Why did Jesus have to die to save mankind?

PDN wrote: »

Christianity is, at heart, a relationship based on a revelation from God that we could not have attained unaided by philosophy or by our own logic.

Sorry, there is a slight ambiguity here. Presumably you mean the knowledge revealed could not have been obtained using philosophy and logic?

And who specifically was referred to in the revelation in relation to man’s sinfulness. Was it that all men who lived up to the point of the revelation were sinful? Which would permit that a man yet to be born might not, much as we might yet find a 60,000 ft mountain. Or was it that man was inherently sinful, which takes me back to my original problem?

Fanny Cradock

bSlick wrote: »

It would of course be suffering for human beings but see my post above for why it would not hurt an all powerful deity. If he feels a human sensation such as pain, does that mean he also feels the other human sensations such as hungry, sleepy, randy, warm/cold etc..? My point being that it is ridiculous to suggest that an all powerful deity feels human sensations.

My good man, you seem to miss what Christians believe about the nature of Jesus - that he was human and divine.

::Edit::

I see the point has been made before.

Fanny Cradock

Stark wrote: »

My understanding of the Hell thing was that he died a painful and violent death so his soul could descend to Hell after death. Once in Hell, he was able to lead the sinners who had died before his reign on Earth out of Hell and into salvation.

I've never encountered this before. I would certainly suggest that the NT tells us otherwise.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

That would only be the case if the assertion that all men are sinners was based on some kind of a priori reasoning. However, the Christian belief on this is based on biblical revelation. Christianity is, at heart, a relationship based on a revelation from God that we could not have attained unaided by philosophy or by our own logic.

It is not necessary for Christians to believe that all men are incapable of sinlessness in order to believe that all men are sinners. A revealed fact, or an observed fact, is not contingent upon any other outcome being conceivable.

Maybe an illustration will help if that last paragraph was couched in the wrong kind of language? I believe that no mountain in the world reaches to a height of 50,000 feet above sea level. That is not to say that it was physically impossible for such a mountain to have been formed, simply that those who observe such things have observed that no such mountain exists and the sources that reveal this to me (text books etc) are considered by me to be trustworthy enough for their revelation to be accepted by me.

We may quibble over the reliability of the source providing the revelation, but a revealed fact is not contingent on that fact being the only possible logical outcome.

The trouble with epistemology by revelation is that we don't know which ones of the revealed religions is correct. How could we decide? They each have their share of bravery and honour and likewise they have their share of superstitious nonsense, viz talking snakes and flying horses. And with enough mangled interpretation their revelations can be twisted to suit modern day science. One need only to look at the underlying principles of the Biologos Foundation to realise this. Each religion says that theirs is the true one and - by implication, and sometimes explicitly - they say that the others are false. I have debated down this line before and the only sensible response I get is that Christianity has Jesus and it's His martyrdom that most impresses.

When we contrast epistemology by revelation against epistemological empiricism, that is, knowledge comes to us through our senses and evidence, which in the modern day has grown into the scientific method, we realise that the former, God decreed effort, is such a weak foundation for knowledge acquisition.

Good post Hotspace, though possibly OT. I would be interested in a thread about the problems with revelation though not sure the Christian charter would allow it here. Possibly in the A&A forum

Hotspace wrote: »

The trouble with epistemology by revelation is that we don't know which ones of the revealed religions is correct. How could we decide? They each have their share of bravery and honour and likewise they have their share of superstitious nonsense, viz talking snakes and flying horses. And with enough mangled interpretation their revelations can be twisted to suit modern day science. One need only to look at the underlying principles of the Biologos Foundation to realise this. Each religion says that theirs is the true one and - by implication, and sometimes explicitly - they say that the others are false. I have debated down this line before and the only sensible response I get is that Christianity has Jesus and it's His martyrdom that most impresses.

When we contrast epistemology by revelation against epistemological empiricism, that is, knowledge comes to us through our senses and evidence, which in the modern day has grown into the scientific method, we realise that the former, God decreed effort, is such a weak foundation for knowledge acquisition.

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life. It is fine if you're wanting to work out which computer is most suitable for your needs, but is pretty hopeless when it comes to the really big issues such as ethics, politics, morality, and falling in love.

