The despised Cross of Christ

[InChrist]

The Cross of Christ represents the abandonment of justice. It's about inflicting terrible punishment on the only person who could be honestly said to deserve no punishment at all.

The Cross of Christ represents the abandonment of mercy. It's about inflicting, not relieving, terrible suffering.

That may be one way of looking at it...if Jesus was simply only a truly good person. Yet, I believe the scriptures indicate that He was God Himself the Creator, one with the Father, who willingly paid the eternal price for sin which I believe any human being is incapable of paying. Therefore, God in the Person of Jesus Christ chose to bear and pay for the sins of the world, something which only God Himself could accomplish. This demonstrates the ultimate in sacrificial love and mercy from my perspective.

Of course I despise what the cross represents. There's nothing good in it.

A question for you: if you love Christ, how can you love the God who would demand or inflict (choose whichever reflects your theology) this on him?

Edit: how can you claim to be Christlike if you revel in his suffering? Would Christ revel in the suffering of another?

As I said above, I believe Jesus Christ is God Himself who chose to take on the punishment for sin for the very reason that humanity would not have to bear that eternal suffering. So clearly Christ does not revel in the suffering of another since He took it all upon Himself. I do not revel in the suffering,of Christ, but rather give thanks for His love, mercy, and and eternal freedom.

Thank you for expressing your perspective. Although, I see things differently, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

 

[InChrist]

Well, I was talking about puritanical forms of Christianity. For reference, an extreme example of puritan Christianity is that which conducted the Salem Witch Trials. (Most aren't anywhere near that extreme or dangerous, but puritanical thought does seem to underline a lot of US Christianity and culture in general). Makes no sense to me; even Jesus said "eat, drink, and be merry!"

However, the very notion of "humanity is inherently sinful" is very much going to reinforce self-loathing in a lot of people. It's probably not causal, since there's plenty of Christians who believe that doctrine and don't suffer from depression or self-loathing, but for such a person who is prone to these, that doctrine is toxic.

For reference, when I say "things that bring joy", I very much include sexual activities (restrained only by educated safety), celebrating on holidays, playing games of competition, etc.

However, as I am not a Christian, I leave it to Christians to determine a solution.

Yes, there have been many extreme examples of "Christianity". In all such cases I think it is necessary to look to the scriptures and Christ alone, rather than people for validity. It seems to me that a check with scripture and the Spirit of Christ reveals the twisted nature of religious movements or incidents, such as the Salem Witch Trials, that claim to be Christian, but are not in line with the Spirit of the Word or Christ.

I don't think Jesus actually said to "eat, drink, and be merry". But neither do I think He had anything against eating, drinking, and being merry, enjoying holidays, various activities, or sexuality according to God's design. I believe that human beings come to self-loathing all on their own when at times they may honestly face the reality of their own selfish, hurtful thoughts and behavior toward others. I see the biblical message of Christ's love demonstrated on the cross and His resurrection to new life for all as freedom from any such self-loathing..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That may be one way of looking at it...if Jesus was simply only a truly good person. Yet, I believe the scriptures indicate that He was God Himself the Creator, one with the Father, who willingly paid the eternal price for sin which I believe any human being is incapable of paying.

A price only needs to be paid if the creditor will not forgive the debt. It's a situation created by God.

Therefore, God in the Person of Jesus Christ chose to bear and pay for the sins of the world, something which only God Himself could accomplish. This demonstrates the ultimate in sacrificial love and mercy from my perspective.

That's only half of the picture. The other half is a god who knowingly demanded an unpayable price in the first place, and who demanded it be paid from someone who didn't owe it. "I don't care who dies as long as I get my blood"? There's no love or mercy in that attitude, and without it, Christ's sacrifice is unnecessary.

We consider it an outrage and a miscarriage of justice when an innocent person is punished for the crimes of another. Why shouldn't be outraged at Christ's predicament? Why isn't this a miscarriage of justice?

As I said above, I believe Jesus Christ is God Himself who chose to take on the punishment for sin for the very reason that humanity would not have to bear that eternal suffering.

