, I have a hard time with that myself, if i've understood the concept correctly. I don't believe babies go to hell if they die right after birth, no matter what Adam and Eve did. However, we learn from example, and in a world where sin is a foregone conclusion, we pick it up rather fast.
If I have mistunderstood something, please correct me...
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, here's one that's rather short but may help.
It's from Probe, an apologetics site, and I will add my disclaimer up front that I don't agree with everything on this site, okay? I'm only linking to one page.
quote:It is just for God to insist that someone pay the penalty for sin. It wasn't fair for Jesus to pay that penalty Himself, because that's about grace, not justice.
One of the most amazing truths about the gospel is that our sins are transferred to Jesus, who paid for them at the cross, and His righteousness is transferred to us. It is the most absurdly unfair transaction in the history of all creation, but it's true. Love does things like that.
quote:There was only one way. In His infinite justice He would exact the penalty for sin, but in His infinite mercy He would accept the penalty Himself Only thus could He express and satisfy both His love and His justice. So in the person of His Son Jesus Christ He entered the world which He had made.
He identified Himself with man in his need. In the womb of Mary His mother He took upon Him our nature. On the cross of Calvary He took upon Him our sins. He was first 'made flesh' (John 1.14). He was then 'made sin' (2 Corinthians 5.21). In the silence and darkness of those terrible hours on the cross the sins of the whole world, of every place and of every generation, were laid on Him.
One way in which two of the New Testament writers describe this is by an Old Testament expression, namely, 'He bore our sins in his own body' (I Peter 2.24), and 'He was once offered to bear the sins of many' (Hebrews 9.28). That is to say, in His own person He accepted the penalty and endured the consequences which our sins should have brought upon us.
Only Jesus Christ could have thus died for the sins of the world. Why! Because only He was both Man, and sinless, and God. Because He was Man, He could represent Man, and bear the sins of men. Because He was sinless, He had no sins of His own for which atonement needed to be made. Because He was God, His life was of infinite value (so that it could be offered for the sins of all men), and of eternal worth (so that it could be offered for the sins of all time).
Now I am really off to bed. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found the concept of Christ suffering torture and death for my sins to be a stumbling block in my own conversion. Why would I say that was okay? Why would I agree to let the most innocent being who ever lived be tortured and killed because of stuff I did wrong? That's just totally wrong, isn't it? I felt a deep sense of wrongness about accepting that. I thought about my dear innocent kitten Drive By, and all the suffering she had been through from being hit by a car. And I thought "what sort of creep would let an innocent creature like Drive By be in agony to save them suffering eternal torments for their own wrongs?"
Then I read in C.S. Lewis that you don't have to think of it that way. It's a concept that's sort of outside what we are able to quite get our heads around. That instead of saying He accepted my punishment, I can think of it as Him paying a debt for me that I was unable to pay because I don't have enough of the currency that debt is owed in and He does. So He stepped in for me out of love and paid it for me.
This is another way to think of it. We are fallen, meaning we are rather pathetic creatures who are weak and stupid much of the time, though we have a divine spark. Every now and then we just shine. So we obviously are something more than the slime monkeys we appear to be. We have that potential for incredible brilliance, perfect love, and just glory. There's no other way to describe it.
We can't find that by ourselves, though. It's very very very hard to find and connect to that as a human being, and stay connected. But Christ has done it, and showed us the way. He sort of put himself on our level, and by his death he made a bridge, opened a path, which was not there before. He makes it possible. We just have to hold on to the rope and follow him, and all that light and joy and love .... it's ours too.... it's us. We are like that too. It's also our nature as spiritual beings, if we but find the way.
So no wonder it's known as the gospel or good news. It's very good news indeed, for the whole earth. I was a craven slime ball and it turns out, wow, that's not intrinsic to my nature after all. In fact, I'm a creature of the light. I'm meant for joy. I am powerful and free. It's the greatest thing! You are so meant to feel that! You also have that spark.
posted
In order to confuse Eddie more , I thought I'd add in a couple of concepts that have been left out. (warning: this is LONG)
In both scripture and the early creeds, it highlights that Jesus did not merely sit in stasis and then get up again on the third day. Rather, both of them claim that he descended into... well, somewhere. The interesting thing is the language describing where he went.
