Forgiveness

[slave2six]

Jesus was a man who "went about doing good" and when he encountered someone in need of forgiveness, he pretty much just forgave them. Even when they didn't ask for it. Even in the story of him being crucified he forgave the guys who were butchering him.

When Peter asked him how often he should forgive his neighbor "up to seven times?" Jesus replied, "No. Seventy times seven" or in essence, "never stop forgiving someone who asks for it."

So, considering all this, what the heck is all this bloody sacrifice on a cross about? If as a man Jesus could forgive people and he instructed his followers to forgive liberally without demanding recompense, why isn't God able to forgive without bloodshed? The story of the death of Christ is at complete odds with the life of Christ. Any Christians care to explain this?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Though not Christian, the explanation is obvious: you're confused.

 

[slave2six]

Though not Christian, the explanation is obvious: you're confused.

How so? It is clear Christian doctrine that the sacrifice of Christ and his brutal death were the means by which reconciliation with God was made possible. This flies in the face of the very meaning of forgiveness.

 

[Riverwolf]

It doesn't make sense to modern readers, because we don't have animal sacrifice anymore.

You should study the practice of animal sacrifice and why it was believed to be necessary, and you'll understand.

 

[sojourner]

How so? It is clear Christian doctrine that the sacrifice of Christ and his brutal death were the means by which reconciliation with God was made possible. This flies in the face of the very meaning of forgiveness.

You need to study the Orthodox (and others). It is clear Christian doctrine that the Incarnation was the means by which reconciliation with God was made possible.

Jay is right. You're confused.

 

[slave2six]

You need to study the Orthodox (and others). It is clear Christian doctrine that the Incarnation was the means by which reconciliation with God was made possible.

Jay is right. You're confused.

No. I'm not.

"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."

"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

This is as fundamental to Christianity as you can possibly get.

And you think I'm confused? Your thinking so reinforces to me that Christians generally don't really know what they believe or why or even question if what they believe is true in any sense, much less rational.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Jesus was a man who "went about doing good" and when he encountered someone in need of forgiveness, he pretty much just forgave them. Even when they didn't ask for it. Even in the story of him being crucified he forgave the guys who were butchering him.

When Peter asked him how often he should forgive his neighbor "up to seven times?" Jesus replied, "No. Seventy times seven" or in essence, "never stop forgiving someone who asks for it."

So, considering all this, what the heck is all this bloody sacrifice on a cross about? If as a man Jesus could forgive people and he instructed his followers to forgive liberally without demanding recompense, why isn't God able to forgive without bloodshed? The story of the death of Christ is at complete odds with the life of Christ. Any Christians care to explain this?

I think it's the recognition that people at all times will do the very best they can with the information they have to themselves at the time. The recognition that they truly "know not what they do" - because they may not have all the possible information.

 

[PureX]

I do not believe that God demanded any such blood sacrifice before forgiving mankind. That's just some made up religious nonsense. And I believe the story of Jesus' death is offered as proof of this (as he forgave us even while we tortured and murdered him). The OT is about the debt of sin and endless sacrifices. It is Jewish. The NT is about divine forgiveness. No more sacrifices. It is about Jesus the Christ as God's love and forgiveness in human form.

There are a lot of Christians, however who don't like forgiveness, and so pretend that we must "buy" it by jumping through religious hoops and such. They want to believe that THEY are forgiven, because they profess the right religious stuff, but everyone else isn't.

Forgiveness is hard. Especially forgiving our enemies. That's the real "cross" that all Christians are challenged to bear, as Jesus did. Many a Christian has failed at carrying it. And we should forgive them, too, because sooner or later we'll all fail at it. We are human after all.

 

[slave2six]

I do not believe that God demanded any such blood sacrifice before forgiving mankind.

Then how do you explain the Scriptures cited in post #6 above? Or all that stuff about "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no part in me" (Jesus)? Or how about "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again." or "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

You can't call yourself a Christian without grasping these very basic fundamentals. Well, you can but you'd be deceiving yourself.

