Suppose you moved to another country you knew little about. And you learned that in this country there is only one judge in the entire court system. You are curious about this, so you decide to attend a court trial...a major one, too...a murder trial. The evidence presented is overwhelming, and a guilty verdict is inevitable. The suspect is sentenced to life in prison, which is, according to that nation, the fair and just sentence for such a serious crime.
But, then, a very close family member of the judge steps forward and admits that he loves the murderer very, very deeply and cannot stand the thought of the murderer spending the rest of his life in prison. He offers himself in the man's place, saying he will carry out the life sentence so the murderer can go free. The judge agrees to this offer, explaining that it doesn't matter if the actual murderer carries out the sentence...as long as SOMEONE carries it out...then, justice will be served.
Ideas of love and sacrifice aside...would you leave that court room believing that the decision was just? Would you believe that judge was even remotely familiar with the concept of justice?
The emphasis in Christianity is so heavily on Jesus paying the price (death) for our sins. What kind of a judge is God? Does punishing an innocent man really justify our sins? Why would it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've always tried to make sense of the idea that God had to sacrifice his son for humankind but could never come up with any rational perspective. Perhaps, there's some hidden metaphorical meaning to it all. I do recall an interview with an Episcopalian bishop on 60 minutes years ago. He expressed his disbelief at the idea that Jesus had to suffer a horrible death just to save humanity and said how it was illogical. He added that God could have just forgiven us. I thought it was interesting that this came from an Episcopalian bishop. I've noticed that Espiscopalians tend to be progressive in their beliefs. I was considering joining the Episcopalian Church at one point.
ReplyDeleteMia (from MySpace)
Btw: I noticed you haven't been posting. Then again, I don't blame you. There's been a lot of drama in the group the last couple of days. Better to avoid it.
Take care
I've heard people say that God demands blood as the price for sin. But, even innocent blood is good enough for him? In fact, I think in the Old Testament it says that those that shed innocent blood are an abomination to God...yet, he demands it before he is willing to forgive.
ReplyDeleteAnd why blood? If he had created another universe without blood, what would be the cost for sin there?
Yeah, I haven't been posting in the group lately, Mia...just needed a break. I can't stand people who insist they have found the great love of God, yet, treat other people so terribly and disrespectfully. I also tire of presenting good, thoughtful arguments, only to have all the fundies just leave the thread and never answer it repeatedly...it shows how little they have to bring to the table...yet, they just keep right on posting like they are sure they are right.
A couple of things to consider regarding your analogy:
ReplyDelete1. Jesus is not a "close relative" of God, the Judge. He is God, the Judge, himself.
2. The "crimes" Jesus (God) died for were crimes committed ultimately, against him, not against a third party. Nobody's rights were overlooked and nobody's grievance was left unaccounted for.
3. Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life, yes, but he "became cursed" for us and "bore our sins in his body on the tree" (Gal 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24). So, in a way, Jesus was not "innocent". Our sin was put on him (for which he died), his innocence was given to us (by which we live).
@ Anon, regarding the Episcopalian priest's take on justice, let's return to Flubber's analogy. Would you think, as an observer in the courtroom, that justice was served if the Judge simply said to the murderer, "That's OK, just go home, I forgive you."? I think you'd be even more convinced that the Judge knew nothing of justice in this case than in Flubber's scenario.
If I take that scenario literally, the outcome is that a dangerous murderer has been allowed to be free to possibly murder again. Justice is not served because the remainder of society has now been needlessly put in danger again.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your scenario is that in christianity, Jesus comes to save people that don't even commit crimes. He apparently comes to save people before they are even born and able to commit any defined sin. Personally, I don't think I need saving because I coveted something of my neighbors. I think coveting is a perfectly normal human feeling and reaction. It is what you do with the coveting that matters. Do you wish you had a certain thing and then let that thought go? or, do you go steel it?
Our differences come from the fact that I don't believe in the concept of sin and christians believe that god has decided what is a sin. I do believe in right and wrong but that stems from common sense and humans having to live and work with one another in order to keep a peaceful society. With christians, no thought is necessary regarding right and wrong because someone else (god) has done the deciding for you.
Also, if christians are to get anywhere in constructive arguments with non-christians, they need to stop using bible verses to do so. That is not an argument, it is only recitation.
Laughing Boy,
ReplyDelete1. Even if the judge himself said, "I'll go to jail for you,"that STILL would not be just. What purpose is there in punishing someone that did not even do anything wrong? How does that make up for or correct the wrong someone else did?
2. Again, how does God giving himself as the price for our sin somehow fix the sins we did against him? It still makes no sense that someone else being punished can make things right regarding a person's wrongs/sins/whatever.
3. It is not possible to put a wrongdoing on someone else. Either you did it or you did not. Neither an innocent person nor a guilty person can take on what you did...in the end, you're still the one that did it. Someone else may claim the blame, but that doesn't change who really has the blame.
There is no reason why person A's sins could be paid for or made right by the punishment of person B no matter who the sins were against or what type of sin they were.
