Original Sin and Vicarious Redemption

[musicman30mm]

As a non-Christian, I find two of the core beliefs of Christian doctorine to be a little non-sensical and actually quite immoral. I'm interested to hear how Christians rationalize them.

Original Sin:

If I commit a misdeed- perhaps I steal something- I may ask for someone else to be helpful and pay the fine. Perhaps even the government could require them to do so, but I could not make them guilty. It is clearly immoral to command another to be guilty for my own misdeeds, nor should they even be capable of feeling guilty for my sins. So why am I being judged for a deed I couldn't possibly be responsible for, or have prevented. It's downright tyranny.

Jesus Dying for My Sins:

Again, this seems an immoral concept, even if it really happened (which I don't believe it did). Wouldn't it be nice if I could have someone else pay my fine, or take my place in the electric chair. Nice of them, certainly, but horrible of me, and it wouldn't remove my responsibility. I can't pile that on someone else's back, nor should I. If I murder someone, there is nothing I can do, including prostrating to God, that will bring that person back, or reverse the suffering of their loved ones, or reverse the deed itself.

Now let's imagine that it is true. Let's imagine that God, in the form of a human, came to Earth, lived to adult-hood, then was crucified for all of humanity's sins. Did God really sacrafice anything? He went to Heaven right? One has to assume he's doing fantastically. Heaven is supposed to be a pretty great place after all. Now if God had sent Jesus/himself to hell for eternity, that would be something of a sacrafice. But come to think of it, can God really sacrafice anything? He's perfect, all knowing, omnipotent, eternal, constant. Isn't the very concept of God sacraficing for us purely symbolic?

Thanks

 

[Chesterton]

It is clearly immoral to command another to be guilty for my own misdeeds, nor should they even be capable of feeling guilty for my sins. So why am I being judged for a deed I couldn't possibly be responsible for, or have prevented. It's downright tyranny.

You won’t be judged for the sin of Adam, you’ll be judged for your own sins. If you inherited original sin, and have still managed to live a perfect, sinless life, then you can sleep well. But if you’re anything like the rest of us, you need Christ.

If I murder someone, there is nothing I can do, including prostrating to God, that will bring that person back, or reverse the suffering of their loved ones, or reverse the deed itself.

We don’t know exactly what He does, but an all-powerful God certainly could reverse anything; if not in this life, then in the next.

Now let's imagine that it is true. Let's imagine that God, in the form of a human, came to Earth, lived to adult-hood, then was crucified for all of humanity's sins. Did God really sacrafice anything? He went to Heaven right? One has to assume he's doing fantastically. Heaven is supposed to be a pretty great place after all. Now if God had sent Jesus/himself to hell for eternity, that would be something of a sacrafice. But come to think of it, can God really sacrafice anything? He's perfect, all knowing, omnipotent, eternal, constant. Isn't the very concept of God sacraficing for us purely symbolic?

I could be missing your point, but that seems like a non-sequitur. I don’t see why His being all-knowing and omnipotent means that He couldn’t sacrifice. Part of what He sacrificed could be His power; hence Christ exclaims “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is clearly immoral to command another to be guilty for my own misdeeds, nor should they even be capable of feeling guilty for my sins.

Just by way of correction here, and assuming you think that is what happened, God did not command Jesus to die for you --- Jesus volunteered:

Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

 

[Chesterton]

I re-read your thread title and wanted to add something about the morality of “vicarious redemption”.

I remember in public elementary school they tried to teach us “relativistic morality”. We had to evaluate hypothetical moral problems such as: “A man’s wife is terminally ill. There is medicine which can save her, but they can’t afford to buy it, so he breaks into a pharmacy and steals the medicine to save her. Was he right or wrong?”

You could be somewhat correct; maybe God did something “immoral”. Maybe God “stooped to conquer”; maybe he lowered Himself to our level out of His love for us. But there is a problem even in the language used saying it that way: God is the author of morality; our morality is rooted in His nature. So a man declaring an act of God immoral is similar to a music critic of Bach saying some certain passage in a Bach piece is “un-Bachian”. One specific arrangement of notes by Bach could be atypical of his overall work, but it’s impossible to say it’s “un-Bachian” because he is Bach, and he did it. Likewise, if God did it, it cannot be “un-Godly” or immoral.