Why is that better than not making anyone suffer at all?

So clearly Christ does not revel in the suffering of another since He took it all upon Himself. I do not revel in the suffering,of Christ, but rather give thanks for His love, mercy, and and eternal freedom.

Glad to hear that you don't, but I've seen it enough to conclude that it's common among Christians.

 

[InChrist]

The key word above is the word "in", and why that's so important is that Jesus' main message was really a call to action, not p.c. belief. The "Sermon in the Mount", for example, was a motivational speech for people to get off their duffs and actually do something to help others. Jesus' "Parable of the Sheep & Goats" condemns the idea that belief alone is enough, as the "goats" believe about Jesus but not in Jesus.

Luther did Christianity a great disservice when he cherry-picked Paul's writings and came out with his "saved by faith alone" doctrine, which Paul actually denied if one reads his epistles in their entirety. What it has done is to create a whole segment of the population that think they can do anything and that it doesn't really matter what they do in the eyes of God because they have this p.c. belief about Jesus-- "I'm saved!". As Gandhi said about them: "They elevated the man and forgot his message".

I agree that belief alone is not enough if it does not result in actions in real life, because I don't think such superficial belief is the kind of belief the scriptures speak about where one believes to the point of surrender to Christ. Nevertheless, I think it is this point of surrendered belief and faith in Christ that saves....and then the changed actions follow.
A casual reading of the parable of the sheep and goats may seem to suggest that salvation is the result of good works.The “sheep” acted charitably, giving food, drink, and clothing to the needy. The “goats” showed no charity. But from the context of the whole of scripture I see the good works mentioned in the parable as the result of salvation and the effect this has on one's life, not the cause of salvation.. A Christians becomes indwelt by Christ and like Christ when their life is daily submitted to Him. So according to the scriptures, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective. It does give me insight to how others may look at the subject.

 

[InChrist]

A price only needs to be paid if the creditor will not forgive the debt. It's a situation created by God.


That's only half of the picture. The other half is a god who knowingly demanded an unpayable price in the first place, and who demanded it be paid from someone who didn't owe it. "I don't care who dies as long as I get my blood"? There's no love or mercy in that attitude, and without it, Christ's sacrifice is unnecessary.

We consider it an outrage and a miscarriage of justice when an innocent person is punished for the crimes of another. Why shouldn't be outraged at Christ's predicament? Why isn't this a miscarriage of justice?

Why is that better than not making anyone suffer at all?


Glad to hear that you don't, but I've seen it enough to conclude that it's common among Christians.

I don't think it is a situation that was necessarily created by God, except that He created humans in the first place. I suppose He could have just skipped creating us, but He chose to.and in doing so beings were in existence who were therefore less than God. Beings who did things that were and are contrary to His goodness and perfection. Things which are offenses. Offenses or crimes because we each have the choice to agree with God, who is Perfection, or refuse and do our own imperfect thing. Since according to the scriptures we have all chosen to commit crimes against God's perfection and in doing so harm others, we are all guilty.

I don't see what Christ accomplished on the cross as a miscarriage of justice. To allow sin to go on forever with out punishment would certainly be a miscarriage of justice. Just look at it effect and the suffering it brings upon this earth. Instead Jesus chose to meet the requirements of justice on behalf of any,who desire pardon, freedom, and a changed new life.

 

[roger1440]

The key word above is the word "in", and why that's so important is that Jesus' main message was really a call to action, not p.c. belief. The "Sermon in the Mount", for example, was a motivational speech for people to get off their duffs and actually do something to help others. Jesus' "Parable of the Sheep & Goats" condemns the idea that belief alone is enough, as the "goats" believe about Jesus but not in Jesus.

Luther did Christianity a great disservice when he cherry-picked Paul's writings and came out with his "saved by faith alone" doctrine, which Paul actually denied if one reads his epistles in their entirety. What it has done is to create a whole segment of the population that think they can do anything and that it doesn't really matter what they do in the eyes of God because they have this p.c. belief about Jesus-- "I'm saved!". As Gandhi said about them: "They elevated the man and forgot his message".

