Why did Jesus have to die to save mankind?

gosplan

PDN wrote: »

All men have chosen to sin, therefore we all deserve death.

Does this include my child which is due to be born this weekend or is it still free from sin?

If it is, at what moment does it actually begin deserving death?

PDN

gosplan wrote: »

Does this include my child which is due to be born this weekend or is it still free from sin?

If it is, at what moment does it actually begin deserving death?

No, as those who have read other threads where we have discussed this at length will know, I do not believe that babies have the ability to choose to sin. Statements such as "All men have chosen to sin" are usually intended (and taken) to refer to those who have reached an age when they can distinguish right from wrong and make a rational choice.

As to at what point we reach that age of accountability? Who knows?

All of seem to sin quite naturally and, what is more, we all quite enjoy it. As a father I know how innocent your child looks when you hold it in your arms for the first time (and I wish you all the best for this weekend). But having been a father for 21 years I also know that no-one needs to teach our children how to lie, throw a tantrum when they don't get their way, or even commit violence against another child to get a toy that they wish to possess. Our kids develop such skills without the aid of any instructor. You have much to look forward to.

gosplan

PDN wrote: »

Statements such as "All men have chosen to sin" are usually intended (and taken) to refer to those who have reached an age when they can distinguish right from wrong and make a rational choice.

fair enough, thanks for the response.

Those women get away with everything though

Fanny Cradock

axer wrote: »

jesus didnt want to die (as per you), jesus asked to be spared, god gave him no choice. that is if god and jesus are not the same - if they are the same then either way god/jesus committed suicide.

A point of order here. I think you should actually read the accounts and stop inferring your desired meaning. In Matt 26:39 Jesus asked if there was another way to save us - the answer was seemingly evident to him. His question is quite different from crying out, "Father, I don't want to do this. Get me away from here!"

Anyway, PDN is correct,. The whole suicide thing has been done to death (no pun intended), so let's just leave it there, OK?

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

On the day of the games, the five were led into the amphitheatre. At the demand of the crowd they were first scourged; then a boar, a bear, and a leopard, were set on the men, and a wild cow on the women. Wounded by the wild animals, they gave each other the kiss of peace and were then put to the sword. "But Perpetua, that she might have some taste of pain, was pierced between the bones and shrieked out; and when the swordsman's hand wandered still (for he was a novice), herself set it upon her own neck

Why do you bother convincing yourself of your intellectual merit, when you must know deep down that you are wholly dishonest in your reasonings?

In principle there is no difference between this account and, say, a person dying of cancer committing suicide to avoid a long drawn out death. She was wounded but the actually action which brought about her death was from her own hand. How is it any different in principle to, off the top of my head, Hermann Goering taking a cyanide capsule prior to his execution? It was suicide, like it or not.

axer

PDN wrote: »

Firstly, whether the Catholic Church sets a rule making suicide a sin is irrelevant to the issue at hand. While the Catholic Church has the right to set the rules for its own members, it does not have the power to determine what would have been permissable or not for Jesus. As I understand it the Catholic Church's ruling on suicide is based on the premise that only God can decide when one's life should end. Since the Catholic Church also believes Jesus is God then that hardly extends to Him.

My understanding is that suicide is against christian beliefs because it involves killing someone thus making suicide a sin for all christians.

PDN wrote: »

Secondly, few people, except those with an axe to grind, would seriously class the actions of Jesus as suicide.

in your unsubstantiated opinion.

PDN wrote: »

If you have something new to say on the subject then set up a separate thread. But if it is just repeating the same stuff over and over again then it will be locked as grandstanding.

My apologies I thought it was relevant to the thread and I thought we were having a discussion where I was trying to explain my point which some people did not seem to understand which I did in the full spirit of discussion as per this rule in the charter - "The goal of this forum is to be a place where ideas relating to Christianity are expounded, debated and challenged.". My apologies if I misinterpreted that line in the charter.

PDN wrote: »

Finally, if atheist posters wish to continue posting in this forum I would ask you to try to conform to certain conventions that are used when discussing God. We give Him a capital 'G', and we refer to Him as 'He' (the capital H is optional) and not 'it'. Also, crucifixion is spelt with an 'x' not a 'ct' - if you insist on spelling it as 'crucifiction' I will assume that you are not making a spelling mistake but are attacking the crucifixion as fictional, which would be a breach of the Charter.

My sincerest apologies again, I hadn't realised that God cared too much about capital letters and I called God "it" because, from my limited understanding, He was not of human form thus He would not have a gender as we know it - it being used as a neutral form not in a derogatory form.

axer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A point of order here. I think you should actually read the accounts and stop inferring your desired meaning. In Matt 26:39 Jesus asked if there was another way to save us - the answer was seemingly evident to him. His question is quite different from crying out, "Father, I don't want to do this. Get me away from here!"