@ Anon:
ReplyDelete...the remainder of society has now been needlessly put in danger again
Well, at this point the courtroom analogy no longer works. When God judges a person innocent they are not returned back to society.
I don't think I need saving because I coveted something of my neighbors. I think coveting is a perfectly normal human feeling and reaction. It is what you do with the coveting that matters.
God judges the heart (motives/will). Actions are just the outworking of the heart. We can only judge actions because we can't know the heart. God doesn't have this limitation. This is why Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, equates, among other things, hate and murder.
...need to stop using bible verses ...
How can I defend the biblical perspective (which is the subject of this post) without referring to the bible?
@Flubber:
What purpose is there in punishing someone that did not even do anything wrong?
I suppose we could ask how punishing even the guilty person makes things right. If a murder is jailed or executed, are things then set right? How, so?
It is not possible to put a wrongdoing on someone else.
For Anon's sake I won't give a scripture reference :-), so I guess you'll have to trust me when I say that God and man are bound by covenants, or contracts, and that sin is considered a debt. Debts can be paid by another, after which the original debtor is free of the obligation.
These are good (i.e. not easy) questions, Flubber. I'll need to brush up on my theology in this area to make sure I'm representing my position clearly.
I said: Well, at this point the courtroom analogy no longer works. When God judges a person innocent they are not returned back to society.
ReplyDeleteOn re-reading, it seems that I probably need to expand or clarify this, but I don't have time now. For now I'll just admit that the answer is not adequate as it stands.
Here is the problem with using Bible verses. In a conversation that is questioning the logic behind what the Bible says, just saying what the Bible says is not sufficient. It's like us saying, "The Bible says A, and here is why I think that makes no sense." For you to respond by saying, "The Bible says A. Thus, A is true." Well, that doesn't really contribute much to the conversation. I'm not saying you do that with every post...but, for example, even in your "God and man are bound by contracts..." Well, besides the Bible, what reason would you have for believing that?
ReplyDeleteI actually think you have a legitimate question about why we jail murderers, etc. I actually quite disagree with our penal system. I am far more in supportive of rehabilitative efforts for criminals.
But, that aside, if we're talking about actual punishment, if there is going to be a system in which punishments are carried out, it seems pretty silly to be punishing people that weren't even involved in the crime.
In a conversation that is questioning the logic behind what the Bible says, just saying what the Bible says is not sufficient.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but your courtroom analogy is not in that category. You are questioning the logic of your personal take on Penal/Substitutionary Atonement, and I am trying to point out that your take is not doing justice (excuse the pun) to the biblical version. In order for your criticism of the biblical concept to carry any weight, you have to represent it correctly.
Soteriology gets very involved very quickly. I hope to do a post on the Atonement when I'm finished with my current mini-series on science and religion. I'd appreciate your input.
The bible is closed.
I am far more in supportive of rehabilitative efforts for criminals.
But how does rehab, incarceration, or execution make things right? Has the offended party been made whole by any of these methods?
...it seems pretty silly to be punishing people that weren't even involved in the crime
Within the judicial systems of human societies, that's true. God's system and our systems are only analogous to a point. Within human systems restoration is often unobtainable, and that leaves punishment as our only recourse. Punishment is not God's only recourse although he is bound by his nature to punish sin. Christ took our punishment, yes, but since he was unique he could serve other purposes as well. It's in the exploration of this aspect of the Atonement that the courtroom analogy breaks down.
The Bible itself claims that the wages of sin is death. So, why is it that Jesus dying makes it right? Besides the Bible saying it does, what logical reason is there? Why does having a perfect, innocent man die in someone's place set things right or correct things?
ReplyDeleteI am in support of rehabilitative efforts not because it makes things right. It doesn't. If someone murders someone's child, nothing is going to correct that. Even if the person suffers in some way equally to the amount of suffering they caused...it's still just a bunch of people suffering. I am in support of rehabilitative efforts because most people that commit crimes have some sort of underlying disorder (caused either by the environment they were raised in or because they have some sort of biological disorder). It says more about us than it does about them to just throw them in a prison and leave them there instead of helping them work through their issues and have a better life. If some sort of compensation can be made (for example, if they've robbed someone, they should pay them back), then, of course, that should be done. And there does need to be some sort of penalty to deter people from committing crimes. but, ultimately, I believe the focus should be on rehabilitation because that is what is best for society as a whole.
But, regardless, the Bible says that Jesus dying on the cross does serve as our justification. Why? Because God demands blood for sin...ANYONE'S blood, even someone who didn't even do anything wrong? What kind of a judge is that?
You just seem to be declaring certain truths without explaining why they are true...why is God bound by his nature to punish sin? Isn't he omnipotent? Didn't he make the rules in the first place? Why does have to punish sin? Why is not capable of finding other ways to deal with it? Why could Christ take our punishment just because he was innocent? How does punishing an innocent man correct the crimes/sin of others? Why would such a thing appease God/a judge? If anything, it'd seem to make things worse to punish an innocent man...not better.