Can you help a Fascinated heathen understand?

[Fascinated]

I've wanted to ask this for a long time.  I understand the biblical concept of original sin (although I think it's hogwash).  And I also understand that God sacrificed his son on the cross, and that Jesus was subsequently resurrected.

I will try, and probably fail, to convey my confusion. This is really the basis of Christianity, right?  Jesus died on the cross so that those of us who seek him will, as a result, be saved and spend eternity at god's knee in heaven.  But I don't understand the link!  How and why did his death absolve mankind in perpetuity from sin, providing one follows his word?

Are they just words?  'Jesus died on cross to save us all from damnation'?  HOW does that follow?  What is the link?  Is it because the bible says so?  Christians speak of this all the time. I don't understand the link. Why did Jesus have to die as a martyr?  Why couldn't God just say, everyone who believes in me gets to come to heaven?  There's something missing for me between the act and the result. 

Ah, I just don't get it. I really just don't get it. And I can't frame the words properly, as usual.  Explain to me the link?

 

[Imrlgoddess]

If you take the New Testament on its own.. Which is supposed to be letters & teachings from the disciples, they last down sort of an aesthetic guideline to walk Jesus' path. To humble yourself & accept the idea that you are saved by grace & try to live a good life according to the teachings. The idea is that you have to feel that grace, believe it with all that you are thus be a Godly person whey of the prize.

It didn't make sense to me because a serial killer can believe.... But they're still horrible people. I suppose the argument would be that if they truly felt the presence of Christ they wouldn't go around randomly killing. 

[singsingsing]

This is something that Christians have been debating for thousands of years, and will continue to debate amongst themselves probably forever.  There are a wide variety of different viewpoints and explanations. Many people (including C.S. Lewis, I believe), basically hold the opinion that we may not understand it fully, it's a mystery (in a theological sense, like mere mortals can't fully comprehend the meaning of it), and it doesn't matter how you believe it works, just that you believe it works somehow.

[browncoatslytherin]

well, in the ot, israelites made blood sacrifices to help atone for their sins. but they had to keep doing it in order to be considered right with god. in that way, jesus was considered the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, and the shedding of his divine blood would cover all sins for all eternity with no need to continue the old traditions.

why blood is considered a necessary sacrifice, i'm not totally certain. it was just laid out that way in the ot, so in that way that's how jesus' death connects with covering sin.

at least, that's what this former ifb pastor's daughter remembers.

[Cleopatra7]

The logic behind substitutionary atonement is that Jesus was the scapegoat for humanity, taking on all our sins and sacrificing himself for us, even though we are completely unworthy of such a sacrifice. Penal substitution theory says that we deserved to be killed because of our disobedience, but Jesus did so in our place, so we are obliged to believe in Jesus because of all he did for us (this is pretty much what C.S. Lewis did in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" by having Aslan killed in place of Edmund). Jesus was completely obedient to god, whereas Adam was disobedient. I think this makes less sense to modern people because we are so far removed from the concept of sacrifice as it was understood in the ancient world, which is why the Christus Victor (i.e., Jesus' death was a victory over death) and the Jesus as moral exemplar model are becoming more popular than substitionary atonement in some quarters.

[Fascinated]

So what you guys are saying is that there really isn't an explanation. I just question if Bin, for example, has ever considered this?  I know faith is, well, faith, but, surely there are some problematic areas here?  Is that why it is often referred to as 'blind' faith?

The logic behind substitutionary atonement is that Jesus was the scapegoat for humanity, taking on all our sins and sacrificing himself for us, even though we are completely unworthy of such a sacrifice. Penal substitution theory says that we deserved to be killed because of our disobedience, but Jesus did so in our place, so we are obliged to believe in Jesus because of all he did for us (this is pretty much what C.S. Lewis did in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" by having Aslan killed in place of Edmund). Jesus was completely obedient to god, whereas Adam was disobedient. I think this makes less sense to modern people because we are so far removed from the concept of sacrifice as it was understood in the ancient world, which is why the Christus Victor (i.e., Jesus' death was a victory over death) and the Jesus as moral exemplar model are becoming more popular than substitionary atonement in some quarters.

But, again, HOW did he take on everyone's sins?  And wasn't it god who was responsible for the original sin concept in the first place?  I understand that it is a tool to bring in the masses but I guess I don't understand why people don't see this as something to be questioned. 