The created thing called Man could not save itself. (Proof of this is demonstrated by the common saying “Nobody’s perfect”.) God is absolute goodness. Neither you nor I have ever known anyone who was worthy, who could meet a Godly standard of moral perfection. We can extrapolate from that fact that there never has been any human who was perfect; except that we have a written record of one from the past who was (Jesus Christ, who was also God).

Man could not do it, so, it was either vicarious redemption or no redemption at all. Christians do not declare that “God is morality” but rather that “God is Love”. The question then is not “which action would morality dictate” but rather “which action would Love dictate”.

 

[ebia]

As a non-Christian, I find two of the core beliefs of Christian doctorine to be a little non-sensical and actually quite immoral. I'm interested to hear how Christians rationalize them.

Original Sin:

If I commit a misdeed- perhaps I steal something- I may ask for someone else to be helpful and pay the fine. Perhaps even the government could require them to do so, but I could not make them guilty. It is clearly immoral to command another to be guilty for my own misdeeds, nor should they even be capable of feeling guilty for my sins. So why am I being judged for a deed I couldn't possibly be responsible for, or have prevented. It's downright tyranny.

Not that I'm a big fan of Original Sin as model for explaining anything, but that's not a good summary of how the idea works.

Jesus Dying for My Sins:

Again, this seems an immoral concept, even if it really happened (which I don't believe it did). Wouldn't it be nice if I could have someone else pay my fine, or take my place in the electric chair. Nice of them, certainly, but horrible of me, and it wouldn't remove my responsibility. I can't pile that on someone else's back, nor should I. If I murder someone, there is nothing I can do, including prostrating to God, that will bring that person back, or reverse the suffering of their loved ones, or reverse the deed itself.

Now let's imagine that it is true. Let's imagine that God, in the form of a human, came to Earth, lived to adult-hood, then was crucified for all of humanity's sins. Did God really sacrafice anything? He went to Heaven right? One has to assume he's doing fantastically. Heaven is supposed to be a pretty great place after all. Now if God had sent Jesus/himself to hell for eternity, that would be something of a sacrafice. But come to think of it, can God really sacrafice anything? He's perfect, all knowing, omnipotent, eternal, constant. Isn't the very concept of God sacraficing for us purely symbolic?

Firstly, thinking of Jesus as God in the form of a human may not be helpful - Jesus is fully God and fully human. Any idea that he cannot suffer or sacrifice at least as much as any other human is to deny his full humanity.
Secondly, you a bringing a whole load of concepts about God that you already have to the table. What Christianity requires is to set aside everything you think you know about God and start from scratch looking at Jesus of Nazareth.
Our model for understanding what's going in Jesus should NEVER be: "we know what God would be like, we know Jesus is God, therefore that tells us about Jesus" but "We know what Jesus is like (from the N.T.), we know that Jesus was fully human AND fully God, therefore that tells us something about God and something about what it is to be fully human".
Thirdly, all models of trying to understand how the cross and resurrection work are inadequate models. The truth is the gospel itself, and when Jesus wanted to explain his upcoming death to his friends he didn't give them a theory, but a meal. Abstract models like sustitutionary atonement and Christus Victor are not closer to the truth than the stories themselves, but futher away. Sometimes helpful, but always inadequate.
And none of them anywhere near complete on their own.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Original Sin:

If I commit a misdeed- perhaps I steal something- I may ask for someone else to be helpful and pay the fine. Perhaps even the government could require them to do so, but I could not make them guilty. It is clearly immoral to command another to be guilty for my own misdeeds, nor should they even be capable of feeling guilty for my sins. So why am I being judged for a deed I couldn't possibly be responsible for, or have prevented. It's downright tyranny.

Chesterton has pretty much cornered the market on great answers, but I'd just like to reiterate that same point. We're judged solely for our own sin. Original sin caused us to be born into it. By the same token, sin is a choice. If we choose to break God's law, we face judgement. Which is where Christ's indescribable gift of grace comes into it...