It’s been decades since I read the writings of Luther. If I am not mistaken what he meant by “faith alone” is that a person can not earn his way to salvation. It is not by works. It is by genuine faith, but faith will produce works. Luther was not in agreement with the Catholic Church. According to the Church of his time a person must do a bunch of things before entering the pearly gates. “Faith alone” doesn’t mean a Christian puts his hands behind his head, puts his feet up and says, “yeah, I got this.”

 

[metis]

I agree that belief alone is not enough if it does not result in actions in real life, because I don't think such superficial belief is the kind of belief the scriptures speak about where one believes to the point of surrender to Christ. Nevertheless, I think it is this point of surrendered belief and faith in Christ that saves....and then the changed actions follow.
A casual reading of the parable of the sheep and goats may seem to suggest that salvation is the result of good works.The “sheep” acted charitably, giving food, drink, and clothing to the needy. The “goats” showed no charity. But from the context of the whole of scripture I see the good works mentioned in the parable as the result of salvation and the effect this has on one's life, not the cause of salvation.. A Christians becomes indwelt by Christ and like Christ when their life is daily submitted to Him. So according to the scriptures, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective. It does give me insight to how others may look at the subject.

You're welcome.

Just let me mention that you might reread Jesus' "Parable of the Sheep & Goats" because I do believe you're missing something with your interpretation. Focus in on what Jesus says to the "goats" and why he condemns them.

 

[metis]

It’s been decades since I read the writings of Luther. If I am not mistaken what he meant by “faith alone” is that a person can not earn his way to salvation. It is not by works. It is by genuine faith, but faith will produce works. Luther was not in agreement with the Catholic Church. According to the Church of his time a person must do a bunch of things before entering the pearly gates. “Faith alone” doesn’t mean a Christian puts his hands behind his head, puts his feet up and says, “yeah, I got this.”

Luther was a troubled man who really desired assurance that he was saved, and his insistence that one is "saved by faith and faith alone" was that assurance. An excellent biography on him is "Here I Stand".

BTW, I grew up in a fundamentalist Lutheran church.

 

[buddhist]

I believe the gospel is the "good news" of the historical event of Christ's death on the cross, burial, and resurrection to save and redeem human beings for eternity.

I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day... 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

In the world where humanist mindset prevails that all are inherently good the cross is despised because it is contrary to such thinking and confronts human pride and the sinfulness of human nature. In today's market-driven or contemplative churches , this gospel is overshadowed by an enticing counterfeit gospel. In the place of the cross, many of today's most popular churches are celebrating their visible "good deeds" -- the kind of "works" and ethical or spiritual living that draw man's applause, not God's approval. [Galatians 1:10] People prefer to feel good about themselves and think they can earn their pardon from sin, their place in heaven, or attain their own spiritual advancement. The pseudo-Christian groups that claim to accept the Bible and Christ are no different in that they, too, even while acknowledging Christ's death, despise the cross as insufficient and needing the addition their own efforts, rules, rituals, and "good works".

But the scriptures point to the work of Christ alone; His death on the cross and resurrection to new life as complete and sufficient.

"God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14
Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:25

Whoever you are, whatever you believe, do you despise or embrace what the cross of Jesus Christ represents?

In my former Christian life, I would have rebutted with verses from the book of James, e.g. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24.

There may have been differing factions and interpretations of Jesus's message in the early days, one (lawful) faction led by James, the other (faith & grace only) by Paul.

 

[metis]

In my former Christian life, I would have rebutted with verses from the book of James, e.g. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24.

There may have been differing factions and interpretations of Jesus's message in the early days, one (lawful) faction led by James, the other (faith & grace only) by Paul.

