WHY was Jesus cricified?

[Broseph Ballin]

First of all, there is no god, so we can rule out that resurrection nonsense. Remember, it was the Romans who killed Jesus, NOT Jews (many Anti-Semites like blaming the Jews for Christ's death, gives them another reason to be bigoted assholes).

Assuming he actually existed, it's said that Jesus posed some sort of threat to the Empire. The Romans executed lots of prophets, activists and enemies of the Empire during the first century, so Jesus' death sentence shouldn't have been a surprise. The Jews saw him as a threat to their religion, the Rabbis and other Jewish leaders felt threatened by his supposed influence, as if he was essentially taking away their followers. If the Romans didn't kill him the Jews probably would've done it themselves.

[John V]

The thing is that God tells us in the Bible that we have to forgive and turn the other cheek- why can't he unless you kiss his ass?

He tells us we should forgive and turn the other cheek, but we're not able to do it consistently. Why not?

[StealthySkeptic]

The thing is that God tells us in the Bible that we have to forgive and turn the other cheek- why can't he unless you kiss his ass?

He tells us we should forgive and turn the other cheek, but we're not able to do it consistently. Why not?

He apparently designed us that way. That's like saying we should totally be fine with Ford creating cars with defective brakes because our car crash deaths were part of the plan all along.

[John V]

He apparently designed us that way.

In other words, one cannot just simply...change something that's part of their nature. I agree.

[StealthySkeptic]

He apparently designed us that way.

In other words, one cannot just simply...change something that's part of their nature. I agree.

But don't you see? Why does God tell us to forgive unconditionally when he cannot do that himself?

[John V]

But don't you see? Why does God tell us to forgive unconditionally when he cannot do that himself?

What's the problem with exhorting someone to reach for a virtue that they can't completely achieve?

[FatAndFaithless]

But don't you see? Why does God tell us to forgive unconditionally when he cannot do that himself?

What's the problem with exhorting someone to reach for a virtue that they can't completely achieve?

Some might say that setting up impossible standards for someone, and then punishing them for not attaining those standards, is immoral.

[John V]

Some might say that setting up impossible standards for someone, and then punishing them for not attaining those standards, is immoral.

Personally I feel I'm capable of doing much better than I actually do. I deserve judgment. But, Christ takes my punishment for me, and freely blesses me. It's a really good deal. Don't know why you guys bitch about it so much.

[FatAndFaithless]

Some might say that setting up impossible standards for someone, and then punishing them for not attaining those standards, is immoral.

Personally I feel I'm capable of doing much better than I actually do. I deserve judgment. But, Christ takes my punishment for me, and freely blesses me. It's a really good deal. Don't know why you guys bitch about it so much.

If you really don't understand why we see a problem with that, I can only wonder what the heck you've been doing on this forum all this time.

[Jenny A]

So, why was it necessary for God to have Jesus sacrificed for our sins? Now, I know that this whole notion of Jesus' death being "a sacrifice" is stupid, and I've already covered that elsewhere, but for sake of this thread, lets assume it counts. Why did it have to happen? By what mechanism does the death of one innocent person atone for the sins of others? I was thinking about this and realized that this was something that God either chose to do, or somehow had to do, and either way, it has weird consequences most Christians don't like to consider.

God had to go through with it:
So, for whatever reason, this bizarre self-sacrifice was vital to God forgiving our sins, and he couldn't simply just... forgive us. It's something to which God was beholden, and something he has no control over. It makes me wonder: from where did this rule come?

Conclusion: God is not omnipotent.


God chose to go through with it:
God could have forgiven us, but he instead opted to have one third of himself be sacrificed to another third of himself for reasons. Now, this seems stupid (and it is), but I guess I can't complain too much. All parties involved were consenting, even if it does look like some really freaky S&M. Still, the whole charade was unnecessary and overly theatric.

Conclusion: God's bloodlust exceeds his compassion, and he goes out of his way to cause suffering when "solving" problems.


Now, I think the second point is closest to the standard Christian stance, although they don't like to think about it much. It is actually very similar to flood apologetics and original sin apologetics, so, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Any part of this that looks creepy at first glance (all of it) will be washed over with a veneer of [mysterious ways] to hide the blemishes.

@ Robby Pants

You've just asked one of the key questions that I stumbled over in my attempt to "take Jesus into my heart." No evidence of god was hard enough to swallow. Add the nonsensical nature of the how salvation was supposed to work and it was over.