Why did Jesus have to suffer so badly for our sins?

[Hacker]

There may be some of you that are "tired" or "annoyed" by this question and if that's the case, then don't even bother to read this post, that way you could save yourself the trouble from stealing some of my energy. For some reason, I get frustrated when anyone makes a comment about the subject of the post being annoying because the question may have been asked before. Having said that, why do you think Jesus had to suffer so badly for our sins? Don't you think that God could have come up with a better solution than that to save our sins? Evidently I went off topic in Sunstones post about why Jesus was crucified so comprehend suggested that I start another thread to avoid confusion. Was his Cricifixion "pre planned" by God?

 

[sojourner]

Self-sacrifice is one of the greatest paradigms of the Christian Faith. A leader does not ask his followers to do something he is not willing to do himself.

In the sacrifice of the cross, God gave himself totally for us. That act reconciles humanity to God, and provides an example whereby we give our lives totally to God.

 

[robtex]

David, I always enjoy your insight on these matters but in the case of Jesus I have an another theory which isn't neccessary mutually exclusive with your idea (which i concur with) but more is a driving factor in the death and resurrection of Jesus as described in the Bible.

In the book of Genesis Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden of edan for eating the forbidden fruit. What they gained from the fruit, was knowledge. The knowledge to tell right from wrong, which I saw as a polifariation of absolute morality. What they lost was eternal paradise.

Jesus's sacrifice re-affords Christians that paradise. One could view it, as I do, that Jesus sacrifce was the compensation for man to have the knowledge begotten to them from eating the apple.

In short:

1) man eats fruit = gain of knowledge, loss of paradise
2) Jesus dies for man's sins including the original sin of eathng the fruit
3) Therefore part of Jesus death was the penance for the gainment of knowledge which cost them their edan.

or forbidden fruit + Jesus crucificiton = paradise + knowledge afforded man from eating from fruit.

Jesus certainly in the story died for much more but I think this aspect is noteworthy.

 

[Faint]

Having said that, why do you think Jesus had to suffer so badly for our sins? Don't you think that God could have come up with a better solution than that to save our sins?

I'll play along. Let's say there's a God and there are sins that need to be redeemed. I'm no expert in the tangible qualities of anything metaphysical (heh), but I would imagine the weight of the humanity's sins--even in the old days when earth was less populated--would have been far heavier than the relatively simple crucifixion could balance out. This isn't to say that being crucified is something to scoff at...it's still a horrible form of torture after all. But considering that other people were also being crucified at the time, it is a safe bet that many of them first endured torture worse than what Christ went through. God did not set Christ up to suffer WORSE than any other human being...I would say that he probably got off too easy considering the various creative forms of torment an all-powerful God could come up with. If a God wanted to really demonstrate HIS own suffering (or condemn His Son if you prefer) he would have done better to set Jesus up like Prometheus where his liver is daily devoured by vultures for thousands of years. Or a bound Loki where a snake drips venom in his eyes until the end of the world. Think about it...if you want to make amends for the sins/crimes/horrors of human kind...one little crucifixion just won't cut it. You need to think much bigger.

Of course, this is not addressing the more important issue, which is that the God of the Bible seems to enjoy torment and bloodshed. If you have ultimate power...you could easily just forgive humanity its flaws without torturing anyone. Christ's fate would have been nothing more than a brutal and sadistic act of symbolism.

 

[Faint]

Self-sacrifice is one of the greatest paradigms of the Christian Faith. A leader does not ask his followers to do something he is not willing to do himself.

Why would a GOOD leader want any of his followers to suffer at all?

In the sacrifice of the cross, God gave himself totally for us.

Totally? So God is dead then, and Nietzsche was telling the truth? Did God actually die? And if so do you think he was reborn? Did God die totally or only an aspect of himself, and if only an aspect...how does that constitute a true death. Also, how would we know when God flatlines? Does he have a pulse?

That act reconciles humanity to God, and provides an example whereby we give our lives totally to God.

Why does God want anyone else's life?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

>Why did Jesus have to suffer so badly for our sins?

He didn't "have to."

But the reason He did is because, as it has tragically done to every Divine Messenger God has ever sent, humanity grossly mistreated Him and in His case eventually killed Him!

Someday, God willing, humanity will welcome His Messenger instead of opposing (and sometimes killing Him).

Peace,

Bruce

 

[robtex]

Why would a GOOD leader want any of his followers to suffer at all?