But even Paul backs off when he said that there's "faith, hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love". And love without good works is like "cymbals clashing". To me, I think that Paul's "salvation by faith" is both a counter to the concept of "salvation" by just following the Law, plus I believe it's likely that he sees the word "faith" as having faith in Jesus and not just about Jesus. And we well know that this was indeed a characteristic of the early church, namely heavy involvement in helping the ill and the needy, even being willing to put one's own life at risk. Many converted because members of "the Way" were willing to do just that.

BTW, "agape" (love) in Koine Greek actually is rendered as being more of an action-type noun that it is in English. IOW, one just doesn't have love, one does love.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think it is a situation that was necessarily created by God, except that He created humans in the first place. I suppose He could have just skipped creating us, but He chose to.and in doing so beings were in existence who were therefore less than God. Beings who did things that were and are contrary to His goodness and perfection.

A creator's perfection is expressed in his creation. An imperfect creation implies an imperfect creator.

Things which are offenses. Offenses or crimes because we each have the choice to agree with God, who is Perfection, or refuse and do our own imperfect thing.

So your all-powerful god is incapable of choosing a different punishment for offending him besides death?

Since according to the scriptures we have all chosen to commit crimes against God's perfection and in doing so harm others, we are all guilty.

But Christ wasn't, so punishing him is unjust.

I don't see what Christ accomplished on the cross as a miscarriage of justice. To allow sin to go on forever with out punishment would certainly be a miscarriage of justice.

Christ's sacrifice ended sin?

Just look at it effect and the suffering it brings upon this earth. Instead Jesus chose to meet the requirements of justice on behalf of any,who desire pardon, freedom, and a changed new life.

Punishing an innocent man meets no requirements of justice. Punishing someone who has committed no crime instead of the guilty is the perversion of justice, not its fulfillment.

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe that human beings come to self-loathing all on their own when at times they may honestly face the reality of their own selfish, hurtful thoughts and behavior toward others.

In some cases, perhaps, but I can personally attest that this is not always the case.

When growing up with the idea that "humanity is inherently sinful", and that nothing can ever be good enough to be no-longer-sinful, self-loathing could strike even the most selfless, helpful, kind-hearted people.

 

[InChrist]

You're welcome.

Just let me mention that you might reread Jesus' "Parable of the Sheep & Goats" because I do believe you're missing something with your interpretation. Focus in on what Jesus says to the "goats" and why he condemns them.

I actually don't think I have any disagreement with you over the parable itself or its injunction to the importance of demonstrating active love to others, even the least among us. I think faith spoken of in the Bible is faith that expresses itself through love ... For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.(Galatians 5:5-6). Love is the work of faith; it cannot be inoperative. Where we may disagree is that I don't believe works alone (especially religious works, rituals, rules or otherwise meant to make oneself right with God) can save anyone. Yet, if there are no works revealing and demonstrating the flow of God's love to others present in one’s life, then, there must be something not right with one’s faith. Love is the work of faith, and when love is absent, then, this absence betrays an inadequacy of the faith.
Thanks again for sharing your perspective. It helps me to try to see the view of another and also consider, think, pray, and understand my own more clearly.

 

[InChrist]

In my former Christian life, I would have rebutted with verses from the book of James, e.g. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24.

There may have been differing factions and interpretations of Jesus's message in the early days, one (lawful) faction led by James, the other (faith & grace only) by Paul.

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate you bringing up James and Paul. So many seem to think they were in disagreement. I don't really see that, though and consider rather that their perspectives and writings complemented each other. Paul's teachings concentrate on our justification through Christ, while James’ teachings concentrate on the works that exemplify that justification.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I believe the gospel is the "good news" of the historical event of Christ's death on the cross, burial, and resurrection to save and redeem human beings for eternity.

I believe that Jesus was the proponent of the Way. The execution and whatever happened afterward were irrelevant.

I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day... 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

God didn't preach the gospel, so this did not come from Him.

In the place of the cross, many of today's most popular churches are celebrating their visible "good deeds" -- the kind of "works" and ethical or spiritual living that draw man's applause, not God's approval. [Galatians 1:10]

I agree that "they have their reward", but celebrating belief is ALSO going to result in God saying "They have their reward".