I was assuming that Jesus would not have asked God if there is not another way if he didn't mind that he was being forced to die.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, PDN is correct,. The whole suicide thing has been done to death (no pun intended), so let's just leave it there, OK?

Fair enough then, I hope people understood my point since there seemed to be at least one that didn't grasp it.

Is it ok to ask what would have happened if Jesus had refused to accept death? would we be at the mercy of the Devil right now? or would God have just continued with His plan anyway?

chozometroid

axer wrote: »

I was assuming that Jesus would not have asked God if there is not another way if he didn't mind that he was being forced to die.

Fair enough then, I hope people understood my point since there seemed to be at least one that didn't grasp it.

Is it ok to ask what would have happened if Jesus had refused to accept death? would we be at the mercy of the Devil right now? or would God have just continued with His plan anyway?

If Jesus didn't die for us, we would all face the penalty for sin for our own selves, and never be reconciled with God, thus NOT spending eternity with Him.

Fanny Cradock

axer wrote: »

I was assuming that Jesus would not have asked God if there is not another way if he didn't mind that he was being forced to die.

I'm trying not to feel exasperated here, Axer. But did you bother to read the Gospel accounts? If Jesus didn't mind dying then there would be no reason for him to plead for another way of going about his mission. You don't actually have to assume anything, you simply read the words to learn their intent.

axer wrote: »

Is it ok to ask what would have happened if Jesus had refused to accept death? would we be at the mercy of the Devil right now? or would God have just continued with His plan anyway?

Yes, it's OK to ask. If Jesus refuse death upon the cross - and here I believe that our human understanding of what happened on the cross is utterly insufficient to plum the depths of what happened on the cross - I would have no idea what the exact outcome would be. However, I would imagine that the results would not have been to our satisfaction.

As for God's plan - could you explain to me what you think Christians believe is the revealed plan?

bmtannam

JimiTime wrote: »

I'll bare it in mind thanks. Seeing how you are relatively new to the forum though, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 'The sign on the door', is a common reference to 'Look at which forum you are in'. So in the context of your post, it addressed why I refer to God as 'The Living God'. I am a Christian, this is a Christian forum, so referring to God as 'The Living God' I would think quite apt.

Please don't patronise me by giving me the benefit of the doubt as there is no doubt involved in our communication.
My length of time in this forum is irrelevant and my accuracy needs no length of time to be on target.
I'm also a believer in a god of sorts and lean towards the christian model
more than any other but what I find hilarious is that anyone would think a christian forum is a place where no contradiction of christian values would be tolerated.....is the forum for adults or kids?
There are many christians who would blink at the mention of a "living god"
even in Catholic circles, they being broad and wide circles of thought.
To get an infraction for my contribution through being unilaterally and subjectively labelled a troll is simply immature and pathetic.
And I say all this kindly and with no mischief in mind.

JimiTime

bmtannam wrote: »

Please don't patronise me by giving me the benefit of the doubt as there is no doubt involved in our communication.

Hmmm. You did not understand a common phrase, i.e. 'See the sign on the door', after you took exception to me describing God as 'the Living God' in a Christian forum. So in your lack of understanding accused me of talking in riddle or somesuch. I then let you know what the phrase referred to. Call it patronising if you will, but I'd do it again if you didn't get what a common phrase used here didn't mean. So emm, yeah.

My length of time in this forum is irrelevant and my accuracy needs no length of time to be on target.

Well it is relevant, as you didn't understand what I said, and accused me of talking in riddle. The most likely reason, is that you are fairly new to these boards. anyway....

I'm also a believer in a god of sorts and lean towards the christian model
more than any other but what I find hilarious is that anyone would think a christian forum is a place where no contradiction of christian values would be tolerated

.....is the forum for adults or kids?

I don't believe there to be any age restrictions.

There are many christians who would blink at the mention of a "living god"
even in Catholic circles, they being broad and wide circles of thought.

So there are Christians who don't believe in 'The Living God'? You don't see that as odd?

To get an infraction for my contribution through being unilaterally and subjectively labelled a troll is simply immature and pathetic.
And I say all this kindly and with no mischief in mind.

A reminder of the comments that started these little tete a tete's:

I really laugh out loud when someone says "he" when referring to their god.It's really comical.

and

I'm not sure whether there's any point in replying to this one where someone refers to a "living god" where no such thing exists in any form of reality

I don't think its wholly unreasonable to suspect a mischievious motivation.

bSlick

PDN wrote: »

Axer, I would request you to drop this nonsense which is derailing the thread.