[Cleopatra7]

So what you guys are saying is that there really isn't an explanation. I just question if Bin, for example, has ever considered this?  I know faith is, well, faith, but, surely there are some problematic areas here?  Is that why it is often referred to as 'blind' faith?

"The Good Person Test" assumes a penal substitution model for Jesus' death. If asked, I assume that Ben would explain Jesus' death in those terms (i.e., all humans are depraved, incapable of being "good people," and unable to seek god, so Jesus had to be sacrificed because of our sin). Conservatives tend to like the penal substitution model, because there's no way you can avoid talking about heaven and hell, and many "statements of belief" in fundie institutions state outright that employees must believe in substitutionary atonement. This also explains why conservative Christians are so insistent on believing that Adam and Eve were literal people who were tempted by a real talking serpent, because it would be strange to say Jesus died for the sins of a couple of metaphors.

I think that god the father designated Jesus the scapegoat, which is how he was able to take on all of humanity's sins. The question of whether god is the author of evil is one that has been around since the days of the gnostics, probably before. Indeed, if god is really all-seeing and all-knowing, wouldn't he know ahead of time that Adam and Eve were going to eat from the forbidden tree? It's like they're being set up to fail. This is where the endless debates over free will vs predestination come into play, but to me, if god can really do anything, and he thought human beings were completely without merit, he should have just started over from scratch. But then again, I'm not a Christian any longer, I just study it.

[singsingsing]

It's true, many people don't think to question it. Others question it and come up with an explanation which seems satisfactory to them. And others question it and continue to question it, hoping that one day they'll arrive at a conclusion. Some decide no explanation is satisfactory and this contributes to them no longer believing. Still others have questioned it and come to the conclusion that it constitutes a mystery they'll never fully understand, and that's fine by them. The only people operating under blind faith are the ones who never question it at all.

[Fascinated]

"The Good Person Test" assumes a penal substitution model for Jesus' death. If asked, I assume that Ben would explain Jesus' death in those terms (i.e., all humans are depraved, incapable of being "good people," and unable to seek god, so Jesus had to be sacrificed because of our sin). Conservatives tend to like the penal substitution model, because there's no way you can avoid talking about heaven and hell, and many "statements of belief" in fundie institutions state outright that employees must believe in substitutionary atonement. This also explains why conservative Christians are so insistent on believing that Adam and Eve were literal people who were tempted by a real talking serpent, because it would be strange to say Jesus died for the sins of a couple of metaphors.

The bolded is where I have a problem. (The rest of your post makes perfect sense to me.) You are all explaining it well, and I thank you, but, to me, these are just words that make no sense. There's no rationale here. He died for our sins.  What does that mean?  How is this possible?  And, I know 'sin' probably refers more to not knowing God, rather than actually sinning. Honestly, I commend you all for having a grip on this notion. 

[nelliebelle1197]

Jesus' death and suffering on the cross was a symbolic washing away of sin, symbolic of God's covenant with his chosen people. Because of Jesus' sacrifice, mankind was given the chance to choose redemption without the burden of the law. It is all symbolic, not literal.

 

And when you are brought up believing that something just IS, and if you a. don't develop critical thinking skills or b. choose to be blind to fallacies and logical holes, then it is easy to believe. Religion in some form is as old as humankind. It was born from the fear of the unexplained, of death, of the mediocrity of life, the need to have a grander purpose. Why this particular myth took hold, I do not know. The ancients roots in Judaism, the oppression of the Jewish people, the extreme brutality of the Roman Empire? Christianity has always managed to weave its way into political and social fabrics thanks to some wily early adherents...

I have gone from 13 year old fundie to not even believing in the historic Jesus. It is a hard journey.

[Fascinated]

It's true, many people don't think to question it. Others question it and come up with an explanation which seems satisfactory to them. And others question it and continue to question it, hoping that one day they'll arrive at a conclusion. Some decide no explanation is satisfactory and this contributes to them no longer believing. Still others have questioned it and come to the conclusion that it constitutes a mystery they'll never fully understand, and that's fine by them. The only people operating under blind faith are the ones who never question it at all.

Absolutely true. And it kind of ends the discussion, really. One either questions it, finds a satisfactory answer, or chalks it up to god's mysterious ways, and moves on, or doesn't. I guess I'm just amazed that so, so many people accept this and move on. My brain hurts thinking about it. 