But the scriptures point to the work of Christ alone; His death on the cross and resurrection to new life as complete and sufficient.

If that were the case, we would only need the gospels. The Way is the Way no matter who is talking about, just like it doesn't matter who is your math teacher: math is math. God had no troubles dealing with people prior to Jesus and had no problems dealing with people after Jesus. The Scriptures point to the Way (with cultural biases also in play).

"God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14
Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:25

I lack your love of Paul. I consider him to be less accurate than a broken watch. I've noticed "the scriptures point to Christ" used by lots of people, but only about 3 people are actually quoted from the ENTIRE list of authors with regularity. Such people might as well not even bother with the bible and only have a text with the works of Paul and John (both John's).

Whoever you are, whatever you believe, do you despise or embrace what the cross of Jesus Christ represents?

I do not despise it. I consider it idolatry to focus on one little frame out of the entire movie of Jesus' ministry. The Cross has become unto God for many people. It's sad, really.

For example, I've heard it said that the cross was foreshadowed by the bronze snake that Moses made that could cure people. What is typically left OUT of the ads for this notion is that it was later taken down as a source of IDOLATRY. The only crosses in my house are my mother's. I could care less, as what is in my heart is what's important, not decorations.

Refusing the cross is Paul's way of describing the refusal to deny ones self and become part of the body of Christ, no longer being an individual but part of Christ.

I was going to say "describing the refusal to believe Paul is God's gift to Christianity", but your way works too.

Do you think that when or if one decides to follow the teachings of Yeshua at a certain point in their life this then erases all their past sins?

Erasure of sins is not the goal. Jesus was quite clear that we will get what we deserve. Put in 10%, get 10%. Put in 100%, get 100%. Brag on earth about getting 100%, get not a dang thing.

I think if one is led to believe that only a single politically correct belief is required then they probably never actually placed their belief in Jesus Christ and submitted their life to Him because according to the scriptures faith in Christ's death on the cross and resurrection brings about death to the old nature and new life to the person in Christ..

You have been TOLD that by people other than God. The Scriptures point toward the Way. For God's Word, it's amusing that God and then Jesus have such little "screentime" in Their own anthologies. You'd think if it were actually ABOUT them, the writings would be mostly ABOUT them, but they're not. They are about humans trying to get it together (and usually screwing up, but yay for dreams, right?).

I certainly celebrate life, too, but according to the scriptures, without the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for the sake of humanity there would be no new life to celebrate.

Back to life imagery happens pre-Jesus, so why is God suddenly powerless to do this Himself?

I appreciate that you have shared your thoughts. I suppose I can't demonstrate to you that we are born with a sinful nature, but for me when I am honest with myself or see the behavior of everyone I've ever known or view the condition of the world it appears obvious that humans have a sin problem. That's my perspective, but I realize everyone sees things differently.

I think we have a "bless your heart" problem. Humans are impulsive and tend to screw up. "Sin" requires informed motivation to do evil. There's a reason Adam and Eve get off with essentially slaps on the wrist and Cain, the first MURDERER, gets practically no punishment whatsoever: they are SCREW-UPS, not evil people. Evil is much more rare in society than we are led to believe by clergy with financial interests in getting you into their pews (it's not like they ever claim you can go to ANY church, but will guilt trip you into believing you must follow THEM). God is not nearly as angry with us as evil people would claim. The first thing an evil person does is try to distract from their evil by claiming "everyone does it", from the Duggars to Paul to whomever. It's like when people quote a verse from supposedly King David where he whines about being sinful from birth... that's HIS problem, not ours. MOST people don't go around whoring around and killing tons of people and such.

Well, I was talking about puritanical forms of Christianity. For reference, an extreme example of puritan Christianity is that which conducted the Salem Witch Trials. (Most aren't anywhere near that extreme or dangerous, but puritanical thought does seem to underline a lot of US Christianity and culture in general). Makes no sense to me; even Jesus said "eat, drink, and be merry!"

