How can sins be redeemed by a sacrifice?

[Prosperity]

what did you consider yourself before?

I believed in God and various theological stuff, but was not a member of an organized religion

[zoony]

I believed in God and various theological stuff, but was not a member of an organized religion

Just curios and not loaded at all, but what led you to LDS?

I still remember arguing with a 16 year old liberty about the existence of God

[grego]

I believed in God and various theological stuff, but was not a member of an organized religion

interesting.

ive always felt like the mormons had a great way about them- very nice people. i just could never bring myself to accept the prerequisites.

[Prosperity]

Just curios and not loaded at all, but what led you to LDS?

I still remember arguing with a 16 year old liberty about the existence of God

Well, it started off with this:

interesting.

ive always felt like the mormons had a great way about them- very nice people. i just could never bring myself to accept the prerequisites.

Most of the mormons I have met have been good people, honest, and hard working. They have their priorities right. So I thought, well, maybe there is something to their beliefs. A bad religion wouldn't shape so many good people. So I read the Book of Mormon and I found that on a basic level it eased my anxiety. Instead of smoking or drinking I would just read, and I attained peace. As I studied the religion more I found that I already believed in many of the core principles*. I started going to church and witnessing the sincerity of the testimonies of the Mormons,and so those notions were reinforced. I prayed/meditated on it, and I witnessed signs from the God and the Holy Spirit that reinforced my belief and I decided that I would accept faith like a seed and allow it to grow. I don't pretend to have an invincible faith, but I find that it grows stronger over time.

*The philosophical under pinnings of the LDS resonate strongly with me. For example, the conception of the after life makes a lot sense for me. There is a part of the Book that says "if you live happy, you will die happy, and if you die happy, you will be happy in the after life." (or something along those lines) What that means is that you are responsible for forming your own happiness. You reap what you sow. Virtuous people are not damned if they don't accept Jesus Christ in this life, or if they commit sins, or if they are not baptized. In fact, no one is cast off into hell, hell only exists for those that choose it. Those that choose with full knowledge that they want to reject beauty and happiness. Like I said in my first post in this thread, God can't make people be good, or bad. People make that choice for themselves.

[zoony]

Well, it started off with this:

Most of the mormons I have met have been good people, honest, and hard working. They have their priorities right. So I thought, well, maybe there is something to their beliefs. A bad religion wouldn't shape so many good people.

A wise man once said you will know the tree by its fruit. Which is the main reason I have so much respect for Mormons despite not agreeing with them on just about everything

Congratulations to you on your spiritual journey

Serious question though, didn't the BOM strike you as slightly racist considering you're technically a Laminite?

[Prosperity]

A wise man once said you will know the tree by its fruit. Which is the main reason I have so much respect for Mormons despite not agreeing with them on just about everything

Congratulations to you on your spiritual journey

Serious question though, didn't the BOM strike you as slightly racist considering you're technically a Laminite?

Thanks man

Technically, I'm a Persian, though Persians also had (and are prophesized to have) interesting and not entirely positive roles to play in the world according to scriptures (The Bible). The Persians never made it to the Americas until 1970's for the most part, so they don't appear much in the Book of Mormon.

As far as Lamanites and Nephites go. They were descendants of Nephi and Laman who were brothers. So it's not like there were serious genetic differences. Though the Lamanites were sort of cursed (though that curse ultimately effected the Nephites as badly), and they did end up looking different. The Book of Mormon stated many times that it was the beliefs of the Lamanites and not anything in their blood that made them attack the Nephites. And the Lamanites who accepted the gospel actually ended up being more worthy than the Nephites. (there were Lamanite prophets, as an example)

[DRSmith]

ya, he was God. check out what a 'theophany' is.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany also, re-read the book of John with this in mind. lots of hints as well as some direct statements.

i struggled with this myself, but when you re read the bible with this in mind, things seems to make alot more sense.

John also wrote no man has seen God at anytime he also wrote that Jesus talked about ascending to my God and your God and in Revelation calls Jesus the beginning of creation by God. The other problem you have with applying this to the scripture of the OT is Jews also do not believe man can see God either in fact in Exodus God tells Moses no man may see my face and live.