[Cleopatra7]

The bolded is where I have a problem. (The rest of your post makes perfect sense to me.) You are all explaining it well, and I thank you, but, to me, these are just words that make no sense. There's no rationale here. He died for our sins.  What does that mean?  How is this possible?  And, I know 'sin' probably refers more to not knowing God, rather than actually sinning. Honestly, I commend you all for having a grip on this notion. 

 

Jesus became the scapegoat because he was the perfect human, and only perfect things, whether grain, animals, or oil can be sacrifices to god (this is how Cain fell out of favor with god, by offering inferior goods for sacrifice). Much like how non-human scapegoats were used to take on the sins of communities in antiquity, Jesus became the scapegoat for all of humanity. The wikipedia article on this concept is actually not terrible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

I do think that if you think hard about the atonement that it doesn't really make a lot of sense, but we live in a culture that privileges the Christian narrative above all others, so it seems normal to most people. As an aside, I don't find C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" to be very compelling, and I think the only reason it does for many people is because we live in a culture that considers Christianity to be the default religion, so they are automatically predisposed to accept its claims. I imagine that in Turkey there is probably a "Mere Islam" book and a "Mere Hinduism" book in India.

[Gimme a Free RV]

As one who has blind faith in a God I've never physically seen, audibly heard, nor tangibly felt, I can't help but place my trust in something vastly greater than myself.  I think human logic begs to understand something that can never be fully grasped.  If I felt that my own logic was sufficient to guide me in every area of my life, I wouldn't need a God.  If I truly was a good human being, I'd have no need of being saved from hell.  I know, however, what's really in my heart and that I'm not a good person through and through.

I'm glad I was created with a free will to chose, for myself, what I believe.  That free will causes me to have compassion for animals one second, and makes me want to do things to people who make me angry, that would land me in jail. If we were still living under the old covenant that God made with Abraham, I'd be killing animals for sacrifices day and night to atone for the bad things I do, say, and think.  My belief that Jesus died for all the sins that ever were, are, or will be causes me to be thankful that He provided a way for me to be saved from eternal suffering.  I'm not gonna say "no" to that!

Fascinated, I'm glad you started this topic.  For all the snarking we do here, it is nice to have a deep conversation.  This board is my outlet for shaking my head at those who have faith in Christ but whose antics make the faith look really silly, I'm sorry to say.  Some of these fundies might even claim to be Christians but end up worshiping the ideals that man created (Gothard, anyone?) rather than the Creator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fascinated]

In other words, a lot of Christians just don't question it. Because, like so many biblical stories, it really doesn't make sense.   And yet our fundies believe the bible as god's literal and true word. I guess that why I'm atheist. 

Thanks for all your really intelligent responses. I remain, as always, fascinated. 

[purple_summer]

I'll try to explain this the best way I can. I don't know if it will make sense to you and it may be overly simple but I'm willing to try.

Old Testament Judaism is all about ritual. Ritual sacrifice was the means by which the Jews believed the would be forgiven for their transgressions and be able to enter heaven. Jesus fits into that tradition of ritual sacrifice. If Jesus lived a perfect life (much like the lamb or other animal could not of possibly committed human "sin") and was sacrificed (killed for a crime he didn't commit) he would represent the human version of the ritual sacrifice that the Jews were familiar with. I think it may help to keep in mind that we are generally not the "intended audience" for Jesus/the Bible as people alive then would have had no idea that people would still be reading these things thousands of years later.

[FoxyMoxie]

Just as an aside - original sin is a church doctrine rather than being explicitly in the Bible, and not all denominations believe in it. Eastern Christianity (Orthodox/Coptic Christians - but not Eastern Catholics I assume?) does not believe in it and they are a significant proportion of the world's Christians. It tends to be an East v West thing. It's just dominant in Western Christian theology which is why it's part of Protestantism. Also, there is more than one atonement theology. FWIW I personally adhere to the 'Christus Victor' theory which is the standard for historic Western Christian denominations (ie Roman Catholicism, Mainstream Protestantism).

The concept of scapegoat is helpful. If you look up the Passover lamb, that may also help?

Fascinated it might help to remember that fundies are a small minority of Christians, globally speaking. Most Christians worldwide are Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican, in that order. For the first two and most of the third, this means not using the Bible alone but also Tradition (that is, Holy Tradition according to the Church, not just a random tradition) and Reason (eg for Catholics, natural law as discussed by Aquinas). Tradition works a bit like commentary on the Bible, helping to interpret it. 