You guys make me wonder if there are any real Christians in the world after all.

 

[Riverwolf]

Then how do you explain the Scriptures cited in post #6 above? Or all that stuff about "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no part in me" (Jesus)? Or how about "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again." or "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Give me evidence that it actually was Jesus who said these.

You can't call yourself a Christian without grasping these very basic fundamentals. Well, you can but you'd be deceiving yourself.

Why? Jesus himself said the Golden Rule is: "Love God with all your heart and your soul and love your enemy as your neighbor."

THAT is the very basic fundamental of ALL religions, Christianity included.

You guys make me wonder if there are any real Christians in the world after all.

Have you considered the possibility that your idea of "what makes a Christian" may be off? After all, you are not one yourself.

 

[RamaRaksha]

There are two different people here - for example say there is a Judge who just found out that one of his sons was abused by a pedophile. As a father he needs to forgive the man for his evil act otherwise hatred will eat him alive, but as a Judge he should not forgive the pedophile brought before him. The pedophile must be properly tried and given the just punishment.

Forgiveness is for us, we should forgive, God should not.

 

[PureX]

Then how do you explain the Scriptures cited in post #6 above? Or all that stuff about "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no part in me" (Jesus)? Or how about "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again." or "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

I don't see how any of these would be interpreted to mean that God demanded a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins.

Anyway, scripture was written by men, for men. It was not written by God, nor should it carry that kind of weight. That would be a form of idolatry. Religion is just religion. It's a dire mistake to mistake it for divine truth. I am not against religion, but just as it can be useful, it can also be abused. And has been, by the very people who profess Christ the loudest. Christ is the spirit of God's love and forgiveness being expressed through mankind, as exemplified by the story of Jesus' life and death. It is neither contained nor controlled by any religious dogma.

You can't call yourself a Christian without grasping these very basic fundamentals. Well, you can but you'd be deceiving yourself.

Christ is not a religious ideology. It's a state of being. A way of viewing one's function and purpose relative to God. "Christians" are not defined by their beliefs, but by the way they exist in the world.

You guys make me wonder if there are any real Christians in the world after all.

The real Christians are often the ones NOT shouting about how Christian they are.

 

[idea]

So, considering all this, what the heck is all this bloody sacrifice on a cross about? If as a man Jesus could forgive people and he instructed his followers to forgive liberally without demanding recompense, why isn't God able to forgive without bloodshed? The story of the death of Christ is at complete odds with the life of Christ. Any Christians care to explain this?

It's not about God forgiving us - it is about the rest of us having a reason to forgive one another.

It's about justice. - read this, it is worth it.

from Cleon...
. If you want to see how the (atonement) overcomes the demands of justice, watch this. There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.
She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?” President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.” And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.



Several hundred were killed - think of their families, their mothers/wives/chidlren - they want justice right? and yet they do not criticize Lincoln's decision - Is it fair that their kids die? It is not just for them to let the sleeping idiot off the hook - to just forgive and forget when people have died - there has to be another reason.

The little mother - she did nothing to them, they hold no grudge towards her. She paid a price though - her husband, her children killed. They are willing to forgive and forget - not for the sake of the idiot lazy son who killed their children - they are willing to forgive and forget for her sake - for the sake of the mother. That is how the atonement works. We forgive others, not because others deserve it, but because it would be unfair to leave our Heavenly Parents without recompence for what they have lost.


We are the idiot lazy son in the story.
Heavenly Parents = the little mother
Jesus = the husband/children of the little mother who died in the war.


you see, no one would have compassion for the little mother if she had not lost anyone - but she did, He did, They did. Jesus death put all of us in the war together, makes things equal and just. We've all lost someone, and we will all be willing to forgive and forget everything for "T" Their sake. We owe it to Them.

live and learn, we come here to learn, and learn we do - only way to get the experience/wisdom we need is through all the stupid mistakes we make... we learn, then we have to deal with the mistakes and the mistakes of others.