Men have seen angels but as John said no man has seen God at anytime

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 09:49 PM ----------

This is just a chicken/egg question.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 05:52 PM ----------

Not really as Peter explain in Acts 2:32-36 Peter explains it was God who raised him from the dead and has him seated at his right hand quoting Psalm 110:1

[Hitman21ST]

John also wrote no man has seen God at anytime he also wrote that Jesus talked about ascending to my God and your God and in Revelation calls Jesus the beginning of creation by God. The other problem you have with applying this to the scripture of the OT is Jews also do not believe man can see God either in fact in Exodus God tells Moses no man may see my face and live.

Men have seen angels but as John said no man has seen God at anytime

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 09:49 PM ----------

Not really as Peter explain in Acts 2:32-36 Peter explains it was God who raised him from the dead and has him seated at his right hand quoting Psalm 110:1

What do you take John 1:1-3 to mean then?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

The word "Word" refers to Jesus in this text.

[PeterMP]

If God is omniscient, then he knew Jesus' role and always did. That would seem to indicate that that was his "purpose", don't you think? Other than inspiring the spreading of Christianity, of course.

This is why its confusing...I didn't mean that Jesus being God meant he personally didn't care about the crucifixion or didn't consciously choose to make the sacrifice that is described....I mostly meant specifically in regards to the belief that "God is good and generous because his only son was sacrificed to atone for the sins of humanity"...how does that make sense if God IS Jesus (aka Jesus dying didn't end anything---he was still God and vice versa) and if God knew all along that this was Jesus' lot in life.

Sounds more like Jesus' corporeal form was sacrificed for humanities sins, if you believe in that. And what value does that hold if you are Christian? Its all about Heaven, right? Especially if Jesus was God.

Its confusing as hell and I think I'm muddling up my own questions, but I just don't see the sacrifice, or I don't see it being something that should make Christians talk about how their God is a generous God because of it.

1. What DRSmith is proposing in terms of Jesus not actually being God goes against the teachings of essentially every main stream Christian group. I know people that would go as far to say he is not a Christian (I'm not going to get into an argument of what is and what is not Christian).

2. Let's talk about the Father and the Son and not God because our conversation will be more exact.

3. You are acting like the "Son" was created with the knowledge of the Father. That' would generally be a non-Christian way of thinking. God has always been, including the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

4. Generally, what you are getting into is pre-destination vs. non-pre-destination and issues with free will. I tend to side on the extreme side of free will and against pre-destination. For a somewhat simplistic anology, we can pretend that God has a very good computer that is capable of doing an infinite number of calculations infinitely fast and so can essentially predict everything at any time w/o actually controlling the events. So why God can "predict" what I'm going to do, I still have the control. The samething would apply to Jesus w/ respect to the Father.

5. Your idea that Jesus' corporeal form was sacrificed for humanities sins and that doesn't seem like a big deal is tied to the same point that I made in my first point. That the pain of the crucification would seem to me not to be a "fair" trade.

6. I always suggested that perhaps there is more than we know in terms of what the real "penalty" was. twa suggested that the real penality is that Jesus in going through w/ the crucification and bearing our sins somehow altered God (God turned his back on himself). To my knowledge that is extra-biblical, but I wouldn't claim it is impossible.

7. To a certain extent, I tend to go w/ I don't know, but I do know somethings that I think are relevant:

1. When teaching people things it is sometimes a good idea to not give them all of the details. I am a teacher and there are times in class where I will say that question goes beyond the scope of what we are covering, but if you are personally really interested seem after class. Sometimes its good to focus on the big picture. Assuming you the believe the Bible is somewhat accurate, it is pretty clear that Jesus was afraid of what was coming (See the quote from LKB). It doesn't really say why, but maybe that is irrelevant for our purposes.

2. The Bible is a finite reference source w/ respect an infiinite thing. By its very nature, the Bible couldn't include everything, and if we did, we'd have no idea to where to start. It makes sense there are details that we don't need to know.