Penance for spritual wealth gained. It is God's way of saying "there is no free lunch."

Totally? So God is dead then, and Nietzsche was telling the truth? Did God actually die?

Nietzsche didn't mean God is literally dead. Nietzsche didn't believe in God. He was saying Christianty was uworthy of worship type following. I think Nate (AE) has a debate about that somewhere on here.

And if so do you think he was reborn? Did God die totally or only an aspect of himself, and if only an aspect...how does that constitute a true death. Also, how would we know when God flatlines? Does he have a pulse?
Why does God want anyone else's life?

That is quite a complicated question. I am reading the OP to assume Jesus died. Working within that paradigm on the assumption he did die the question is "why did he die?"

 

[Hacker]

Why would a GOOD leader want any of his followers to suffer at all?

Bingo, just took the words right out of my keyboard!

 

[Hacker]

...If you have ultimate power you could easily just forgive humanity its flaws without torturing anyone. Christ's fate would have been nothing more than a brutal and sadistic act of symbolism.

EXACTLY!:clap

 

[robtex]

. If you have ultimate power...you could easily just forgive humanity its flaws without torturing anyone. Christ's fate would have been nothing more than a brutal and sadistic act of symbolism.

From my understanding it was preportional to the reward given for it. Chopping off christ pinky by contrast would have helped out a little not cut the mustard. The magnitude of the sacrifice was in preportion equal to the benefit derived from it. In turn according to my understanding of the faith, the acceptance of Jesus's gift (his life) is preportional to the benefit of everlasting life from it. In short

preportionally:

Jesus death = everlasting life for christians in magnitude of sacrifice for gain and,

man's acceptance of Jesus = in magnitude everlasting life so that preportionally (as divinely inspired)

man's acceptance of Jesus is equal in importantce the absolvement of all sins including the original sin.

 

[Faint]

Penance for spritual wealth gained. It is God's way of saying "there is no free lunch."

Seems like the cost is a bit high for some people. Not all pay an equal price for the same lunch. Is God price gouging?

Nietzsche didn't mean God is literally dead. Nietzsche didn't believe in God. He was saying Christianty was uworthy of worship type following. I think Nate (AE) has a debate about that somewhere on here.

I know, I know...I was just trying to be cute with some pop culture references.

Because with suffering comes experience, and with experience comes growth, and with growth comes better individuals, and with better individuals comes a more fruitful society.

In the case where a leader allows his follower to be tortured and crucified to death, how does that make the follower a better person? Similarly, how exactly are preteen victims of gang rape "better individuals" for having suffered through it? AND are they better individuals then their peers who did not endure the same crimes? Also, please tell me how crimes of this nature improve any society?

 

[Quiddity]

He didn't. All he had to do was die.

 

[sojourner]

David, I always enjoy your insight on these matters but in the case of Jesus I have an another theory which isn't neccessary mutually exclusive with your idea (which i concur with) but more is a driving factor in the death and resurrection of Jesus as described in the Bible.

In the book of Genesis Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden of edan for eating the forbidden fruit. What they gained from the fruit, was knowledge. The knowledge to tell right from wrong, which I saw as a polifariation of absolute morality. What they lost was eternal paradise.

Jesus's sacrifice re-affords Christians that paradise. One could view it, as I do, that Jesus sacrifce was the compensation for man to have the knowledge begotten to them from eating the apple.

In short:

1) man eats fruit = gain of knowledge, loss of paradise
2) Jesus dies for man's sins including the original sin of eathng the fruit
3) Therefore part of Jesus death was the penance for the gainment of knowledge which cost them their edan.

or forbidden fruit + Jesus crucificiton = paradise + knowledge afforded man from eating from fruit.

Jesus certainly in the story died for much more but I think this aspect is noteworthy.

Your post has made me think further. Let's look at it this way:
While in the garden, humanity had no concept of good/evil -- only good. Their existence just was what it was, that is, they existed in a state of unity with the created order -- the way God meant it to be.

God gave humanity a choice -- to either continue existing in perfect unity with the created order, or to exist in a state where that created order became divided by evil. (Remember, the tree contained the fruit of the knowledge of evil as well as knowledge of good.) Humanity chose to know evil, as well as good. In doing that, humanity became separated from God -- from life -- and thus became acquainted with death (the fruit of the knowledge of evil). Humanity ate of the fruit of the knwledge -- that is, they ate of death, of separation from life.