It's not about God forgiving us - it is about the rest of us having a reason to forgive one another... you know, so we can all put up with one another for the next bazillion years or so.

 

[slave2six]

Originally Posted by slave2six
Then how do you explain the Scriptures cited in post #6 above? Or all that stuff about "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no part in me" (Jesus)? Or how about "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again." or "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Give me evidence that it actually was Jesus who said these.

John 6:53 "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." - This is the basis of the idea of transubstantiation.
John 10:17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again."
Mark 10:45 "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Unless you want to argue that the Bible is unproven (I would not disagree with you there but the Scriptures are foundational to Christian doctrine) then you have to accept that Jesus said these things.

Originally Posted by slave2six
You can't call yourself a Christian without grasping these very basic fundamentals. Well, you can but you'd be deceiving yourself.

Why? Jesus himself said the Golden Rule is: "Love God with all your heart and your soul and love your enemy as your neighbor."

THAT is the very basic fundamental of ALL religions, Christianity included.

I agree that it is A basic fundamental but it is not all-encompassing. Indeed, if it was then I'd have no problem with Christianity at all. But to this very day the Eucharist is celebrated in RCC and EO churches and they hold that the transubstantiation of the crucified Christ is one of the seven sacraments or mysteries of the faith. It is the one sacrament that they celebrate every time they gather. Clearly it is extremely important.

Originally Posted by slave2six
You guys make me wonder if there are any real Christians in the world after all.

Have you considered the possibility that your idea of "what makes a Christian" may be off? After all, you are not one yourself.

I was indoctrinated in Christianity since my childhood, even to the point that at age 7 my father had me learning Greek so that I could read the New Testament in the original language and become a Biblical scholar. I am an ex-Christian because of Reason but to suppose that my idea of what makes a Christian is something outside of that the Church has always held it to be is like suggesting that Michael Jackson could neither sing nor dance. (RIP)

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for people not going the traditional route and all. If they want to call themselves Christians without the traditional "take up your cross daily and follow Me" mentality and they want to turn it into something that even Gandhi might have adopted, more power to them. Gandhi stated in his autobiography, "I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from the sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless." This he said in rejection of Christianity as a doctrine.

Clearly you guys have no historical context for the Christian faith nor have you troubled to learn even the most basic teachings except the "Golden Rule" which is not uniquely Christian.

 

[idea]

Clearly you guys have no historical context for the Christian faith nor have you troubled to learn even the most basic teachings except the "Golden Rule" which is not uniquely Christian.

there is nothing more repulsive than a fake - than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Apostasy of the Early Christian Church
Isa. 24:5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant
Isa. 29:13 this people draw near me with their mouth
Isa. 60:2 darkness shall cover the earth
Amos 8:11 a famine ... of hearing the words of the Lord
Matt. 13:25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat
Matt. 24:5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many
Matt. 24:24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets
John 6:66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him
Acts 20:29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you
1 Cor. 11:18 there be divisions among you
Gal. 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him
Gal. 3:1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey
2 Thes. 2:3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first
1 Tim. 1:6 some having swerved have turned aside
1 Tim. 4:1 giving heed to seducing spirits
2 Tim. 1:15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me
2 Tim. 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred
2 Tim. 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
2 Tim. 4:4 turn away their ears from the truth ... unto fables
Titus 1:16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him
James 4:1 From whence came wars and fightings among you
2 Pet. 2:1 false prophets also among the people
2 Pet. 3:17 being led away with the error of the wicked
1 Jn. 2:18 now are there many antichrists
1 Jn. 4:1 many false prophets are gone out into the world
Jude 1:4 certain men crept in ... denying the only Lord God
Rev. 2:2 which say they are apostles, and are not
Rev. 3:16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot
Rev. 13:7 to make war with the saints
(Topical Guide | A Apostasy of the Early Christian Church:Entry)


For a time, there was nothing but wolves...