I actually have larger issues with "missing" information from the Bible where it is clear we have part of the information, but not all of it, and it seems odd to give us a part of the story and not the ending.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

God the Creator loves us enough to freely bestow grace to those who believe in Jesus. It is unmerited favor - we who believe are given something we do not deserve. Such is the depth of His mercy. However, He is also just, and so cannot simply ignore sin. It is abhorrent to Him, and will not go unpunished. His perfect plan for salvation thus ,provided a sacrificial substitute for yours, mine and everyone else's sins. Jesus took our place on the cross, He suffered what we all had coming. This marvelous act of propitiation reconciled us to the Father, provided we believe in the Name above all Names, ie Jesus Christ. Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity; He is God Incarnate. However, to save those who wanted to be saved, He became a man. He humbled himself, and became obedient to death. For the joy set before Him he scorned the cross, enuring the shame, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

How cool is that? It's not about human sacrifice, it's about JESUS' sacrifice once for all if one is willing to believe it and accept Him into their hearts. Awesome.

PS: Just read L_k_b's comment regarding the truly important thing about Jesus' death. He was spot on: It wasn't that Jesus was killed, or even HOW, it's about His victory over death. He rose three days later, and lives today. He conquered the grave and paved the way to Heaven for those who will follow Him.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 11:59 PM ----------

If God is omniscient, then he knew Jesus' role and always did. That would seem to indicate that that was his "purpose", don't you think?

True. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit exist outside of what we consider "time." They see the end from the beginnng. We don't.

Sounds more like Jesus' corporeal form was sacrificed for humanities sins, if you believe in that. And what value does that hold if you are Christian? Its all about Heaven, right? Especially if Jesus was God.

True again. Jesus body was broken and killed for our sins. Meaning ours don't have to be. And even though Jesus knew the plan, knew what had to take place and where He would end up afterward, He WAS human. He feared it as any man would. He asked the Father if it might not have to be that way because He was afraid. He knew all too well how much pain awaited Him, yet He went through with it anyway because He loves us that much.

Its confusing as hell and I think I'm muddling up my own questions, but I just don't see the sacrifice, or I don't see it being something that should make Christians talk about how their God is a generous God because of it.

I can't speak for all believers, but the way I see it He's not just MY God, He's yours and everyone else's. That to me is the true measure of His "generosity," as you put it. It's actually love, but that's splitting hairs. Whatever you call it, God doesn't just offer it up to a select few. He makes it available to all. For a pittance. The caveat is this: it's been said that salvation is free, but discipleship will cost you everything. That is, if you believe in Jesus and make Him Lord of your life, you become a disciple, or follower of Jesus.

And THAT isn't easy. At least not as much as skeptics think.

[grego]

John also wrote no man has seen God at anytime he also wrote that Jesus talked about ascending to my God and your God and in Revelation calls Jesus the beginning of creation by God. The other problem you have with applying this to the scripture of the OT is Jews also do not believe man can see God either in fact in Exodus God tells Moses no man may see my face and live.

Men have seen angels but as John said no man has seen God at anytime

as i understand and believe it, 'seeing God' in the old testament, and jesus being God and people obviously seeing him is not the same as seeing God face to face. i think God spoke and communicated to people thru created objects, but it was still God doing the direct communicating.

doing a search of 'the angel of the lord' in the OT produces some really interesting things. many times, the angel of the lord is directly identified and recognized as God himself. cool stuff, really.

there are a some good ones in this link (though i know nothing about this site personally, just found it thru google) http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/theophany.html

11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, "The LORD is with you, mighty warrior......."14 The LORD turned to him and said, "Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian's hand. Am I not sending you?"

[Corcaigh]

By the way' date=' all this premised on the belief that God exists and that Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

If you don't buy that initial premise, none of this applies.[/quote']

It does seem to be a bizarro world to a non- believer.

To quote Richard Dawkins, I don't think the arguments are dishonest but the religious seem to end up "defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument could not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not."

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It does seem to be a bizarro world to a non- believer.

To quote Richard Dawkins, I don't think the arguments are dishonest but the religious seem to end up "defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument could not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not."

What's interesting to me is that I find the rational world overwhelmingly chaotic at times while I find the "irrational" world of Christianity ordered and safe. That's a comfort to me. I was saying in a PM that the thing I found I liked about Mass is that every Sunday from 9 AM to 10 AM I know exactly what is going to happen and I know that the same exact thing is happening all over the world. There is nothig else in my life like that.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I've recently heard it said that Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice. While that particular framing is a bit strong, I do see it providing an interesting perspective.