I feel Jesus hung out with "sinners", not because they needed forgiveness (as it was clear he thought it was the self-righteous who were the sickest), but because they were being victimized by a lack of compassion. He saw the Light in them the "good" people refused to see.

You are not a god who delights in evil. No wicked person finds refuge with you the arrogant cannot standbefore your eyes. You hate all who do evil you destory those who speak fasley, abloodly and fradulent man the Lord adhors.

Ah, but it is the villains who tell us we are separated from God. They put blinders on us, berate us ... they are like abusive spouses trying to keep us from seeing our families. It is like the gulf that supposedly separates heaven from hell: if that's true, how do the people in Jesus' parable about Lazarus work? Good wifi in hell? Whether Jesus intended it or not, it reveals the gulf is in our heads.

I have a co-worker who sliped something from her mouth, "I dont know where you will go in the afterlife," she paused, and re-adjusted herself, "anyway, um..." We were talking about religion and her hint was since Im not christian Im not going to heaven.

Supposedly Jesus put a down payment or something on many mansions. They don't all have to look the same. I believe anyone who believes in an afterlife will experience the one they see in their hearts. I believe (lately) that all people go to Heaven, but evil people will see the compassion and friendliness of those in Heaven and be disgusted. For them, Heaven is Hell. There is no reason to have a separate place.

If 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is not considered a gospel or good news, what do you think should be the gospel? Do you know any?

Beatitudes
I mean, Jesus, while not following his own rules perfectly, at least has better things to say than "Paul sayeth I should beleiveth in him, even when he says he doesn't get some things from God and just madeth it up".

So, who do you consider the anti-christ that rages the society?

It's not a "who", just as the Way is not a "who". There is the Way and there is "Nothing". One will take you where you need to go and the other simply won't.

That may be one way of looking at it...if Jesus was simply only a truly good person. Yet, I believe the scriptures indicate that He was God Himself the Creator, one with the Father

And yet Jesus is nowhere in either Genesis 1 or 2. Again, why bother with the whole bible when you only rely on the views of a couple of people?

Even if you are an okay person, the *cough* good news *cough* is that God will take into account those who think evil thoughts merely because they are ignorant of anything else.

(Of course, nowadays, I suspect God will ask why, in the 21st century with the internet, people wouldn't go learn stuff for themselves, but that's more of an intelligence issue, not necessarily a moral one.)

Yes, there have been many extreme examples of "Christianity". In all such cases I think it is necessary to look to the scriptures and Christ alone, rather than people for validity.

So follow your own advice?

I don't see what Christ accomplished on the cross as a miscarriage of justice. To allow sin to go on forever with out punishment would certainly be a miscarriage of justice.

Let's say you have two kids and one has been stealing your credit card and the other hasn't. The "good" kid goes to jail so that the "bad" kid doesn't. What did we teach the bad kid? "Oh, don't worry, honey ... you just keep on being a rotten thief ... you NEVER have to worry about responsibility or accountability." They will graduate from theft to assault to murder, all because no one demanded they deal with their own crap.

It's psych 101. If Jesus' execution by Romans really did mean anything, it meant God didn't know anything about humans when He first made them and didn't by the time of Jesus and most likely knows little now if He wants Jesus to come back and fix it (again).

 

[Brickjectivity]

I was going to say "describing the refusal to believe Paul is God's gift to Christianity", but your way works too.

Can't talk Christian with him. Can't talk Christian without him.

 

[InChrist]

A creator's perfection is expressed in his creation. An imperfect creation implies an imperfect creator.

So your all-powerful god is incapable of choosing a different punishment for offending him besides death?

But Christ wasn't, so punishing him is unjust.

Christ's sacrifice ended sin?

Punishing an innocent man meets no requirements of justice. Punishing someone who has committed no crime instead of the guilty is the perversion of justice, not its fulfillment.