Jesus Dying for My Sins:

Again, this seems an immoral concept, even if it really happened (which I don't believe it did). Wouldn't it be nice if I could have someone else pay my fine, or take my place in the electric chair. Nice of them, certainly, but horrible of me, and it wouldn't remove my responsibility. I can't pile that on someone else's back, nor should I. If I murder someone, there is nothing I can do, including prostrating to God, that will bring that person back, or reverse the suffering of their loved ones, or reverse the deed itself.

No, you're absolutely right, which is why murderers still face consequences on earth. Being given forgiveness by God - repenting - doesn't blot out the crime, but in terms of eternal salvation, it blots out the sin. Sin and crime are different animals.

I have a question for you, though: there are so many amazing prison ministries that are reaching out to prisoners - often the most hardened and violent of individuals - and subsequent to conversion, these prisoners are changed men. Is that not of enormous value, also? It doesn't mean they get to go free, but it does mean they're made new in Christ, and despite their doing something so heinous and unthinkable, they're still loved. Does that not say something about how extraordinary God is? That He is so loving, He will freely forgive us, even when we do something so awful.

Now let's imagine that it is true. Let's imagine that God, in the form of a human, came to Earth, lived to adult-hood, then was crucified for all of humanity's sins. Did God really sacrafice anything? He went to Heaven right? One has to assume he's doing fantastically. Heaven is supposed to be a pretty great place after all. Now if God had sent Jesus/himself to hell for eternity, that would be something of a sacrafice. But come to think of it, can God really sacrafice anything? He's perfect, all knowing, omnipotent, eternal, constant. Isn't the very concept of God sacraficing for us purely symbolic?

Thanks

I used to think about that, too, actually and something seemingly innocuous made me realise the real depths of that gift.

I was here one day watching one of the standard arguments between people and I realised, most of us can barely be cordial to people we don't like. Even online, the hate and animosity is almost palpable sometimes, just because people will disagree over something inconsequential like movies. Election season has been uncinscionable in terms of the cruelty expressed. In contrast, Jesus proves His love and divinity day in day out for 3 years. He healed people, resurrected people, welcomed people, forgave people - all the while, He was spat on by those who called Him blasphemous.

Every single day, He gave freely of Himself. Think about that. Every. waking. moment. Jesus is God made man, susceptible to the same temptations as us all, and yet He never sinned. Thinking hateful thoughts is a sin, and He never even did that!

So thousands witnessed His miracles and His glory, and yet when asked to choose who should be given a reprieve, they chose a pathological criminal over Jesus. The night before that, He had been so afraid, He had sweat blood; He was so lonely, and yet His disciples fell asleep on the job. Even knowing the inutterable suffering He would go through, He chose to do it, anyway, for the very people who would call for His death. Again, remember most of us can barely be polite to those we don't like.

He was tortured and brutalized for hours and hours and hours; He was mocked and humiliated and nailed to a cross. He is God, the Creator of *everything*, reduced to a man covered in blood, scourged so badly His insides were exposed, hanging from a tree while people laughed at Him suffering. And He did it voluntarily for the people who were laughing at Him, and He did it for the people who continue laughing at Him. He went through that for all of us, including those who hate Him.

Could you do that? Truth is, I couldn't go through that for those I love, let alone those who hate me. So, yes, His sacrifice was - and is - monumental, and goes beyond anything we'll ever be able to comprehend.

 

[Rowan]

If I murder someone, there is nothing I can do, including prostrating to God, that will bring that person back, or reverse the suffering of their loved ones, or reverse the deed itself.

Jesus tells us that before offering the sacrifice (in the Christian context this would be the equivalent of participating in the liturgy), that if you have remembered a disagreement with your brother to basically drop everything and be reconciled first. St. Paul tells us as much as it depends on you, to live in peace with everyone.

In the Bible, there is no discouragement from doing what's right to rectify the situation. In this case, it would be turning yourself in to the police. But all should be done in union with Christ, or it does not sanctify us.

 

[Catherineanne]

As a non-Christian, I find two of the core beliefs of Christian doctorine to be a little non-sensical and actually quite immoral. I'm interested to hear how Christians rationalize them.

First of all, find out what rationalise means. Then pose a question which does not contain three distinct veiled insults in the very first paragraph. I stopped reading after that.