[Fascinated]

My brain has ceased functioning, if it ever did. I'm going to bed and will ruminate on all this great info tomorrow. Maybe it will become clearer with the dawning day.  

[grandmadugger]

Well when you bring in Ben you bring in another ball of wax.  Ben was raised as a Calvinist.  He was taught predestined and that the only ones who will be saved are the ones who God has sanctioned.  

 

Basically it goes like this, in the Old Testament the Jews had to make sacrifices for their screw ups.  Adam and Eve screwed up because God gave humans free will and well apples were just too yummy to pass up.  This is why from here forward you have all the sacrifices in the Bible.  God promised a Messiah that would set his people free.  Jesus, Christians believe was that Messiah.  Since Jesus was without sin he became the ultimate sacrifice and set up a new covenant between God and his people.  This also opened up salvation to the gentiles. 

[DaisyD]

Several people have said it but basically, people used to have to make blood sacrifices to wash away their sin. When Jesus was crucified, his blood sacrifice washed away all the sins of his followers in perpetuity. Now Christians no longer have to make blood sacrifices to wash away sin. It was done for them by Jesus. Presumably his sacrifice was so much bigger, by comparison to a goat, that's why it works.

His teachings and all encompassing sacrifice represent a shift to a kinder, gentler diety. God no longer wants us to kill for him. He wants us to be kind to others and take care of each other. That way of thinking doesn't serve some people's purposes, thus all the OT quoting from Christian extremists. 

[older than allosaurs]

It's great to have all these explanations to sort through as I also try to grasp the rationale of the sacrifice. Thanks to all.

When I was a kid, I read the Nun's Story, and decided I wanted to be saintlike. So I thought I had better read the Bible. (My parents met in Sunday school of my grandfather's church, but they were long gone from the fold by the time I came along.) I got stuck at the points of original sin and the idea of hell, both of which seemed so ridiculously illogical and unfair to me that I gave up on the whole Christian enterprise by about age 12.

I accept--and have occasionally experienced in nature and a few fellow humans, the existence of a spiritual dimension--but I just can't get behind a doctrine. Still, I want to better understand the metaphors and assumptions that help the Christian enterprise keep chugging along, so thanks to all of you erudite ones.

 

[browncoatslytherin]

full disclosure: i am now pagan. sooo...take that as you will. obviously this kind of doctrine didn't stick with me.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

If you want to know why bin seewald believes in those statements our fellow fjers already provided the best answers. If you want an explanation that makes sense for you and a translation in terms that can be more comprehensible (without resorting to "it's a mistery", as someone raised Catholic that word gives me the creeps) then I'll try to add my personal pov.

I like those anthropological theories that underline the presence in different cultures and in different times of messianic/christ-like characters. One of this characters is Socrates, I find him particularly meaningful because even belonging to a different culture from Jesus, he lived not too far, not much time before and has had for the formation of our culture an importance that can be compared to Jesus's. Probably you all are familiar with his philosophy and his story. He believed in the ideal of a democratic polis where everyone could contribute to upheld the democratic institutions because everyone could think and develop as a human being posing questions and looking for answers in a fruitful dialogue with a counterpart. He was a little bit too democratic,  accused to currupt youth was condemned to the death penalty. He was offered exile instead, people organised his escape but he didn't accept, he couldn't accept, to be coherent with what he always preached he had to accept the verdict given by the justice system of the polis. Escaping would have meant not recognise the trial as a sourceoof authority and giudicial truth developed in the contradictory between prosecution and defence. Even if the verdict was unjust and none really wanted him dead, he died, pprobably thinking of making the world a better place with the coherence of his behaviour. 

I find that what happened to jesus is somewhat similar. He preached that he was the son of god and we all are children of god. Even if in our nature there's the possibility to do evil (original sin)  we all can consciously decide to not to. He stated that rules are Iimportant only if respecting them helps us to be good, but that rules can't be more  important than people and blood sacrifices don't wash away sins. Being good, becoming a better person, less beast and more human, makes us god's children,  or simply put better people. He, as Socrates and all the other messianic characters of history,  lived uphelding these concepts with his life. He also was processed and condemned and didn't want to escape,  because he wanted to be coherent. The core of his message probably was that goodness shines by itself no need for violence,  pesky rules and blood sacrifices, everything else was added later to translate it in a language more acceptable and comprehensible for the audience. As for the part: with his sacrifice he saved us all, it always reminds me of when an avoidable tragedy happens and those who loved the dead say: [insert name] died for [insert avoidable  cause of death], we at least want that thanks to his/her death this will never happen again. Jesus should have been the last to suffer and die for the evil malice that humankind can choose to perpetrate. Martyrdom was very important for the first christians, it was a way to testify with your own life, coherent to goodness till the end exactly like Jesus. 