So, for example, Martin Luther King was not informed by epistemological empiricism in his views, nor were his arguments based on epistemological empiricism. He was informed by biblical revelation and his speeches were littered with appeals to the Scriptures. But he articulated something that most of us would see as true and important.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life. It is fine if you're wanting to work out which computer is most suitable for your needs, but is pretty hopeless when it comes to the really big issues such as ethics, politics, morality, and falling in love.

So, for example, Martin Luther King was not informed by epistemological empiricism in his views, nor were his arguments based on epistemological empiricism. He was informed by biblical revelation and his speeches were littered with appeals to the Scriptures. But he articulated something that most of us would see as true and important.

Well, I think we've seen what the Old Testament says about ethics and morality. And the New Testament is Human Sacrifice writ large.

Francis Collins makes the same assertions as you when he says that the Moral Law is ineffable and the ineffable must point to God. Obviously he is blatantly ignorant, and one would conclude so are you, of the host of disciplines that dissect the human condition by empiricism. He, and you are saying, don't bother with Psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuro-science and sociology amongst others. All those disciplines have as their root empiricism. What ground breaking knowledge has the theologian (who uses epistemology by revelation) ever given us - save God did it.

PDN wrote: »

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life.

So is epistemological revelation. You have no idea if what you believe about Christianity is actually true. You think it is, and are happy thinking it is, but you can't determine or test that belief it is in any significant way. It might not be and you would be none the wiser because the basis for your belief is not empirical.

There is a huge difference between accepting an answer that you and others are happy to accept and accepting an answer because you have determined it is likely true in a manner that can be tested and studied.

PDN wrote: »

So, for example, Martin Luther King was not informed by epistemological empiricism in his views, nor were his arguments based on epistemological empiricism. He was informed by biblical revelation and his speeches were littered with appeals to the Scriptures. But he articulated something that most of us would see as true and important.

That is irrelevant to whether it is true or not. Again there is a difference between accepting an answer and the answer being actually true.

King appealing to people through the idea that God wants us all to live in peace and harmony strikes a cord with people even if it isn't true.

So it becomes an issue of priorities, whether the important thing is that the answer is appealing or whether the answer is true. Do you care whether what you believe is true or not, or is the important thing that you are happy to accept it.

Hotspace wrote: »

Well, I think we've seen what the Old Testament says about ethics and morality. And the New Testament is Human Sacrifice writ large.

Francis Collins makes the same assertions as you when he says that the Moral Law is ineffable and the ineffable must point to God. Obviously he is blatantly ignorant, and one would conclude so are you, of the host of disciplines that dissect the human condition by empiricism. He, and you are saying, don't bother with Psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuro-science and sociology amongst others. All those disciplines have as their root empiricism. What ground breaking knowledge has the theologian (who uses epistemology by revelation) ever given us - save God did it.

It is generally unwise in a debate to assume that your opponent is as narrow minded as you are. It leads you into the kind of fallacy and false allegation such as you have just made above and which torpedos your credibility.

You are trying to present this as an either/or thing. That empiricism must be the only way to gain knowledge, or revelation must be the only way to gain knowledge. Then you project that dogmatism and narrow mindedness onto others.

But Francis Collins and myself would say that both are valid means of obtaining different kinds of knowledge. Empiricism and revelation.

So to accuse us of saying, don't bother with Psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuro-science and sociology amongst others is nothing more than a blatant falsehood.

PDN wrote: »

So to accuse us of saying, don't bother with Psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuro-science and sociology amongst others is nothing more than a blatant falsehood.

In fairness that was the impression you gave from this sentence -

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life.

What are you saying by saying that empiricism is inadequate for answering many of the most important areas of life if not that we shouldn't bother trying to answer these questions with empiricism. That is certainly what Collins is saying, and why he got the backs up of so many scientists.

Fanny Cradock

Dear me! It seems like you and (most especially) Hotspace are intent upon working yourselves up into some sort of frenzy. That Collins is under attack in this thread suggests to me that there is some latent grudge being addressed, rather than making a point that is specificity relevant to this thread.

The statement that epistemological empiricism alone is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life seems an eminently wise and an entirely reasonable position to take. Really, let's not loose the plot and imagine that something outrageous was said.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Dear me! It seems like you and (most especially) Hotspace are intent upon working yourselves up into some sort of frenzy. That Collins is under attack in this thread suggests to me that there is some latent grudge being addressed, rather than making a point that is specificity relevant to this thread.

