An honest question to Christians from an Atheist

[Styrofoam]

I was involved in a long drawn out discussion with a Christian on another forum, and the discussion got around to exactly how rational God's "plan" (i.e. Jesus) to save humanity was. The general criticism was "God killed himself to save his creation from himself," etc, But the Christian attempted to lay out the plan, and I have some questions about it. (The Christian is long gone from the other discussion, so I can't ask him :) ).

1. People sin (regardless of whether you believe in original sin or not.).
2. The price of sin is death (referring more to the eternal death of the soul, I think.)
3. Before Jesus, the "death debt" was paid by sacrifice (or something).
4. God sent Jesus to Earth as a human to bring all the sins of man upon him and pay them through his death.

At least, this is my interpetation of the "plan". My main question is: Why is the price of sin death? Why is the price of sin not, say, a buck o' five? :D Who or what set the price of sin at death?

My second question is: Didn't the resurrection of Jesus negate whatever effect his death produced? If his death was intended to pay for the sins of mankind, why did Jesus rise again? I thought on this second question a bit and came up with my own little answer, but I'd like to hear some others.

Of course, if you disagree with my interpretation of "the plan," please, please, say so and what your interpretation is. I'd love to hear comments on this. Unfortunately, sleep calls, so I can't respond to anything for another 8-10 hours.

[seebs]

I have seen various attempts to make this work to varying degrees.

A few possible theories, some mutually exclusive:

1. The price of sin is death because that's the definition of sin. It's like saying "the price of being a right bastard is that people stop trusting you". It's not that someone decided to punish being untrustworthy with loss of trust; it's just what happens. The price of touching red-hot metal is burns.

2. Substitutionary atonement as generally understood is bunk. The Orthodox have a different view of it, and many other Christians have yet other views. The "died to pay the price for our sins" thing is actually a speculation, not one of the things we "know".

My own thought is that the resurrection does, indeed, not work well with the straight up substitutionary atonement theory. As a demonstration that a debt is forgiven, it could make sense; as "paying the price", it doesn't.

[Solanalos]

Sorry for the minor derail, but...

LMFAO "Freedom costs a.... buck-o.... fiiiiiive"

Man you had me rollin with this...

[Sparrow]

I have also wondered this. An omnipotent god should be able to change the rules. Selecting and continuing to enforce a rule requiring salvation puts a serious dent into omni-benevolence in my estimation. Why it should require a blood sacrifice is also another serious question. Why should such a scrifice require the son of god himself (or herself , if you prefer)? Why should the sacrifice require the participation of any humans (Mary comes to mind)? Would an abortion have saved more than 30 years?


The price of sin is death because that's the definition of sin. It's like saying "the price of being a right bastard is that people stop trusting you". It's not that someone decided to punish being untrustworthy with loss of trust; it's just what happens. The price of touching red-hot metal is burns.

The latter two examples we can verify experimentally, thus they might be a bit more reliable. We have no examples of anyone not dying (and we fully expect that everyone currently living will die, science fiction notwithstanding). We do have examples of someone not sinning - babies, unless you count the proposition of inherited sin. Yet some babies do indeed die. Hardly a direct causal relationship between sin and death.

[Styrofoam]

I have seen various attempts to make this work to varying degrees.

A few possible theories, some mutually exclusive:

1. The price of sin is death because that's the definition of sin. It's like saying "the price of being a right bastard is that people stop trusting you". It's not that someone decided to punish being untrustworthy with loss of trust; it's just what happens. The price of touching red-hot metal is burns.

2. Substitutionary atonement as generally understood is bunk. The Orthodox have a different view of it, and many other Christians have yet other views. The "died to pay the price for our sins" thing is actually a speculation, not one of the things we "know".

My own thought is that the resurrection does, indeed, not work well with the straight up substitutionary atonement theory. As a demonstration that a debt is forgiven, it could make sense; as "paying the price", it doesn't.


Hmm. That makes sense. The price of sin is death just because that is the nature of sin. Thanks, Seebs. :)

We do have examples of someone not sinning - babies, unless you count the proposition of inherited sin. Yet some babies do indeed die. Hardly a direct causal relationship between sin and death.

As I noted, when I said "death" I was referring to an eternal death of the soul. That makes the most sense, I think. Also, I realized that this interpretation of "death" implies that Hell as it is generally described doesn't exist. Rather than having our souls sent to a fiery pit to burn forever, they simply cease to exist.

[Stumpjumper]

At least, this is my interpetation of the "plan". My main question is: Why is the price of sin death? Why is the price of sin not, say, a buck o' five? :D Who or what set the price of sin at death?