How is he derailing a thread about Jesus dying to save mankind when every single post he makes is on the issue of Jesus dying to save mankind. Why have two threads on the subject? I suppose when no-one can adequately answer his very reasonable point - either Jesus committed suicide or God sent him to be killed, either way a mortal sin -the only answer is to shut him up.

I also would like to know why God should be referred to as He...why would you call a being without gender He instead of It, or She? Or are He and She interchangeable, is She also allowed?

postcynical

bSlick wrote: »

How is he derailing a thread about Jesus dying to save mankind when every single post he makes is on the issue of Jesus dying to save mankind. Why have two threads on the subject? I suppose when no-one can adequately answer his very reasonable point - either Jesus committed suicide or God sent him to be killed, either way a mortal sin -the only answer is to shut him up.

Best answer is often to ignore idiotic "points" or false dichotomies.

I also would like to know why God should be referred to as He...why would you call a being without gender He instead of It, or She? Or are He and She interchangeable, is She also allowed?

God's relationship with us (humans) is as a loving father to his child. The 'He' rather than 'She' (or 'It') refers to the nature of His relationship with us rather than to His gender, as you're thinking of it.

PDN

bSlick wrote: »

How is he derailing a thread about Jesus dying to save mankind when every single post he makes is on the issue of Jesus dying to save mankind. Why have two threads on the subject? I suppose when no-one can adequately answer his very reasonable point - either Jesus committed suicide or God sent him to be killed, either way a mortal sin -the only answer is to shut him up.

It's not a reasonable point, since 'mortal sin' is simply stuff that the Catholic Church has classified as being sinful and harmful for their members. Jesus is not a member of the Catholic Church, therefore the argument is really rather stupid and is just derailing sensible discussion.

Btw, if a mod makes a ruling such as this then, if you wish to question it, please do so by PM. If that proves unsatisfactory then you can take it to Help Desk. Discussing it inthread is considered backseat modding and ends in tears.

I also would like to know why God should be referred to as He...why would you call a being without gender He instead of It, or She? Or are He and She interchangeable, is She also allowed?

God should be referred to as He because that is how Christians refer to God and how He is revealed in Scripture, and this is the Christianity forum. If you want to discuss some other non-personal God (It) then you are free to do so ... in the Spirituality forum.

'She' would be allowed if you are a Christian feminist who genuinely believes in God and thinks there is something to be gained by referring to God using a feminine pronoun (not that you'd be right, but we'd cut you the slack to express your beliefs). However, for an atheist or agnostic to use 'she' or 'it' in reference to God is simply a petty attempt to rile the natives. That is trolling, and we take a rather dim view of that around these parts. On my mod screen every post has little red and yellow cards prominently displayed beside it, and it's astonishingly easy for my finger to slip and give out an infraction if someone ticks me off.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Not by any reasonable person. A man who sacrifices himself to save someone else is not commiting suicide. He is giving up his life to save another. Suicide is about a desire to die. Its a selfish act.

That isn't true. There are plenty of usages of the term where the act is anything but selfish or a desire to die due to depression or self loathing. Even something that we still find horrible, suicide bombing, it is not about a selfish desire to end your life.

Suicide is simply the taking of ones own life, directly or indirectly. The word does not make comment on why exactly the person decided to take their own life, be it due to depression, or the idea of heroic sacrifice.

By all means object to the idea that Jesus was some kind of depressant with a death wish, but don't mangle words and meanings just because you have a negative view of a particular word.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true. There are plenty of usages of the term where the act is anything but selfish or a desire to die due to depression or self loathing. Even something that we still find horrible, suicide bombing, it is not about a selfish desire to end your life.

Suicide is simply the taking of ones own life, directly or indirectly. The word does not make comment on why exactly the person decided to take their own life, be it due to depression, or the idea of heroic sacrifice.

By all means object to the idea that Jesus was some kind of depressant with a death wish, but don't mangle words and meanings just because you have a negative view of a particular word.

I don't think Jimitime was mangling words and meanings. He was responding to an argument that (wrongly) tried to relate Christ's death to the Catholic's Church catechism. In that catechism 'suicide' is not generally interpreted as prohibiting a heroic sacrifice or knowingly embarking on a course of action that will indirectly lead to one's own death (eg on a battlefield, or the actions of firefighters on 9/11).

So actually Jimi is attempting to ensure the word 'suicide' is used accurately in that it has the same meaning in both instances.

Anyway, let's keep the thread on the subject of Christ's death on the Cross. Any more posts containing semantics about suicide will be deleted or deported to the outer darkness of the After Hours forum where they will be tormented by Terry and his acolytes and prodded with pitchforks.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true. There are plenty of usages of the term where the act is anything but selfish or a desire to die due to depression or self loathing. Even something that we still find horrible, suicide bombing, it is not about a selfish desire to end your life.

