WHY was Jesus cricified?

[orangebox21]

Where to begin?

I'd start by answering any one of my questions.
(Although to be fair you hinted at the last one in the final portion of your response).

First of all I'm not sure why all crimes and misdemeanors would be a debt to god. There is an analogy in that in most countries all crimes are considered to be crimes against the state in that the state has an interest in maintaining the peace. But god appears to have taken an entirely hands off approach to peace keeping.

It's God's laws that are being broken and so the legal debt would be to Him. Much in the same way transgressions against the 'laws of the state' become a debt to 'the state'.

Assuming however that god is akin to the state for these purposes, the punishment of eternal suffering doesn't fit any crime any human could possibly commit. Eternal is a long, long time.

"This ignores the important principle that crime depends on the object against whom it is committed (in this case an infinite God) as well as on the subject who commits it (finite man). All sin is ultimately against an infinite God and therefore deserves infinite punishment." (Paraphrased from Charles C. Ryrie)

But that's mere quibble compared the idea that god would have to pay a debt owed to himself in order to excuse his debtors. That's simply nuts.-----You owe me twenty, but I'd like to forgive you so the only thing to do is burn one of my twenties, otherwise I can't let you off the hook. WTF?

The trinity is a difficult concept to grasp. Have you ever read "Flatland"? There may be some analogous insight there.

[Jenny A]

First of all I'm not sure why all crimes and misdemeanors would be a debt to god. There is an analogy in that in most countries all crimes are considered to be crimes against the state in that the state has an interest in maintaining the peace. But god appears to have taken an entirely hands off approach to peace keeping.

It's God's laws that are being broken and so the legal debt would be to Him. Much in the same way transgressions against the 'laws of the state' become a debt to 'the state'.

Yes, I gave you the state analogy, but god doesn't equate to the state for several reasons. First, the state is a collective of those likely hurt by crime, i.e. people. Second, because unlike the state god takes a hand's off, i.e. free will approach. Third, unlike the state god had no authority to speak for humans.

Assuming however that god is akin to the state for these purposes, the punishment of eternal suffering doesn't fit any crime any human could possibly commit. Eternal is a long, long time.

"This ignores the important principle that crime depends on the object against whom it is committed (in this case an infinite God) as well as on the subject who commits it (finite man). All sin is ultimately against an infinite God and therefore deserves infinite punishment." (Paraphrased from Charles C. Ryrie)

Really? You mean because god is infinite he is infinite in his capacity to be hurt? Possible. But infinitely hurt by any wrong? That's just silly.

But that's mere quibble compared the idea that god would have to pay a debt owed to himself in order to excuse his debtors. That's simply nuts.-----You owe me twenty, but I'd like to forgive you so the only thing to do is burn one of my twenties, otherwise I can't let you off the hook. WTF?

The trinity is a difficult concept to grasp. Have you ever read "Flatland"? There may be some analogous insight there.

Um? What does the trinity have to do with it (no I haven't read Flatland--who wrote it?). Please explain step by step. We atheists is apparently ignorant.

[RobbyPants]

A human analogy might be: if you crashed my car rather than requiring you to pay the cost of fixing (which would be a just thing to do) I show you mercy and bear the cost myself. In one way I am just simply forgiving you for crashing my car - but in order to do that I'm paying the consequences your action deserved.

You're always going to run into problems with analogies when you try to explain God's actions using humans.

In that situation, God could magic his car better and would not need to spend any money to fix it or require any money from you. And that's what I'm saying in the OP: either God can fix this problem, or he's somehow beholden to it. The answer I keep getting from the apologists is "God won't just magically fix his car because it's not in his nature, cuz reasons."

[Sejanus]

God cannot deny His nature.

Doesn't that mean he's not omnipotent? lololololol

[John V]

No definition of "forgive" that I can find involves a payment. It's a flat-out cancellation, going forward. God didn't do that, unless you're saying Jesus' death on the cross was unrelated.

Forgive

---

verb (used with object), for·gave, for·giv·en, for·giv·ing.
1.
to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2.
to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3.
to grant pardon to (a person).
4.
to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one's enemies.
5.
to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: to forgive the interest owed on a loan.

---

You're forgetting your own with respect to's. With respect to humans, God forgives. With respect to Jesus payment was made and justice was served.

And God's notion of justice is arbitrary, and the whole charade was unnecessary.

Unnecessary according to your sense of justice. Necessary according to God's.

---

Nope, I don't. But I don't think any moral system that allow for the killing of one person in lieu of others in sensible.

Your opinion is noted.