Hey, I said at the start all this discussion is some what OT, but PDN seemed happy to run with it (while throwing in the odd personal attack). And he is a Mod, who am I to argue with a mod :P

More than happy to take the discussion some where else

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The statement that epistemological empiricism alone is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life seems an eminently wise and an entirely reasonable position to take.

It does

Ok, have to disagree with you there, but again more than happy to discuss this on another thread.

Wicknight wrote: »

In fairness that was the impression you gave from this sentence -

The problem with wanting to go by epistemological empiricism alone is that it is inadequate for many of the most important areas of life.

What are you saying by saying that empiricism is inadequate for answering many of the most important areas of life if not that we shouldn't bother trying to answer these questions with empiricism. That is certainly what Collins is saying, and why he got the backs up of so many scientists.

No, in fairness that would only be the impression gained by someone who is determined to reach a certain conclusion, or who has problems with the English language. Let's apply a little bit of exegesis to what I said.

By using the word 'alone' instead of 'at all' I indicated that a reasonable approach to gaining knowledge is empiricism + something else, rather than empiricism alone. There was not even a remote hint in that sentence that empiricism should be abandoned.

Also, by saying that empiricism alone is inadequate for 'many of' rather than 'all' or even 'most of' the most important areas of life allows that empiricism is adequate for some of the most important areas of life.

And yes, Francis Collins is pretty OT (not to say OTT) in this thread, and I should have stomped on it rather than encouraging Hotspace in that regard, but do please try to understand that, for a scientific dunce such as myself, being bracketed along with one of the world's most accomplished scientists was too intoxicating not to savour the moment for a while.

PDN wrote: »

By using the word 'alone' instead of 'at all' I indicated that a reasonable approach to gaining knowledge is empiricism + something else, rather than empiricism alone. There was not even a remote hint in that sentence that empiricism should be abandoned.

Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt that is what you meant the reason I think for the confusing is that makes very little sense.

How do you use empiricism with something else that is not empirical in other to enhance empiricism while still maintaining empiricism?. By the very nature of using "something" else that isn't empirical you won't be using something that is empirical.

You can see, I hope, the confusing. You are basically saying that you did not mean to suggest that we abandon empiricism while suggesting we use something that lacks the properties of empiricism because empiricism won't do.

Anywhoo, Fanny is getting concerned so again I'm happy to continue this in this thread or in other thread. Just don't blame me for dragging this thread off topic.

Phototoxin

robindch wrote: »

If a problem that a deity created is going to cause the same deity a lot of trouble to fix, then why should the deity bother to declare the problem in the first place?

Or in simpler terms, god had himself killed in order to fulfill the terms of an agreement that he made with himself, to resolve a problem that he created.

It does not make sense, since he could have declared any other reality as he wished.

And to deal with the most obvious religious response before it comes, I don't think that getting oneself killed in accordance with a deal in which one is judge, jury and victim demonstrates commitment or love.

.

this is my main issue with Christianity (aka Original Sin) - if anyone can explain it better please pm me or something

Hotspace

I'm happy to start another thread on the subject of Epistemological Revelation Vs. Epistemological Empiricism. You may have to wait a week or so for me to start it.

To drag the thread back to its original subject:

PDN wrote: »

You don't see the irony of arguing that an all-powerful God (who can do anything) can't feel pain or suffer (in which case you're saying He can't do everything)?

Maybe the irony is lost on you. If we grant that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine and therefore omniscient then he is fully capable of not allowing himself to feel pain. To therefore put himself under pain was an act of masochism.

PDN wrote: »

The issue of three days was (wrongly) raised by an atheist, not a Christian. The Bible is clear that Christ paid for our sins on the Cross while He was alive, not anywhere else after His death.

Ok, how long did he spend in Hell, if indeed, he did and a rough estimate would suffice. The issue isn't where he paid for our sins but that he didn't suffer enough for every sin ever committed. Imagine the amount of sins committed from the crucifixion until the second coming and your mind boggles at the number. A few measly hours on the cross can only be considered a metaphorical suffering.

Is suicide not a sin? Thus Jesus was not sinless by your standards.

JimiTime

axer wrote: »

Is suicide not a sin? Thus Jesus was not sinless by your standards.

The question is, when he hammered the nail into his left hand, how did he hammer the nail into his right?