Paul says he preached to "the souls in prison." The Apostle's Creed says "He descended into hell." The odd thing is, the Jews believed that all the dead went to a place called "Sheol", until rumours of a thing called "the resurrection" split the Jewish religious leaders into two groups, one who believed in it, and one who did not. Sheol is commonly translated in Greek as "Hades" and is more or less the same concept-- your spirit goes to this place and you are left at peace or tormented depending on how well you lived. Interestingly, when Jerome translated the bible into the common tongue of his time, Latin, he chose the word "Purgatorio", from which we Catholics get our "Purgatory".
The point seems to be, however, that Jesus, in dying, went to wherever dead souls go and broke open the gates and said "Follow me." Those who do follow, get out. Those who don't, I suppose, hang around until the part in Revelations where Sheol/Hades is thrown along with Satan into the lake of fire to be destroyed. C.S. Lewis references this idea, briefly, in The Great Divorce. This idea also explains how it is that faith in Jesus is the mechanism of salvation-- you have to have faith in the one leading you out of prison to make it out.
Another concept, not too dissimilar, is that God, in becoming man, infuses his eternal nature into nature itself. By taking on a physical form, God shares his eternal nature and ability to rise from death with our physical beings (our souls already presumably being immortal) and allows resurrection to become a part of the order of nature. He goes through everything that man goes through, including the ultimate separation from God as a result of the fall, but comes back to God, building anew a bridge between God and man... in fact one of Jesus's titles, Pontifex Maximus (High Priest), means "Head Bridge Builder".
hope that helps...
[ March 03, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christ carried out the atonement in two different places: in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. In Gethsemane he spent hours essentially paying for every sin of mankind. I don't know what the mechanism was that allowed all those sins to be heaped on him. Christ describes the experience in his own voice in the Doctrine and Covenants (LDS scripture):
D&C 19:16-19 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit--and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink--
Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
(I would provide a link, but the scripture site at lds.org seems to be down)
We believe that justice must be satisfied. If the law is broken (sin) then there must be punishment. By taking the punishment for our sins (our breaking of the laws of God) and thus satisfying justice, Christ was then able to offer us mercy--if we believed in him and repented of our sins. If we did not repent, then we would have to suffer the punishments for our sins ourselves. Furthermore, through this same mercy that Christ offers us, we can have salvation--be washed of our sins and able to enter into God's presence.
On the cross, Christ took upon himself physical death, and rose again three days afterward, having conquered death. After three days, his body was no longer in the tomb, but then he appeared to Mary as a resurrected being. Christ had already demonstrated that he had power over death, most notably by raising Lazarus from the dead. We believe physical death is the separation of the mortal body from the immortal spirit. The resurrection that Christ provided gave everyone who would ever live on this earth the gift of resurrection--and that our bodies would be perfect and immortal once we were resurrected. Again, I do not know how this was accomplished. Perhaps we will understand that better later on.
Hence, Jesus as our savior.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As most of these posts show, there a number of interpretations of the actual mechanics of the Ransom/Salvation. In addition to the ones mentioned in this thread are these:
Vital Atonement Theory: The death did not pay some legal penalty but, rather, the suffering and death induced in those who accept Jesus a feeling of repentance and godly sorrow which then brings man into a forgivable state.
Redemption by Christian Fellowship: the death moves people to "throw open" their hearts to others in solidarity with fellow humans, moving them to behave more in manner of self sacrificing love, leading to perfection.
Scapegoat Theory: Jesus death was human society's way of "venting" their innate violent tendencies and achieve catharsis (for, as I am assuming here, those who accept that death as such.)
Some also believed that the Ransom was paid to Satan, who held mankind in captivity, or that God was so insulted by Adam's sin that more was required than to pay what Adam had lost. Which is why some really emphasize the idea that it was, in fact, a God-man who paid the ransom (which would then be above and beyond what Adam had lost.)
My own understand of the Ransom is this (Keep in mind, it might seem different, as it is part of the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses, and people are certainly free to disagree. However, I believe it takes into account the meanings of both the Hebrew meaning of "Kopher"- 'ransom, to cover'- and Greek "lytron, antilytron"- 'ransom, corresponding ransom'.)
God has 4 primary qualities: Love, Justice, Wisdom and Power. They are equally balanced. Love provides the motivation, though, for most of his dealings. So it tempers his justice and power, and uses his wisdom. So the Bible says God "is love", it's personification.