Humans certainly did a number of things in the past that most people would consider immoral now such and the death penalty for pick-pocketing, punishment of sons for the crimes of their fathers. Some Middle Eastern countries still punish women for being raped and sentence men to have their sisters or daughters raped. But most of us have grown beyond that. It appears to me that god has not. ----You'd expect him to be ahead of us rather than behind.

Again, your opinion is noted.

Unless you can do something that no one's ever been able to do - prove that your morality is objectively true - then it's nonsensical to use words like beyond and ahead, which imply a final destination.

[RobbyPants]

Unnecessary according to your sense of justice. Necessary according to God's.

Wait. I thought you earlier said that my opinion on justice was different than God's opinion on justice. Is it an opinion or something that's necessary?

[John V]

Wait. I thought you earlier said that my opinion on justice was different than God's opinion on justice. Is it an opinion or something that's necessary?

It's both obviously.

[orangebox21]

Yes, I gave you the state analogy, but god doesn't equate to the state for several reasons. First, the state is a collective of those likely hurt by crime, i.e. people.

The 'state' is the collective of individual people, the people make the laws and so the debt is to the people. It follows then that if God makes the laws the debt is to God. It's the same principle at work.

Second, because unlike the state god takes a hand's off, i.e. free will approach.

Please explain what you mean by free will and how free will doesn't apply to the state but does apply to God.

Third, unlike the state god had no authority to speak for humans.

I'm not following your point please explain.

Really? You mean because god is infinite he is infinite in his capacity to be hurt? Possible. But infinitely hurt by any wrong? That's just silly.

At the risk of offending you, your argument is: 'that's just silly.' That's not a good reason to believe what you do.

Um? What does the trinity have to do with it (no I haven't read Flatland--who wrote it?). Please explain step by step. We atheists is apparently ignorant.

Sure.

One difficulty of understanding the trinity is point of reference. Flatland, among other things, exemplifies the difficulty of understand concepts outside our frame of reference.


Edwin Abbott wrote the book. A brief synopsis:

---

The story is about a two-dimensional world referred to as Flatland which is occupied by geometric figures. Women are simple line-segments, while men are polygons with various numbers of sides. The narrator is a humble square, a member of the social caste of gentlemen and professionals in a society of geometric figures, who guides the readers through some of the implications of life in two dimensions. The Square has a dream about a visit to a one-dimensional world (Lineland) which is inhabited by "lustrous points". He attempts to convince the realm's ignorant monarch of a second dimension but finds that it is essentially impossible to make him see outside of his eternally straight line.

He is then visited by a three-dimensional sphere, which he cannot comprehend until he sees Spaceland for himself. This Sphere (who remains nameless, like all characters in the novella) visits Flatland at the turn of each millennium to introduce a new apostle to the idea of a third dimension in the hopes of eventually educating the population of Flatland of the existence of Spaceland. From the safety of Spaceland, they are able to observe the leaders of Flatland secretly acknowledging the existence of the sphere and prescribing the silencing of anyone found preaching the truth of Spaceland and the third dimension. After this proclamation is made, many witnesses are massacred or imprisoned (according to caste).

After the Square's mind is opened to new dimensions, he tries to convince the Sphere of the theoretical possibility of the existence of a fourth (and fifth, and sixth ...) spatial dimension. Offended by this presumption and incapable of comprehending other dimensions, the Sphere returns his student to Flatland in disgrace.

---

So much like a 'dot' couldn't understand the characteristics of a square who couldn't understand the characteristics of a sphere, a single person/single nature being can't make sense of a three person/single nature being from their perspective alone.

While it depends upon the definition you're using, I wouldn't use 'ignorant' to describe you or our conversations. You seem fairly well read to me.

God cannot deny His nature.

Doesn't that mean he's not omnipotent? lololololol

If you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything imaginable, then yes you would be correct to say that God is not omnipotent.

Explicitly the Bible says God cannot sin, He tempts no man, He cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself.

Implicitly I would propose God can't cause Himself to not exist or create a rock too heavy for Him to carry.

[Sejanus]

Doesn't that mean he's not omnipotent? lololololol

If you define omnipotence as the ability to do anything imaginable, then yes you would be correct to say that God is not omnipotent.

Explicitly the Bible says God cannot sin, He tempts no man, He cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself.

Implicitly I would propose God can't cause Himself to not exist or create a rock too heavy for Him to carry.

Doesn't sound like much of a god to me. I'll stick with Odin, who is actually omnipotent.

[Minimalist]

Valhalla beats the fuck out of "heaven" too.

Serving wenches and mead. Yeah!