I appreciate your thoughts. I just see things differently, Such as, though God called His creation of humans "good" we certainly could not be perfect because only God is perfect. Also, since we are made in the image of God this included a will and ability to choose, which thereby includes the possibility of less than perfect and harmful choices. Seems to me that God was wise in death as the solution for sin since its ramifications are so destructive to everyone and creation itself that to eliminate it is the only answer...if repentance or change is not chosen.
If the Father God, If Christ the Son does not think it unjust that He be punished, how can you be so sure you know better? The only option left if Christ did not meet the requirements on behalf of humanity is then that each person bear it themselves. Do you want to bear the eternal penalty of sin?
As of yet, sin has not ended, except for those in heaven, because history is not over yet, nor has the new heaven and new earth come about yet.

 

[InChrist]

In some cases, perhaps, but I can personally attest that this is not always the case.

When growing up with the idea that "humanity is inherently sinful", and that nothing can ever be good enough to be no-longer-sinful, self-loathing could strike even the most selfless, helpful, kind-hearted people.

Thank you again for more insight into your perspective. Well, I can somewhat understand what you are saying, yet, I think even the most kind-hearted people at times live for self at the expense of others. When you think about even the idea of "self-loathing "; that is being self-centered. Really, when someone is selfless they are not thinking of themselves at all and certainly don't have time to loath themselves if they are loving, helping, and serving others.
I see that when the gospel or message of the cross reveals that we can't do enough good things to get rid of our sinfulness it is simply exposing a reality we all, if we are honest, already know and such and awareness should drive us into the loving arms and forgiveness of our waiting Creator God.

 

[Riverwolf]

Thank you again for more insight into your perspective. Well, I can somewhat understand what you are saying, yet, I think even the most kind-hearted people at times live for self at the expense of others. When you think about even the idea of "self-loathing "; that is being self-centered. Really, when someone is selfless they are not thinking of themselves at all and certainly don't have time to loath themselves if they are loving, helping, and serving others.

Self-loathing is an aspect of depression, which is a TERRIBLE liar, with one of its biggest tricks being twisting words. Saying this sort of thing to someone who suffers from it could actually make things worse. It's just reinforcing the idea that they're bad people, and thus makes their self-loathing even stronger.

What you're describing as a "selfless" person is basically someone who can't function. Even Jesus at one point pleaded, "take this cup away from me, for I don't want to taste its poison."

I see that when the gospel or message of the cross reveals that we can't do enough good things to get rid of our sinfulness it is simply exposing a reality we all, if we are honest, already know and such and awareness should drive us into the loving arms and forgiveness of our waiting Creator God.

I don't "already know it honestly." Frankly, when I look at it "honestly", I find the entire idea despicable; a deception, nay, an ill spellcraft, designed (likely unintentionally) to subtly instill the very same self-loathing that can entice vulnerable people into a highly toxic environment.

No, when I finally was honest with myself, I came to a realization. Selfishness is NOT inherently bad, nor does its existence necessitate a lack of selflessness. Both can, and do, easily exist side-by-side with each other, neither cancelling the other out, and both making the other stronger.

It's only when selfishness is indulged in to the unwilling expense of others, THAT'S when there's a problem. But there's nothing inherently "sinful" (or, to put it more honestly, "evil") about humans as a whole. Nor is there anything inherently "good". Good and evil are not objective "things", they're descriptions. They're adjectives, not nouns.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Thanks for your thoughts. Would you mind elaborating on the reason(s) you you feel the way you do?

Imagine a state run by a military dictator. This dictator provides everything and creates a utopia on earth - for those who agree with him. Those who hold differing political or religious views are sent to a prison camp to be physically and mentally tortured around the clock for 50 years. What would the international reaction to this state be? Horror and disgust around the world; maybe the threat of military intervention.

Now, imagine the same thing, but the dissenters are tortured forever. The entire length of time the universe existed, and beyond - regardless of whether their deeds are good or evil. This is an infinitely worse crime, and yet many believers in an eternal hell accept it as the behavior of not only a morally good being, but the most morally good being imaginable.

Who would you rather see in Heaven - Gandhi (a lifelong non-Christian) or Jeffrey Dahmer (who accepted Christ while in prison)?