Adam was a perfect man. Perfection simply means "completeness" and referred to both his physical perfection (everything working right) and his continuous relationship with the Creator. But, as a created being, he was dependent on the Creator for continued existence.
The command about the fruit of tree (which we believe was more than something as small as "eating a snack before dinner", but was rather a usurpation of God's right to judge good and bad, a rejection of God's right to rule) entailed something specific. By eating of that fruit (sinning, violating a direct command for which he would receive death as punishment), Adam would trade what he then had (a perfect existence as a human, for himself and all potential offspring) for the opportunity to sin, for which wages were death.
That's important. It basically involved a trade: Adam gave up his life for sin and death (obviously, he wasn't thinking about those consequences. Who makes such a trade?).
By his violation of God's command concerning the fruit he (and Eve) cut themselves off from the creator. They no longer could live continously. The creator mercifully allowed them to continue. But they were cut off from the creator, and any children they had would also be born in that cut off state. They could not pass on perfection, which they no longer had.
Obviously, while just (in the sense that it exactly followed the letter of the law and principles God laid out), it wasn't really fair that Adam's descendants should be punished with being cut off (and it's consequences) for something they had no control over. In this case sheer justice (the letter of his own just law which cannot countenance sin) demanded one thing. Love, however motivated him to find a way to use his wisdom and power to meet his own just laws and still help mankind.
So God immediately made a provision to rectify the issue. This arrangement would allow him to treat with and forgive Adam's descendents, beginning even back there with their very children, including Cain and Able, provisionally. He would deal with them on the basis of something that would be provided in the future.
That provision was the ransom.
Remember, Adam had paid his life over in trade for sin. His offspring were all in that same state. The principles of justice, then, demanded that that sin be paid with a death, that of the sinner, Adam.
But if someone could pay that debt, then that perfect life that Adam gave up (for both himself and his offspring) could be set free. The problem was, no human on earth could pay that debt. The price of the ransom was simply more than man could pay. None of us had a perfect human life to give.
So God provided his firstborn son, Jesus. He, a perfect spirit being in the heavens, was born perfect, of a woman. He was fully human, but completely perfect as Adam was. He willingly suffered and died, paying that Ransom. In doing so, he validated everything God had begun doing, back at the beginning. His future death (the anticipated payment) had been the basis for which God already began forgiving people long before Jesus' death. His death finally paid for that "credit" that God had been giving people.
Jesus, however, had never sinned. So while his death as a perfect human could be paid, once for all time, he still had been a faithful servant of God. And he still had a "right to life". So God was justified in raising him back to life, but this time, as he was before, a spirit being who could live in the heavens, never again as a perfect human.
When he presented the value of that Ransom to God in heaven, a few things happened. What Adam had paid was released, at least in a certain way. Adam, himself, was a willfull sinner, one who knew what he was doing. He had no imperfection to fall back on as his excuse. And the Mosaic law indicated that God will not accept a ransom for such a person, even if it was what was owed. So while the ransom was applied to what Adam had lost, he and Eve, we believe, would not actually be benefit.
But, the ransom could be applied to Adam's decendents. By taking Adam's place, Jesus replaced him. He became the "second Adam", our Father in the same way that Adam had been our father. God cut sin off at the root, instead of having to supply an individual ransom for each of us (a one to one death for each human ever born).
For those who Jesus (as God's appointed judge) judges worthy, the merits of that ransom can be applied. For each of us, then, it's as if Jesus died, taking our place for the death we owe due to our sins. We still are imperfect, but our standing with God can be as though we are "approved" and forgiven. That one death is for each of us.
And, we believe, after Armageddon, those benefits will be applied more literally, so that we will also become perfect as our Eternal Father, Jesus, is.
Now a question: God provided the ransom, and it had to paid to him in order to satisfy the demands of justice. Isn't that like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another? Perhaps in a physical sense, yes. But as a legal transaction, it would not be.
posted
Ah. a tasty bit of pure theology. Try this little theory on for size:
The universe is basically made up of (at least) two types of things: Matter and Intelligence. Matter includes anything that is categorized as "stuff"- protons, photons, heat, etc. is all matter of one state or another. Intelligence is something different- kind of like the aiua (sp?) from OSC's Ender's series. These intelligences come in all sorts of levels from really, really, dumb ones to extremely smart ones. These intelligences are all capable of learning things and thereby expanding their capabilities. Pretty simple so far?