How can brutal killing of Jesus redeem people of their sins? I am having a hard time making sense of how that works.

His rising is what redeemed people, not his dying.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Rats.....I've been away from the office and I missed a perfect thread....grrr. Typical of my timing, day late and a dollar short.

---------- Post added April-20th-2012 at 11:35 AM ----------

His rising is what redeemed people, not his dying.

Very true! Protestants typically place the emphasis upon the crucifixion rather than the resurrection, and that is stressing the wrong syllable.

[Koolblue13]

What's interesting to me is that I find the rational world overwhelmingly chaotic at times while I find the "irrational" world of Christianity ordered and safe. That's a comfort to me. I was saying in a PM that the thing I found I liked about Mass is that every Sunday from 9 AM to 10 AM I know exactly what is going to happen and I know that the same exact thing is happening all over the world. There is nothig else in my life like that.

I enjoy that too and find myself attending a meeting or two every once in a while, even as a non believer.

[zoony]

Very true! Protestants typically place the emphasis upon the crucifixion rather than the resurrection, and that is stressing the wrong syllable.

Asbury I was raised and confirmed Catholic but recently joined a Methodist church. In a sense, I don't consider Methodists as true protestants. There was never really a split with Catholicism based on anything other than a King wanting to get married.

Their beliefs, or should I say our beliefs, based on salvation through acts as well as their emphasis on education and knowledge is very close to Catholicism imo. Just a lot less ritual involved.

[Corcaigh]

What's interesting to me is that I find the rational world overwhelmingly chaotic at times while I find the "irrational" world of Christianity ordered and safe. That's a comfort to me. I was saying in a PM that the thing I found I liked about Mass is that every Sunday from 9 AM to 10 AM I know exactly what is going to happen and I know that the same exact thing is happening all over the world. There is nothig else in my life like that.

I can understand that attraction. But as a non-believer, it can only appear like the false comfort of a fantasy.

[mcsluggo]

my internalization of the holy trinity, as it pertains to humans:

God is perfect, and waaaaaay up there in goodness in terms of true love and compassion.

People are not perfect, and are basically sucky and flawed, and waaaaaay down there in terms of all that is important.

God, loves humans so much that he wants to invite them into heaven anyway, which is to say to become part of God himself.

In order for us to be somewhat worthy and capable of that joining there has to be a sort of leveling of this relationship (and worthy and capable are poor word choices, because really we can NEVER be really worthy of what is offered to us nor capable of really being Godlike.. but God offers it anyway). To achieve this people are given both knowledge of good and evil, and free will in determing their own destiny, and in their actions in dealing with other people. This makes us more Godlike, and able to determine whether or not we will choose to join into heaven. (and this is how I VIEW "man was made in God's image"-- it means that we are given the knowlede of good and evil, and the freedom to act on that knowledge. that power and responsibility is immense, and is in God's image). At the same time God entered onto the earth in human form, with all of our weaknesses and frailities, to further enable this joining.

God COULD just make us do what he wants (essentially, be good to each other). Obviously. But then we would just be on the level of Cats, or Trees, or whatever. Unworthy of joining with God, only capable of being cared for by God. in order for us to be worthy of Godness... the omnipotent force had to move into some Chuck Norris/(immovable object meets an irresistable force) type territory, and prove his ABSOLUTE omnipotence by actually reducing his control. God becomes human, humans becomes Godlike, and we are able to enter into the bond that is offered to us.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Asbury I was raised and confirmed Catholic but recently joined a Methodist church. In a sense, I don't consider Methodists as true protestants. There was never really a split with Catholicism based on anything other than a King wanting to get married.

Their beliefs, or should I say our beliefs, based on salvation through acts as well as their emphasis on education and knowledge is very close to Catholicism imo. Just a lot less ritual involved.

