Something for Christians to explain

[chakka35]

This morning on Radio 4's Today programme there was a discussion prompted by the complaint by some bishop that the crucifixion/resurrection scenario made no sense. He called it 'lunatic'. The discussion got nowhere because both participants were Christians, who were duty-bound to give us the standard interpretation.
Not for the first time I pondered on the story myself and (not for the first time ) found it odd. I'll summarise it in simple straightforward words and then perhaps Christians will comment:
God looks at humanity, decides that it is sinful and, instead of punishing us, decides to redeem our sins by sending his son to be killed. (The logic of that is strange, for a start.)
So he sends Jesus to earth to be crucified, as a gesture to clear all our charge-sheets. But, according to Christians, Jesus is God. So to whom was God making the gesture? To himself, obviously. So God said "God, please note that I have had myself killed to redeem human sin." To which God replies "OK God, got that. Duly noted. Box ticked." After which God comes to life again and returns to heaven to restore the status quo. So what was the point of this game that God played with himself?

(Incidentally, God let himself off lightly compared with all those thousands of poor souls who, as was intended, suffered for days on the cross. Taken down after only a few hours, God would not have suffered too much. Dead? Well, you'd have to explain why.)

In using straightforward language I am not taking the mickey. It's just that many religious dogmas are couched in such obscure terms as to conceal the bare bones of what they are saying.

So would some Christian use equally simple language to explain what God was doing here.

[wizard69]

chakka,
Its always seemed a tadge strange to me that God had to Crucify himself, to himself, so that he could save us from a hell that he made himself.
Christians always say that the ressurection of christ is what makes christianity unique but stories of dying and ressurecting saviour gods predate christianity by 1000's of years.
And if God is all powerfull then why not simply forgive? Christians hopelessly contradict themselves by stating that God HAD to dye in order to forgive.If he HAD to do something then he IS NOT omnipotent.

[naomi24]

Makes no sense at all, does it. The Christians are strangely quiet, don't you think?

[naomi24]

Chakka, doesn't look like you're going to get an explanation.

[tompaine]

Man screwed up gods creation so he had to come down and fix it. He had to show mankind that mankind was its own redeemer. The only way for god to do this was to come down in human form, leave a bunch of clues about how to live and then the big gesture. He'd tried other tactics and, frankly, things weren't going well. By sacrificing his son (himself) god created a new contract with mankind where we each have a personal relationship with god.

Thomas

[chakka35]

You may be right, naomi. What possible sense could I hope to get, for example, from Mani who, in a neighbouring site, tell us the end is nigh and that Jesus is coming back any minute.
Incidentally, how is your group therapy? I still have 7 problems. (That'll fox 'em!)

[Fingerprint]

I think the person you are talking about is the Very Rev Jeffrey John. He is a controversial right wing Evangelical Anglican and he follows a strand of theology called PSA ( Penal Substitutionary Atonement)

This is basically a different theological analysis of the crucifiction and the argument goes that Christ did not die for our sins but so that he could share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us. Very few theologians besides a few right wing evangelicals follow this strand of theology, most consider it to be a pervesion of scripture and a misunderstanding of the trinity.

[naomi24]

Chakka, you still don't seem to have clear answer to your question, do you. Do you think you'll get one?

As for the group therapy, thanks for asking. I still have several problems - and a couple I'm not totally convinced are cured. I'm still searching in the borders, and amongst the bric-a-brac - and I do wish I could stop being all of a quiver.

[chakka35]

Well, I don't know, adultress, whether I'll get an answer this time. Time will show. Fingerprint and Mani have not understood (but then when did Mani ever understand anything?) that I am not seeking their opinions of Jeffrey John (now Dean of St Alban's) but an answer to my fundamental question. But since none of them answered my equally fundamental question about how, chronologically, their God could have created the universe, I am not hopeful.
Glad your group therapy is helping. I am also wallowing hopelessly in bric a brac but I've crossed the Border by realising that it's my garden border that matters not a distant boundary. I've got rid of the quiver but the Queen's chasing of that drunk still worries me.

[naomi24]

Chakka, precisely. Why don't they just answer the question? Come on chaps, what's the answer?

I have been meandering around the garden, but haven't weeded much out yet - and I'm still having problems with the drunkard too.

[tompaine]

really? well I gave a clear answer and you seem to be ignoring it.

[Fingerprint]

Chakka - I decided to comment on the background of Jeffrey John because I though Thomas had already answered your questions. Jesus died for our sins and the crucifiction was basically symbolism of God's relationship to mankind - a grand gesture to mankind if you will.

[chakka35]

Adultress, I found that there was none so pretty as those I found in chambers, where they were proud of their metropolis.
We'd better stop this before our more rational friends think we've gone as bonkers as the religionists. See you in Q&P maybe.

[chakka35]

I'm so sorry, Thomas, It was certainly rude of me to ignore you. I apologise.
Alas, you do not answer the question. You claim that God 'had to show mankind that mankind was its own redeemer.' But how did he do that by coming as a god, having himself killed, then resurrecting himself and going back home? What example was that to mankind, none of which has the capacity to do those magical things?
The bit about this 'creating a new contract with mankind where we each have a personal relationship with God' is the sort of sermonising I had hoped to avoid. I for one certainly don't have such a relationship, thank G-- ...er..
But fair enough, you tried. But no cigar.

[naomi24]

Chakka, you're probably right, although from what our less rational friends here seem to think, we're already past the point of no return.

Mani, that's not nice. And you a Christian too. Shame on you.

Thomas, the reason I think you haven't answered Chakka's question is because your explanation makes no sense. God came to earth to have himself killed to create a new contract with mankind. Firstly, I don't know why this all powerful god couldn't find a better way to formulate this new contract; secondly, if it was so important, why didn't he leave proof that it happened; and thirdly, if it did happen why hasn't it worked? He still has the same problems with mankind as he's always had. Additionally, if he is all-knowing, then he must have known it wouldn't work before he decided to do it, so what was the point?

[chakka35]

Three stars, adultress.

[naomi24]

Thank you Chakka.

[wizard69]

Mani..and if brains were choclate you wouldnt have enough to fill an M&M with my son.
tom..your answer is about as clear as mud...but thats probably what's filling up the space between your ears.