Or maybe, he was 'killed' by crucifixion, by the ruling Roman empire? just a thought.

Hotspace wrote: »

Maybe the irony is lost on you. If we grant that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine and therefore omniscient then he is fully capable of not allowing himself to feel pain. To therefore put himself under pain was an act of masochism.

Nobody is denying that, if He wished, Jesus was capable of not allowing Himself to feel pain. However, such a trick would mean that the Cross was not a payment of our sins. It would be like printing up counterfeit money in order to pay someone else's fine - and then to pretend that it cost you something.

Ok, how long did he spend in Hell, if indeed, he did and a rough estimate would suffice.

I don't think He spent any time in hell, since hell didn't even exist yet. The doctrine of penal substitution is that Jesus bore the pains of hell for us, not that he went to hell as a location. The Bible says that Christ bore our sins in His Body when He was on the Cross - so possibly we're talking about 3 hours.

The issue isn't where he paid for our sins but that he didn't suffer enough for every sin ever committed.

Ten out of ten for the first part of that sentence - zero out of ten for the second part.

Imagine the amount of sins committed from the crucifixion until the second coming and your mind boggles at the number. A few measly hours on the cross can only be considered a metaphorical suffering.

Nope. 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.

axer wrote: »

Is suicide not a sin? Thus Jesus was not sinless by your standards.

No & no.

JimiTime wrote: »

The question is, when he hammered the nail into his left hand, how did he hammer the nail into his right?

Or maybe, he was 'killed' by crucifixion, by the ruling Roman empire? just a thought.

So if I purposely walk into a pack of lions covered in red meat resulting in me being ripped apart - you wouldn't call that suicide? Jesus committed indirect suicide - which is suicide none-the-less. As a result Jesus was sinful like everyone else. The only difference between him and me is that he was a hypocrite (if he existed).

PDN, are you saying suicide is not a sin? The catechism of the Catholic church begs to differ.

[QUOTE=CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA www.newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm]Suicide is the act of one who causes his own death, either by positively destroying his own life, as by inflicting on himself a mortal wound or injury, or by omitting to do what is necessary to escape death, as by refusing to leave a burning house. From a moral standpoint we must treat therefore not only the prohibition of positive suicide, but also the obligation incumbent on man to preserve his life.[/QUOTE]According to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jesus committed suicide thus he committed a mortal sin and as a result he would be in Hell right now (if it existed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin wrote:

In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions at the same time:

1. its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter; [TICK]
2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offence (though nobody is deemed to be ignorant of the moral law, embedded in the conscience of every human being); [TICK]
3. it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.[TICK]

I think Jesus ticks all the boxes on this one.

JimiTime

axer wrote: »

So if I purposely walk into a pack of lions covered in red meat resulting in me being ripped apart - you wouldn't call that suicide? Jesus committed indirect suicide - which is suicide none-the-less. As a result Jesus was sinful like everyone else. The only difference between him and me is that he was a hypocrite (if he existed).

You're much to clever for me to argue with you.

PDN: I spelt crucifixion, 'crucifiction' didn't I? Saving me from the obvious accusations of a freudian slip:)

JimiTime wrote: »

You're much to clever for me to argue with you.

and you are much to sarcastic to have a discussion with anyway.

chozometroid

axer wrote: »

So if I purposely walk into a pack of lions covered in red meat resulting in me being ripped apart - you wouldn't call that suicide? Jesus committed indirect suicide - which is suicide none-the-less. As a result Jesus was sinful like everyone else. The only difference between him and me is that he was a hypocrite (if he existed).

PDN, are you saying suicide is not a sin? The catechism of the Catholic church begs to differ.

According to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jesus committed suicide thus he committed a mortal sin and as a result he would be in Hell right now (if it existed).

I think Jesus ticks all the boxes on this one.

You actually asked "is suicide NOT a sin?" PDN said "no."

Your argument that Jesus committed suicide fails for the following reasons:

1. Jesus did not "turn Himself in" to the authorities. He was captured. Just because Jesus knew the future (that He would be crucified), does not make it suicide. Since He did no single action to cause His own capture, you're basically saying His whole life was a long drawn-out attempt at suicide. I address this in #2 below. Parents know their children's future (that they will die one day), yet they still have them, and are not called murderers.