So basically what God does is put Intelligence and Matter together. He institutes rules (or acts according to preexisting rules) which, when followed, allow the intelligences to enhance their capabilities. Pretty much every intelligence follows God's rules, which, at the basic level I suppose include the laws of physics and maybe go on to the laws of animal behavior and so on.
Then there is this group of intelligences that are the smartest of the smart (although there is still a good deal of variation among them). These guys are so smart that, with a bit of stretching (enhancing their capabilities through obeying the laws which lead to that sort of thing) they can be right up there with God. However, these intelligences also are the least likely to obey the rules which help them grow because they get distracted, or because they think they can come up with a better way etc. Each time one of these intelligences breaks one of the rules which helps him (or her) to progress the obvious consequence is that his progress stops at that point. If the deviation from the rules is persistent then obviously the intelligence won't ever get past that point in his progression. This is commonly referred to as damnation.
The thing is, God really, really wants these smart intelligences to keep progressing, but there are two problems: 1) The first problem and easiest to understand is that in order to continue progressing the intelligence (or actually intellligence combined with matter which Mormons call a soul) has to notice that he is doing the wrong thing and get back on the road to progress. This is obvious- if you are trying to learn calculus but you aren't willing to learn integrals then chances are you will never learn calculus. Alll learning is the same in this respect.
2) The second problem is in justice. The reason that all of the intelligences go along with God and do what he tells them to is because they trust him to be perfectly just. As long as he himself is keeping the rules and he enforces the rules without arbitrary decisions then everything is OK. But here you have these smart intelligences who not only stop themselves from progressing when they break the rules, they also can contribute to stopping others and at the very least when they break the rules they cause suffering to others. Well, God can't allow this to happen if he is to be perfectly just. When we break the rules and throw things out of kilter then for justice to occur we have to suffer the exact same amount of suffering that we caused others- if I punch someone then justice requires that I get punched with the same amount of force. Well, a lifetime of making mistakes and causing pain to others is a whole lotta pain to have to pay back, but that is what has to be done for justice to prevail.
This is where Christ comes in. He lived a perfect life in which he acted in accordance with all of the laws which we have to follow, so he had no tally sheet to pay back at the end of his life. This fact allowed him to do what we call the atonement: he paid off the tally sheet for every last one of those smart souls who ever racked up a debt. Now Christ set up a contract between himself and any of the smart souls who will take him up on it. As long as they satisfy condition 1 (do their best to get back to following the rules of progress whenever they break them) then he will take care of number 2.
And that, in a nutshell, is a summary of my own theory of how the atonement works.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's how I feel about atonement and salvation. I haven't thought a whole lot about it to organize my thought very well, but I'll toss them out there anyway.
It's hard to write this without using the "Sunday school" language that I'm used to.
It's important to know that Christ's death doesn't bring about salvation for us, although it makes it possible in the first place, because he paid the price that we would have to pay, and that price was death. So in a way, it's a bit symbolic because the price WE pay is death in an eternal sense (being seperated from God in hell) but the price Christ paid was temporal and physical. Christ obviously couldn't die eternally or be seperated from God the way that we could (being God and all).
What brings about salvation is the choice to follow Jesus. The Bible describes Him as "The Way" meaning that he's the "path" that you follow to get to God. There was no way for us to get there before, and we still don't know how. The point is that we're supposed to keep following Jesus (ie, the Way) and He will lead us there. Right at the beginning of that is the atonement, because a person with the "stain" of sin couldn't be with God. The Bible says that Jesus "washes us clean" and intercedes for us. His death on the cross was a symbolic way for us to understand what we deserved for our sin. It shows us how much we should have suffered and how dire our sin is. Also, the death of Christ had a whole lot of other meanings that don't get talked about as often, for example, He was the final sacrifice, so that we'd never have to make another one. He basically opened everything up so that we could have full access to an otherwise semi-unattainable God.
Basically, Jesus stands there and argues in our place, and makes us clean so that we can be acceptable before God.