Because sin and death are both inevitable consequences of life. We all sin and we will all one day die.


My second question is: Didn't the resurrection of Jesus negate whatever effect his death produced? If his death was intended to pay for the sins of mankind, why did Jesus rise again? I thought on this second question a bit and came up with my own little answer, but I'd like to hear some others.

There are so many different views on how Jesus's death was atoning that its difficult to answer this question. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica put forth that it was not necessarily Jesus's death but his life that was important. A contemporary POV would be Karl Rahner (you can google him and find some good articles). Rahner argues that unlike Milton's Paradise Lost and its portrayal that the incarnation of Jesus was a plan to save the mess of the fall. He states (BTW he's a Catholic Theologian) that the entire world was always under a state of Divine grace before the life of Jesus and the founding of the church. In essence, all persons are "Christian" by the very fact that they exist.

He denies that the resurection actually involved the resuscitation of Jesus's physical body as well.

[Sparrow]

As I noted, when I said "death" I was referring to an eternal death of the soul. That makes the most sense, I think. Also, I realized that this interpretation of "death" implies that Hell as it is generally described doesn't exist. Rather than having our souls sent to a fiery pit to burn forever, they simply cease to exist.OK. Can you explain how I can determine if there is a soul? Do animals have one? Can a soul exist independently of a physical body?

How would someone go about verifying that if a person does not sin, their soul lives forever? How would someone go about verifying that if a person sins, their soul dies? If you can explain those, then I'll want to know how we can verify that one particular death, alleged to have occurred almost 2000 years ago, changes those rules.

If we define death (of the soul) as the price of sin, we should be able to accurately identify what things are actually sins by observing the deaths of souls right?

[John A. Broussard]

If we define death (of the soul) as the price of sin, we should be able to accurately identify what things are actually sins by observing the deaths of souls right?

A recurrent problem, to my way of thinking, is the question about what happens to the unborn and to toddlers. Now the Catholic Church solves that problem with original sin, which everyone has from the moment of conception. So the price of sin is death even for them (the limbo concept as a place for the unbaptized seems to have about disappeared).

How do non-Catholic theists solve the dilemma. I've never gotten a straight answer to my question.

[seebs]

We can certainly verify that people who are particularly vile seem to have particularly sucky lives in some ways. There's a local predatory lender whom, I have been told, runs like a scared weasel whenever he sees any of his former "customers". Imagine living in fear that people you've done business with will come close enough to punch you.

[CowboyHeretic]

First G-d says that man is a living soul. G-d did not give us a seperate entity called a soul. The eternal sould is a hellenistic concept.

Death is a transformational state required to reach the world to come.

Jesus was resurrected as the "High Priest" who serves as advocate for man before G-d. Jesus' death and resurrection ended the Temporal/Sacrificial system.

[Rogernme]

The price of sin is death
Well, it’s really not quite that straight forward. The price actually differs for different sins. E.g., the price for stealing might be say twenty dollars, whereas for masturbation it might be only one dollar . . . and I fear that a lot of y’all are going to be a day late and a dollar short.

[Fencesitter]

There are so many different views on how Jesus's death was atoning that its difficult to answer this question. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica put forth that it was not necessarily Jesus's death but his life that was important. A contemporary POV would be Karl Rahner (you can google him and find some good articles). Rahner argues that unlike Milton's Paradise Lost and its portrayal that the incarnation of Jesus was a plan to save the mess of the fall. He states (BTW he's a Catholic Theologian) that the entire world was always under a state of Divine grace before the life of Jesus and the founding of the church. In essence, all persons are "Christian" by the very fact that they exist.

He denies that the resurection actually involved the resuscitation of Jesus's physical body as well.

I did a quick google on Karl Rahner and found this:

In the Preface, Rahner makes two assertions. First, he says that an “idea� of Christianity exists. He calls it a formal concept. This concept can be induced from a study of the various expressions of Christianity. In other words, the many aspects of Christian faith reflect a single idea, a unity that we call Christian faith.

Foundations of Christian Faith (http://users.adelphia.net/~markfischer/Rahner010.htm)

Along with your statement of his belief that we're all Christians, that strikes me as a little presumptuous.

So does that mean that being human is another name for being Christian? How about those persons that explicitly chose another faith? Are they just mistaken?

I think I'm missing something here. Please fill in the details that I'm missing.

Fence

[Fencesitter]

Well, it’s really not quite that straight forward. The price actually differs for different sins. E.g., the price for stealing might be say twenty dollars, whereas for masturbation it might be only one dollar . . . and I fear that a lot of y’all are going to be a day late and a dollar short.