2. I think your main point is that Jesus Christ was incarnated as man, and then lived the life that would lead to his crucifixion. Problem with calling this suicide is this: Jesus lived His life the way He thought best, just as most people do. He had a message to spread, people to heal, love to share, but He wasn't popular with the government. By your standards, no one has the right to live their life according to their beliefs if there exists someone who has the capacity to kill them for doing so, because it would be suicide.

axer wrote: »

Jesus committed indirect suicide - which is suicide none-the-less.

That’s a bit of a stretch in fairness. By the same sort of reasoning you could argue that the fire fighters who went in to the towers in 9/11 or indeed any soldier / emergency services worker who took an inordinate risk with their life to save others is guilty of suicide, or attempted suicide.

Pompey Magnus

axer wrote: »

So if I purposely walk into a pack of lions covered in red meat resulting in me being ripped apart - you wouldn't call that suicide? Jesus committed indirect suicide - which is suicide none-the-less. As a result Jesus was sinful like everyone else. The only difference between him and me is that he was a hypocrite (if he existed).

Tread carefully on this, myself and Wicknight pointed out before how Jesus' actions in the Temple in the days before his death was an obvious equivalent to today's "suicide by cop" (deliberately acting in a threatening way with the goal of provoking a lethal response) and we got a ban (although it was soon lifted by a neutral adjudicator). I think certain Christians don't like this detail being pointed out.

PDN, are you saying suicide is not a sin? The catechism of the Catholic church begs to differ.

I wouldn't put too much trust in what the Catholic Church says on the matter. They say that yet at the same time they venerate the Christian martyr Perpetua as a saint even though actually she killed herself by taking the sword from her executioner and cutting her own throat. Double standards I think.

axer wrote: »

PDN, are you saying suicide is not a sin? The catechism of the Catholic church begs to differ.

According to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jesus committed suicide thus he committed a mortal sin and as a result he would be in Hell right now (if it existed).

Don't think PDN is a Catholic. Neither was Jesus :P

The debate over whether Jesus committed suicide really depends on how one defines suicide and the negative connotations that surround that word.

Suicide normally carries connotations of destroying oneself for the purposes of ending suffering or pain (such as depression). If a fire fighter runs into a burning building, grabs a child and throws him to safety as the build collapses around him people would not associate that action as in any way similar to someone who slits their arms and bleeds to death because their girlfriend dumped them. Would you say the fire fighter committed suicide or would you say he sacrificed himself heroically in order to save child. He didn't wish to die, but he was prepared to die in order that the child may live.

You do get the term used in other context though, such as the classic movie cliché "You don't go back, it would be suicide! - I got to try darn it!", where it is used to signify heroism in the face of certain death. This would have more in common with the fire fighter than the depressed guy in the bath tub, but the use of the term "suicide" is still used to mean that the person will most likely die as a result of his actions.

I would consider Jesus' teach similar to what is known as commonly as Death By Cop, which is technically a form of suicide. Jesus, in order so that he would be killed by mankind, placed himself in a position where that would be the only outcome to his actions, similar to how a person may rise a gun towards a police officer knowing that the only response possible is that the police officer will shoot him.

Death by cop is associated with the classic I'm depressed and I want to die scenario of suicide, but is also associated with the heroic form of sacrificial suicide, again demonstrated by the cliche of Hollywood (Saving Private Ryan for example)

While interesting all this is some what irrelevant as PDN points out that suicide is not considered a sin by a lot of Christians, and only came to be considered a sin in the Middle Ages. There is logic behind that, if you get to heaven after you die why not just top yourself now and go straight there. The Church would have had to justify telling people not to do this.

Wicknight wrote: »

I would consider Jesus' teach similar to what is known as commonly as Death By Cop, which is technically a form of suicide. Jesus, in order so that he would be killed by mankind, placed himself in a position where that would be the only outcome to his actions, similar to how a person may rise a gun towards a police officer knowing that the only response possible is that the police officer will shoot him.

If Jesus really is the son of God then unlike anyone else before or since, he would know with certainty that this was the case. And presumably he knew that it was necessary for him to die to redeem our sins. That scenario clearly sits along side stories of heroic figures going in to a burning building.
If he was not the son of God was not omnipotent and thus was unable to prevent his crucifixion.
Either way I fail to see how you can label his actions suicide in the more common understanding of suicide?

Are Jesus and God the same?