It's really difficult for me to write this in English. I hope I managed to be clear and helpful. BTW I don't know in what I believe exactly, in being a good and decent human being at best of my abilities I suppose. 

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

I think the previous posts have been really clear and thorough, but I just wanted to say one thing about free will. I've read people post about free will, or say in real life, "Why would an all-powerful creator who wants us to obey him and worship him give us free will? Why not just create people who obey and worship and can't choose otherwise?"

I love my children, and I love it when they voluntarily help out and 'do what's right'. I also love to hear them say they love me. But if they couldn't choose their own actions, if they didn't have free will, it just wouldn't mean much. A coerced, or involuntary statement of love or kind act could never mean 1/10th as much to me as a spontaneous, "I love you, Mommy!" does to me. I'm their mom, not their creator, but I think the principle may apply in God's case, too. 

[formergothardite]

Jesus' death and suffering on the cross was a symbolic washing away of sin, symbolic of God's covenant with his chosen people. Because of Jesus' sacrifice, mankind was given the chance to choose redemption without the burden of the law. It is all symbolic, not literal.

 

And when you are brought up believing that something just IS, and if you a. don't develop critical thinking skills or b. choose to be blind to fallacies and logical holes, then it is easy to believe. Religion in some form is as old as humankind. It was born from the fear of the unexplained, of death, of the mediocrity of life, the need to have a grander purpose. Why this particular myth took hold, I do not know. The ancients roots in Judaism, the oppression of the Jewish people, the extreme brutality of the Roman Empire? Christianity has always managed to weave its way into political and social fabrics thanks to some wily early adherents...

I have gone from 13 year old fundie to not even believing in the historic Jesus. It is a hard journey.

This is so true. For a good portion of my life it never entered my mind to question the concept or even think deeply about it, it was something I just accepted as being true. Of course, eventually I did start questioning things and I too ended up not even believing in the historical Jesus. That is another thing I had been raised to view as just being true but when I finally got around to researching it on my own I realized that I had been lied to for years and there is absolutely no proof that there was a historical Jesus. That was a hard one for me to accept but I also couldn't go back to just accepting that there is proof he was real. 

The whole sin sacrifice doesn't make a lot of sense when you really think about it, at least it doesn't for me. Of course, the concept of sending perfectly nice people to hell for not believing while letting some shitty people into heaven because at the last moment they got "saved" also doesn't make a ton of sense. But I believed it for years. 

[Criscat]

 

Thanks Fasinated for starting this topic. I'll admit I haven't read all the replies. I'm a Catholic whose faith journey has been rather interesting. Protestant-catholic-fundie Christian-catholic. Basically what it comes down to is Faith. Logic alone doesn't work because our human-ness can't conemplate Jesus dying on a cross for all humanity. It assumes a basic belief in original sin (everyone born with sin--curse of Adam and Eve) and since humanity can't be reconciled with a just and perfect God, Jesus came as the only perfect being. It assumes belief in the immaculate conception to that end. Basically, it requires faitH. For a lot of people this comes from study, or growing up in the faith. 

I think what a lot of people struggle with is the concept of grace. Freely given with nothing expected in return except belief in the resurrection and in God. That's what makes Jesus dying on the cross so difficult to wrap the mind around. It seems to fly in the face of justice. I.e murderers accepting Jesus as son of God while "good people" who don't believe are going to hell. While I have no clue what the afterlife brings, (I'm not God) I find belief in God and by extension, Jesus, to be comforting. I have to believe there is a higher power that will ultimately bring justice to a broken world. 

Whats maddening especially with fundies is that Christianity does not mean isolating yourself from the world and judging others. That's Gods job--not yours and he certainly doesn't need help with that. They don't extend grace to other people but yay God saved them! It doesn't compute. The idea is that the same Grace God extends to you, you extend to others. Fundies do not subscribe to this. So mainstream Christians are stuck explaining why their brand of Christianity is wrong. Hope this makes sense.