I like your point that faith is costly. Faith is costly, since we now know evil. If we had not known evil, had not "gone our own way," as it were, faith would be easy. As it is, faith costs us our life -- our way, and gains us God's life in us.

The point of the cross is to exemplify that willingness to sacrifice our ways for God's ways. "Not my will, but yours be done."

 

[robtex]

Your post has made me think further. Let's look at it this way:
While in the garden, humanity had no concept of good/evil -- only good. Their existence just was what it was, that is, they existed in a state of unity with the created order -- the way God meant it to be.
God gave humanity a choice -- to either continue existing in perfect unity with the created order, or to exist in a state where that created order became divided by evil. Humanity chose to know evil. In doing that, humanity became separated from God -- from life -- and thus became acquainted with death.

I concur but would articulate that evil is a form of knowledge. Eve and Adam gained by eating the forbidden fruit the knowledge of evil which they had not before. With only knowledge of good as you articulated, man had less than all the knowledge he could obtaion with his intellect. With his understanding of evil he had more of the knowledge than he had before eating the fruit because knowing evil = obtaining knowledge.

which is to say i am agreeing with your observation of the story. Applying that to the crucifiction of Christ if we can call that a sin, choosing to know evil by eating the fruit and Jesus died for all of our sins, that would include the sin of adam and eve. It is part of the package by association.

 

[Hacker]

If you have ultimate power...you could easily just forgive humanity its flaws without torturing anyone. Christ's fate would have been nothing more than a brutal and sadistic act of symbolism.

And why would God create man in his own image and yet contradict the concept of "man is innately born to sin?" If we are born sinners, then God should be all forgiving, because after all, that's how he created us.

I'm not asking you Faint, I'm just emphasizing your statement a bit with a question, anticipating a response.

 

[robtex]

And why would God create man in his own image but yet contradict the concept of "man is innately born to sin?" If we are born sinners, then God should be forgiving since HE created us that way.

I'm not asking you Faint, I'm just emphasizing your statement with a question a bit, anticipating a response.

the traditional chrisitan arguement for this is the arguement from free will. Let me see if I can find a link for that debate..i know i have read it on here before.

 

[doppelganger]

the traditional chrisitan arguement for this is the arguement from free will. Let me see if I can find a link for that debate..i know i have read it on here before.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38129&highlight=sacrifice

 

[sojourner]

Why would a GOOD leader want any of his followers to suffer at all?

Totally? So God is dead then, and Nietzsche was telling the truth? Did God actually die? And if so do you think he was reborn? Did God die totally or only an aspect of himself, and if only an aspect...how does that constitute a true death. Also, how would we know when God flatlines? Does he have a pulse?
Why does God want anyone else's life?

You're missing the point. The whole point is that God didn't want us to suffer. We chose our own suffering. We chose ourselves over God. Therefore, in order to reconcile us to God's self, God became one of us and entered into the suffering we had created. Then, God set an example of dying to self, and rising to life in God.

In the Christian position, Jesus was fully human (and died). Jesus is also fully divine (and was resurrected). In other words, the putting away of the mortal (the death, which we created for ourselves by living "outside" God) allows us to put on the divine nature (life) that God intended for us in the first place.

God wants our lives, because we took them from God in the first place. Our life is God's life -- not ours. Instead of sharing God's life in a love relationship, we stole God's life for ourselves. That bringing of evil into the world causes us to taste the death of those stolen lives, and to experience a rebirth into the life that was originally ours.

 

[robtex]

Good find Dopp.. here is another one:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42298&highlight=free

 

[sojourner]

I concur but would articulate that evil is a form of knowledge. Eve and Adam gained by eating the forbidden fruit the knowledge of evil which they had not before. With only knowledge of good as you articulated, man had less than all the knowledge he could obtaion with his intellect. With his understanding of evil he had more of the knowledge than he had before eating the fruit because knowing evil = obtaining knowledge.

which is to say i am agreeing with your observation of the story. Applying that to the crucifiction of Christ if we can call that a sin, choosing to know evil by eating the fruit and Jesus died for all of our sins, that would include the sin of adam and eve. It is part of the package by association.

Except that the knowledge we gained with evil is not true knowledge -- it's a sham. In God is all knowledge. Our evil places a veil over some of that knowledge, and leads us to false conclusions.