Suicide is simply the taking of ones own life, directly or indirectly. The word does not make comment on why exactly the person decided to take their own life, be it due to depression, or the idea of heroic sacrifice.

By all means object to the idea that Jesus was some kind of depressant with a death wish, but don't mangle words and meanings just because you have a negative view of a particular word.

Not only did Jesus not 'kill himself', making all this suicide stuff pointless anyway, but being reasonable, you know the connotations of the word suicide. Reducing it to semantics is dishonest. We do not say of a man who throws himself in front of a bullet heading towards his son, 'He comitted suicide'. The act was the saving of his son, that was the motive. His motive was not 'I will intentionally kill myself'. The word 'suicide' would quite puposely be excluded in any talk of such a deed. However, in certain circumstances it is used in a 'impersonal' way, which can be a little bit more appropriate such as, 'The doomsday landings were like a suicide mission'. However, I could gurantee, that no-one on those boats wanted to die. Whether we like it or not, 'suicide' has negative connotations, and its use in this thread, had such negativity in mind. Whatever way we look at it, it is completely inappropriate, and not at all accurate to say, 'Jesus committed suicide'.

Ok PDN thats me done with the topic now, promise:)

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Not only did Jesus not 'kill himself', making all this suicide stuff pointless anyway, but being reasonable, you know the connotations of the word suicide. Reducing it to semantics is dishonest. We do not say of a man who throws himself in front of a bullet heading towards his son, 'He comitted suicide'. The act was the saving of his son, that was the motive. His motive was not 'I will intentionally kill myself'. The word 'suicide' would quite puposely be excluded in any talk of such a deed. However, in certain circumstances it is used in a 'impersonal' way, which can be a little bit more appropriate such as, 'The doomsday landings were like a suicide mission'. However, I could gurantee, that no-one on those boats wanted to die. Whether we like it or not, 'suicide' has negative connotations, and its use in this thread, had such negativity in mind. Whatever way we look at it, it is completely inappropriate, and not at all accurate to say, 'Jesus committed suicide'.

Ok PDN thats me done with the topic now, promise:)

You had to get the last word in, didn't you? Don't you realise that getting the last word in is the mods' perogative? It's the only perk we get for this otherwise thankless job that has us sweating as galley slaves rowing the good ship boards.ie forward with virtual oars while the Admins menace us with cyber whips.

Now everybody, NO MORE SUICIDE - ok?

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

An omnipotent infinite Being should be up to the task of concentrating suffering to such an intensity as to be condensed into a short space of time.

Why is it that omniscient God in the shape of man is the easiest thing to attack and the easiest thing to defend? I think of a logical contradiction and you can play your trump card of: ah, but an omniscient God can act outside of time and without limits. One can defend Santa Claus in much the same way: ah, but he can slow down time to deliver all those presents to billions of children in just one night.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Why is it that omniscient God in the shape of man is the easiest thing to attack and the easiest thing to defend? I think of a logical contradiction and you can play your trump card of: ah, but an omniscient God can act outside of time and without limits. One can defend Santa Claus in much the same way: ah, but he can slow down time to deliver all those presents to billions of children in just one night.

"easiest thing to attack"? Is that what this is about? If so I suggest you read the Forum Charter.

If a 'logical contradiction' can be answered by an appeal to God's omnipotence then that 'logical contradiction' is pretty useless as an argument against an omnipotent Being, isn't it?

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

"easiest thing to attack"? Is that what this is about? If so I suggest you read the Forum Charter.

Allow me to rephrase: we are forced to use the dialectic approach to get at truth because there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.

PDN wrote: »

If a 'logical contradiction' can be answered by an appeal to God's omnipotence then that 'logical contradiction' is pretty useless as an argument against an omnipotent Being, isn't it?

And that is my point entirely. God is the greatest thing you can think of and greater than all arguments against. Yet, he is made by man in his imagination.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

And that is my point entirely. God is the greatest thing you can think of and greater than all arguments against.

Indeed He is.

Yet, he is made by man in his imagination.

Thank you for sharing that faith statement (unsupported by any empirical evidence) with us.

Look, if you're an atheist then you're free to hold that opinion, and you have an entire forum over at A&A to vent your views among likeminded people who share your faith-based position and assumptions and won't question your dodgy logic.

This forum is for the discussion of Christian belief, so if you are going to join in here we would expect something better than a 'logical contradiction' against an omnipotent God that can only be a contradiction if God isn't actually omnipotent, and, when that fails, your unsupported assertion that God is made up.