Oh, by the way, Lalo. God didn't hate sacrifices, he hated human sacrifices.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I understand that part in the Passion at the Garden... I noticed Jesus seemed to be covered in filth, or maybe he was sweating filth, but now I understand from that "bleed from every pore," part.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The simplest way I think it could be explained is thus: if you do something wrong (be it sin or crime) you should make it up to the person (or God) to whom you did the wrong. Before Christianity, humans would "make it up to God" by sacrificing animals, or sometimes their own lives, to God/the gods. Life is a precious commodity, and if you do something so wrong that not even the taking of your own life can make things right (as would be the case when the entire world is peopled with sinners), how could you even begin to "make it up," to restore the balance? No single human being can, but Jesus could, and volunteered to do so, because by his divinity he could atone (make up) for all the sins, even the biggest ones. The sacrifice needed to make up for *all* those sins had to be both exactly like those who committed the sins and yet more than they were in order to make the sacrifice acceptable, to bring the balance of right and wrong. Hence you needed God and Man in the same body, and it had to be an act of free will, because the sins were committed due to free will.
Does that make sense, for being so short?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading all these explanations which one after another just restate and don't explain in any way that I could connect to, I have to say also that this IS the central mystery of Christianity. The suffering of the innocent. Certainly any feeling person who examines the moral features of the world in which we live must see that the suffering of the innocent is a major theme of life. Why? It outrages our sense of rightness.
Sometimes I feel very much like those who walk away from Omelas, in Ursula K. LeGuin's story.
The central mystery is the gift. Christ loved me so much that he suffered horribly and died for my sake, in an effort to save me. He did it not even knowing if I would accept the gift and therefore make it worthwhile. He did it in complete respect for my individual choice. If I don't accept, then he died in vain. (This is very personal. I know he has a relationship with other people as well, but actually the one he loved so much that he was willing to be tortured and die was me.) It was because of the way I keep screwing up that each particular whip lash was laid across his back. If I will stop then his suffering also will stop. The physical pain is nothing for him compared to the mental anguish of seeing the one he loves still lost and hurting and causing so much damage.
If I will just wake up and see what I am doing. If I can grow up, in the way that he shows me by his example, then I can change all that agony and sorrow into pure bliss forever. Then he counts it a small cost to have paid. He will be overjoyed.
You know how the love of a girl can redeem you, sometimes, just a bit? That if you could believe in her love for you, you might actually become the great man she sees in you? It's a little like that only way way moreso. Like love, it's not something that can be explained by theories, you have to just feel it.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare took the exact same approach that I was going to.
I would also add that LDS believe that we can't completely undersand the 'how' of it because we are mortal, imperfect beings. Only a perfect being could totatlly understand the mechanism of it (so to speak).
However the following occurs to me:
LDS believe that Christ is a God and was a God before his incarnation -- that is he had progressed in intelligence to the point that he had acquired all the knowledge, wisdom and attributes of God the father. We believe that spirit is matter that is more refined. That human beings are, as Jacare mentioned, souls -- physical mortal body + spirit body. And that God the Father (and Christ after his resurrection) are glorified, immortal souls, that is spirit bodies fused eternally with physical glorified (i.e. not subject to corruption or decay) bodies. Therefore, it seems to me that Christ was able to take upon himself the sins and pains of the world and effectuate an atonement because he was a God-spirit in a man-body. Others have said this already, but I wanted to take it a step further. Christs suffering was the combination of his body and spirit feeling all the pain and the regret of all the sins ever committed. I'm not sure of the how -- how he being stuck in historical time took this upon himself in a way that encompassed *all* time, but I think that I kind of get how and why he felt all that pain as well as why he was able to bear it.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to say something here, but, being a non-Christian, I feel like I should give some input. But Lalo's question is a spiritual question, and seems to need a spiritual answer, which, in the nature of my beliefs (though I do have a good deal of knowledge on Christianity), wouldn't really work well.
I believe in Jesus, as do many of my path. I believe he was a great man, with many great ideas, and he was true enough to those ideas to die for them. I believe he also had Divine influence. But, I cannot hold him as my lord and savior of my soul. It's just something I can't do, because, it makes no sense to me.
But everyone is having a wonderful and interesting discussion here, so I'll just shut up. Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Make sense?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Me, inclusive on something! Wonders never cease.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, I thought I'd add in a couple of concepts that have been left out. (warning: this is LONG)