Right on the money, which is why if you really want a good explanation of Methodist theology then one of the best sources is the former Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright who is Anglican, because for all intents and purposes we are Anglicans. Had it not been for the Revolutionary War and the Anglican priests who refused to serve colonialists communion then the Methodist church as it is today might never have existed as more the Anglican church renewal movement that John Wesley started. We tend to get lumped in with the Protestants because the splits all seemed to occur around the same time, but obviously for different reasons, and you're right Methodist/Anglican theology is much more a union of faith working through love as opposed to faith and faith alone. We have as a major philosophical underpinning of our theological method what is often times referred to as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (not made by Wesley) which is a cooperative model of scripture, experience, tradition and reason; more conservative members state that the scripture is the standard by which the other three interact with, whereas the more liberal members understand that all four are in movement around one another.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I can understand that attraction. But as a non-believer, it can only appear like the false comfort of a fantasy.

Well......sure.

[AsburySkinsFan]

In reading through this thread and the original question I have noticed a near total lack of discussion around the sacrificial system used for atonement, and it was hit on once I think that death entered the world through one man and life through another but it was pretty much left at that. Quite frankly the reason that sins are redeemed through sacrifice is that was the way God said it was to be, now most believe that it was the actual blood and the death that brought the redemption but instead it is much more focused upon the faithfulness and willingness to surrender that which is most precious to God (first born, first fruits, unblemished lamb etc), which is why Isaiah talks about the stench of the burnt offerings being an offense to God and how God does not delight in their sacrifice because they were an unfaithful people. I know so much of Protestant theology (as referenced earlier) focuses upon the bloodletting and death of Jesus, but that focus pushes our understanding to salvation being made possible through the cross rather than the new life being made possible through the resurrection of Jesus as the first fruits of the resurrection. As such the cross was necessary to satisfy the fulfillment of the sacrificial law did not bring about new life but instead only paid the sin debt, and without the resurrection we'd only have our sins dealt with but no new life in the resurrection for it to mean anything. For this reason (i.e. the satisfaction and fulfillment of the Law) we understand why the 1st century church was not traumatized by the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, because it is just as Paul wrote..."1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you [plural, i.e. congregation] are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you [plural, i.e. congregation]?" which eliminates the necessity of the Temple whereby we knew Emmanuel (God with us).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

For this reason (i.e. the satisfaction and fulfillment of the Law) we understand why the 1st century church was not traumatized by the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, because it is just as Paul wrote..."1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you [plural, i.e. congregation] are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you [plural, i.e. congregation]?" which eliminates the necessity of the Temple whereby we knew Emmanuel (God with us).

I'm in deep water here, But the way I understood it was this:

1. The story of Abraham and Isaac shows us that God rejects human sacrifice.

2. The Jewish law required animal sacrifice.

3. Jesus' sacrifice is the ulimate fulfillment of the law making any sacrifice unnecessary for those who follow Him.

4. The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 ended animal sacrifice because there was now no place to perform such sacrifice.

I agree that Christians tend to focus more on the cross than on the resurrection. However, it is the story of the cross that moves me because I am accept that my God can conquer death. What is powerful is that would allow himself to suffer and die that horrible death.

[Jumbo]

What's interesting to me is that I find the rational world overwhelmingly chaotic at times while I find the "irrational" world of Christianity ordered and safe. That's a comfort to me. I was saying in a PM that the thing I found I liked about Mass is that every Sunday from 9 AM to 10 AM I know exactly what is going to happen and I know that the same exact thing is happening all over the world. There is nothig else in my life like that.

Some (well, many) people have long suggested that man's main reason for the creation and evolution of God(s)/religion(s) was its facility to soothe, calm, ease, or otherwise help (hugely) to provide much-needed support in handling the more daunting aspects (i.e. all forms of fear and insecurity) of the human condition.

[Prosperity]

Some (well, many) people have long suggested that man's main reason for the creation and evolution of God(s)/religion(s) was its facility to soothe, calm, ease, or otherwise help (hugely) to provide much-needed support in handling the more daunting aspects (i.e. all forms of fear and insecurity) of the human condition.

Kind of like most other rational human endeavors, that is people do things they think will help. Whether it is good, and whether it is true are not the same question. But, whether it is good, and whether we should continue it, are inextricably linked.

And of course, most religions that I know of now, basically say that (facilitating the handling of difficult aspects of life) is the point of their religion in the first place (even if by another name like "salvation").