The sheep exists though

 

[slave2six]

It's not about God forgiving us - it is about the rest of us having a reason to forgive one another.

I'm stunned at how many people seem unfamiliar with the subject matter and yet have strong opinions about it and then turn about and call me confused. Come on people, you can do better than this.

BTW - Your comment above is 100% wrong.

2 Corinthians 5: 18-20: "Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

Colossians 1: 19-22 "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach."
​

The death of Christ is entirely about reconciliation between God and man.

The life of Christ teaches us to forgive each other. Herein lies the conflict in the OP.

Any intelligent responses? Please?

 

[slave2six]

there is nothing more repulsive than a fake - than a wolf in sheep's clothing. For a time, there was nothing but wolves... The sheep exists though

Just how does any of that relate to my opening question? Do you actually have a point or are you trying to call me names? I'm not clear on your purpose in this discussion.

 

[Riverwolf]

John 6:53 "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." - This is the basis of the idea of transubstantiation.
John 10:17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again."
Mark 10:45 "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Unless you want to argue that the Bible is unproven (I would not disagree with you there but the Scriptures are foundational to Christian doctrine) then you have to accept that Jesus said these things.

Among many denominations, yes.

But since when has having denominations been fundamental to being Christian?

I agree that it is A basic fundamental but it is not all-encompassing. Indeed, if it was then I'd have no problem with Christianity at all. But to this very day the Eucharist is celebrated in RCC and EO churches and they hold that the transubstantiation of the crucified Christ is one of the seven sacraments or mysteries of the faith. It is the one sacrament that they celebrate every time they gather. Clearly it is extremely important.

To many Churches, yes it is.

Single churches do not represent all of Christianity. In fact, even if you were to take all the official denominations of Christianity, you would not have a representation of all Christianity.

I was indoctrinated in Christianity since my childhood, even to the point that at age 7 my father had me learning Greek so that I could read the New Testament in the original language and become a Biblical scholar. I am an ex-Christian because of Reason but to suppose that my idea of what makes a Christian is something outside of that the Church has always held it to be is like suggesting that Michael Jackson could neither sing nor dance. (RIP)

THE Church? Which one? There are many. I'd argue that, with some exceptions, there are as many Churches as there are Christians.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for people not going the traditional route and all. If they want to call themselves Christians without the traditional "take up your cross daily and follow Me" mentality and they want to turn it into something that even Gandhi might have adopted, more power to them. Gandhi stated in his autobiography, "I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from the sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless." This he said in rejection of Christianity as a doctrine.

I am aware of Gandhi's rejection of Christianity and his reasoning for it, though I was not aware of this quote. Thank you for providing it.

Clearly you guys have no historical context for the Christian faith nor have you troubled to learn even the most basic teachings except the "Golden Rule" which is not uniquely Christian.

Of course it's not uniquely Christian, but it's the most important part of ANY religion. If you don't have the Golden Rule, then everything else falls apart.

As for Christianity exclusively... "I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life. No one comes unto the Father except through me." (Or something like that. lol) Accept Christ as the Lord and Savior, who bore the punishment deserved to us sinners, so that we could have eternal life.

I don't have to be Christian, or former Christian, to understand Christianity.

So again, if you want to know why Christ had to serve as a sacrifice, I suggest you research ancient sacrificial rituals, their respective meanings, and why the people felt they were needed. You may find you answer there.

 

[sojourner]

No. I'm not.

"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."

"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

This is as fundamental to Christianity as you can possibly get.

And you think I'm confused? Your thinking so reinforces to me that Christians generally don't really know what they believe or why or even question if what they believe is true in any sense, much less rational.

You sure do know how to proof-text, don't you!
Orthodox theology is one of the sanest, most reasonable bodies of work in Xy. Read up on some of it!

 

[sojourner]

You can't call yourself a Christian without grasping these very basic fundamentals. Well, you can but you'd be deceiving yourself.

Or, maybe you'd be deceiving yourself by taking these passages out of context and coming up with "fundagelical wackism."