How do you account for inflation and the changing cultural values?


Fence

[Columbus]

[QUOTE=CowboyHeretic]First G-d says that man is a living soul. G-d did not give us a seperate entity called a soul. The eternal sould is a hellenistic concept.Where does G-d say this? Not in the Bible, I've read it. Is this an interpretation of some verse? If so, which? If not, what?

You may well believe that man is a living soul, but what you said is "First G-d says that man is a living soul." Why would you put these words into G-d's mouth? I agree with you about this. What I'm asking about is why you claim it.


Death is a transformational state required to reach the world to come.Wouldn't this make life a transformational state required to reach death? Why bother? Why would there be such a state in between G-d creating someone and their final disposition? What is the meaning of life, if what you claim is true?

Jesus was resurrected as the "High Priest" who serves as advocate for man before G-d. Jesus' death and resurrection ended the Temporal/Sacrificial system.Why would an omniscient G-d have use for an advocate? Human systems often benefit from having advocates because the fallible humans making the decisions can't learn everything necessary for a just decision. This statement of yours is quite disrespectful of G-d.

Why not end the Temporal/Sacrificial system without the Bloodshed? G-d would not require a temporal event for any reason. Why would G-d institute the T/S system if it wasn't what He wanted in the first place? It's not that your statement is inherently contradictory. It's that the assumptions that underlie the statement contradict other statements that you've made about what you believe is true about G-d. You seem to assume both that G-d is an omni-max entity and also that He is limited by human logic and primitive notions of justice.
Tom

[Stumpjumper]

So does that mean that being human is another name for being Christian? How about those persons that explicitly chose another faith? Are they just mistaken?

I think I'm missing something here. Please fill in the details that I'm missing.

Fence

Hi Fence

I don't have time for a detailed reply and I will have a few quotes from Rahner in my formal debate with Vinnie which will be up this week, but Rahner rejects the Christian doctrine that the world is divided into two orders: natural and supernatural (he's a panentheist). That being the case there can be no categories such as the fallen and the redeemed. Look up Colossians 1:15 and read it carefully. It is meant to show that all creation has hope and that hope was the future embodiment of creation in Christ. All persons from the very beginning are in essence "Christian."

This is his definition of the trinity: "Man knows the Father when he knows God as infinitely distant, he knows the Son when he knows God as absolutely close, and he knows the Holy Spirit when he knows God as penetrating existence and history."

It might be presumptuous but if the Christian God exists it must also be true. Sufis think the same way about Allah ;)

ETA: Look up Karl Rahner on the Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Theology if you want more in depth info.

[CowboyHeretic]

[QUOTE]Where does G-d say this? Not in the Bible, I've read it. Is this an interpretation of some verse? If so, which? If not, what?

You may well believe that man is a living soul, but what you said is "First G-d says that man is a living soul." Why would you put these words into G-d's mouth? I agree with you about this. What I'm asking about is why you claim it.


Wouldn't this make life a transformational state required to reach death? Why bother? Why would there be such a state in between G-d creating someone and their final disposition? What is the meaning of life, if what you claim is true?

Why would an omniscient G-d have use for an advocate? Human systems often benefit from having advocates because the fallible humans making the decisions can't learn everything necessary for a just decision. This statement of yours is quite disrespectful of G-d.

Why not end the Temporal/Sacrificial system without the Bloodshed? G-d would not require a temporal event for any reason. Why would G-d institute the T/S system if it wasn't what He wanted in the first place? It's not that your statement is inherently contradictory. It's that the assumptions that underlie the statement contradict other statements that you've made about what you believe is true about G-d. You seem to assume both that G-d is an omni-max entity and also that He is limited by human logic and primitive notions of justice.
Tom

See Genesis 2:7 - Adam becae a living Soul.
See Ecc. 12:13 - Man's duty to G-d
See Mark 15:38 - The veil of the Temple torn

[SkepticBoyLee]

Wheres the sacrifice? God knows everything. He planned this "salvation through my son" business long ago. He knew that his son, who is also himself at the same time could not possibly fail. Jesus knew he would prevail and in fact it was impossible for him not to. His "sacrifice" was that he got to go back tp heavne as king pin ruler over the universe.

Its all charades man.

[Fencesitter]

Hi Fence

I don't have time for a detailed reply and I will have a few quotes from Rahner in my formal debate with Vinnie which will be up this week

Thanks for the info. Good luck on your debate. I'll try to check it out if I can.


Fence