"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
This is something that I just can't understand about the Christian mythos. I can understand the concept of a God that loves people. I can understand the concept of a rift between man and God. And I can understand the desire for God to reconcile.
But, for the life of me, I can't understand why God would need to sacrifice his Son in order to do so.
The way I see it, there were a number of things that may have been the purpose, and a lot of results from this event, so I don't think my response could come close to covering it all -- just some points as I see them. (I don't expect this will jive a with a lot of official theological positions on the matter.)
1. I think that part of "blood sacrifice" of Jesus, had the effect of putting an end to the idea that God required blood sacrifice at all. Jesus was the final blood sacrifice. I think it was an end to that story for his followers.
2. I think part of his mission was to restore his followers to an internal connection with God, within -- which I refer to as the heart-center, or sacred heart. Within the concept of God as being omnipresent, there is no place that God is NOT present. However, there is
the experience of being in the presence of God and there is also the experience of being isolated from God. If a person believes, for any reason, that he/she is unworthy to be in the presence of God -- that person most likely will feel isolated from God.
I think the "sacrificial" aspect of Jesus's death may be helpful (depending on how it is used, or approached) in presenting the message that you don't have to "earn" your way back to God. (I think sincerity is crucial, because I also think a person can't trick God.)
One may have
an obligation to make things right with people one has harmed, but as far as one's relationship with God is concerned, I think that God does not require fulfilling a list of pay-back duties simply for the right to be God's presence.
I think the right to being in the experience of being in the presence of God is inherent for each person, and that is also why I think Jesus used the term "Father" and "child" in reference to God and to people. The way I see it if one is a child of God, there is no judgment a person can make on earth, or in this thread,
that is capable of changing the essence of a Father/Child relationship, or to give any one of us the right
to place ourselves in between another person and their creator, and declare that other person unworthy of being in God's presence.
"If it is about forgiveness of sins, could not have God simply have said "I forgive you"?
I don't think it's about what God needed. I think it was about what may have been needed for the people, in order to introduce a new understanding/perspective.
"It can't be about the power of death or the rights of Satan, because God is God. He can change the rules, he can make the rules differently from the get-go, and he can simply flex some muscles and say "Scram!".
It seems to me-- and I understand how horrible that this would sound to a believer-- that Jesus' death was rather superfluous. It was unnecessary.
So, what was the point of the Jesus sacrifice?
As I already mentioned, I think there's a lot more than I'm going to say here.
One of the things I see that can be taken away from the crucifixion event is what I have come to understand as "the rulership of the heart" (not emotional center, but whole self-center.) One thing I think Jesus demonstrated by his behavior, even in those last moments of extreme pain and mistreatment is that he did not let even the most horrible of circumstances that would result in the death of his body
dictate to him how he would BE. He chose how he would Be. He asked for forgiveness for those that were torturing him to death.
I do not view it that God sent Jesus to earth for the purposed of being tortured and murdered. I view it that Jesus came to earth to fulfill a covenant with God, and in the process of fulfilling that covenant he came into contact with people that crucified him for it. I think it was part of the mission, and I think it's inevitability would be known to God, but I don't think the murdering part was point. I think the message that he brought by his
way of being was the point.
