Evidence for God from Science

Every person in a Christian society knows that "God sent Jesus, his only sons, so that he might die for our sins".

I am assuming that sins are sins before God (breaches of the commandments etc.)

My question is this: How, or why, does God sacrificing his son absolve the human race from its sins?

I have always found this genuinely puzzling, and would be very glad of some explanation.

Blind Electric Ray wrote:Every person in a Christian society knows that "God sent Jesus, his only sons, so that he might die for our sins".

I am assuming that sins are sins before God (breaches of the commandments etc.)

My question is this: How, or why, does God sacrificing his son absolve the human race from its sins?

I have always found this genuinely puzzling, and would be very glad of some explanation.

Firstly...it doesn't absolve the Human race from it's sins...however it can IF the whole of humanity was to claim his death as theirs. Since we can see in history that many have lived and died without putting faith in Christ, then all humanity cannot be absolved from sin through Jesus' death.

It is God that makes the rules...it is God that says to sin is to die. It is God's death that affords all of humanity reconcilliation, but not all want it and not all take it. Either you die for your sins...or you allow God to die for you.
.
.

I was so confused by this until I read CS Lewis' Mere Christianity and it kind of settled it to the point where I don't feel quite so baffled anymore. I wish I had the book handy and I'd just quote the pertinent paragraphs, but as such I do not have it with me so I'll just have to paraphrase.

It is the belief of Christians that somehow, Jesus dying up on the cross allowed us to be saved. Jesus essentially paid for our sins by suffering through the crucifixion, and his dying allows us to die and go to heaven, assuming we have accepted Jesus and lived good Christian lives. Now that's the important part, that's the belief and that's what we hold to be true. The actual mechanisms that cause this to happen are a mystery to us and while we can make models of how this might work, they are just models to help us understand it, not necessarily an accurate reflection of what is really going on.

CS Lewis compared it to certain laws of quantum physics, particularly Schrodinger's Law which basically says that light is both a wave and a particle, and that you can't know both its speed and position simultaneously. Now, that is some seriously abstract stuff and in reality it is a conclusion based on a mathematical equation. Now, in our heads we can have pictures of little dots and we call those particles, and pictures of a line curving up and then down and then up again and we call those as waves. In reality, we can't really grasp exactly what light is at the fundamental level, but we make mental pictures to help us get a better understanding of what is going on. But what physics believes is that mathematical equation, and that is the important thing, not necessasarily the pictures we get in our heads when we think about it.

Similarly, in Christianity we don't exactly know why Jesus dying pays for our sins. One model that helped me get an understanding of it is when CS Lewis compared it to somebody being in debt. Let's say you owe me $10,000, and you don't have $10,000. Well, I'm a vengeful borrower and if you don't pay me back the money I'm going to come break your legs. But alternatively, you have a friend who loves you very much and who is willing to pay that debt back for you. So you can either accept the help being offered to you and be free of your debt, with your knee caps still intact, or you can accept the alternative and still owe me the money and get beatings forever until it is paid off.

Similarly, you have sinned and you owe God big. Now you can't do anything about it, you don't have the power. But Jesus does, and if you accept his offer, accept the sacrifice he made for all of us (including you), you can have that sin cleared and you can be purified and things can be set right with God. You can have eternal salvation in heaven after you die, even though you are human and have sinned.

But, this is just a model, it helps us get our heads around something which is outside our realm of comprehension. It helped me, but it might not help you, and if it doesn't then that's ok. Just remember that the truth is in the equation: Jesus dying up on that cross can free you from your sins. It doesn't matter how it works, but if you believe it works and you give your life and your heart to God through Jesus then you will be freed from your sins.

I hope I did not confuse the issue even more.

Chris L.

Athiest2Christian wrote:...and his dying allows us to die and go to heaven, assuming we have accepted Jesus and lived good Christian lives.

While partially true, there is nothing one can do to gain heaven. It is of faith only.

The partially true part is that one lives what one believes. The proof of one's faith is in the living of that faith. If the life doesn't show the faith, then it probably was never real faith.

However, we do have one example of turning to Christ at death's doorstep. We have the example of the thief on the cross. He realized Christ's innocense and saw his own guilt. He called to Christ to remember him...and Christ told the thief, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."--Luke 23:43 NIV
(punctuation not part of the original manuscripts)

The life of the thief showed no faith...but his heart did...and God knows our hearts.

It's interesting we have this one example to show that it is possible, but unlikely. The thief was lucky to know his death was near and see Christ for what He is. We don't always know when our time will come...and when it does come, the chances like this thief are few and far between if not near impossible.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:Firstly...it doesn't absolve the Human race from it's sins

Ok - so assume I meant people who have accepted Christ etc etc and not the whole human race.

BavarianWheels wrote:It is God that makes the rules...it is God that says to sin is to die. It is God's death that affords all of humanity reconcilliation, but not all want it and not all take it. Either you die for your sins...or you allow God to die for you.

I don't understand this. God is the person sinned against - the "victim" of the sinning. How does God sacrificing his son afford reconciliation at all? Couldn't God have just as easily said "if you accept me, I'll absolve your sins"? I am trying to get to the bottom of the need for God to send his son and for his son to die.

Athiest2Christian wrote:Jesus essentially paid for our sins by suffering through the crucifixion, and his dying allows us to die and go to heaven, assuming we have accepted Jesus and lived good Christian lives

Hi A2C. I guess I have the same question: Jesus, as part of the Godhead, was the one sinned against, so how does his dying fix anything that couldn't be fixed by a simple "You're off the hook, Humans"?

A2C wrote:Well, I'm a vengeful borrower and if you don't pay me back the money I'm going to come break your legs. But alternatively, you have a friend who loves you very much and who is willing to pay that debt back for you.

OK, but to continue the analogy the vengeful borrower and the friend are the same person (if you accept the Godhead) or father and son (if you don't), aren't they? So wouldn't vengeful borrower be really mad now? And to continue the analogy, I'm guessing the loving friend doesn't pay the money, but actually gets his kneecaps broken instead of mine? I would like to think that's a trade I'd never make. I'm not that selfish (I hope).

BavarianWheels wrote:there is nothing one can do to gain heaven. It is of faith only.

So you can lead a goodly life, do only good things, spread the word of Christ, but have a sneaking doubt, and miss out?

That seems a bit rough.

Blind Electric Ray wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Firstly...it doesn't absolve the Human race from it's sins

Ok - so assume I meant people who have accepted Christ etc etc and not the whole human race.

BavarianWheels wrote:It is God that makes the rules...it is God that says to sin is to die. It is God's death that affords all of humanity reconcilliation, but not all want it and not all take it. Either you die for your sins...or you allow God to die for you.

I don't understand this. God is the person sinned against - the "victim" of the sinning. How does God sacrificing his son afford reconciliation at all? Couldn't God have just as easily said "if you accept me, I'll absolve your sins"? I am trying to get to the bottom of the need for God to send his son and for his son to die.

Exactly. God is the one who was sinned against. God is the one who set the rules and God is Justice. God cannot go against his own rules being God and being the supreme Judge. If he were not fair in his judgement, would anyone love God freely, or would that love be out of fear?

When a child is spoiled and doesn't suffer any consequences that are set, does the child obey the rules just because s/he never gets into trouble anyway? The answer, you and I know to be no. The child continues in breaking the rules because there is no "real" consequence. For God to say on one hand that to sin equals death and then later say..."Oh...nevermind, you believe in God so here you go, live forever." is for God to be a liar. The result of sin is death. Everyone has sinned and everyone must pay for sin. Do we pay for our own sin or do we count ourselves dead with Christ? Christians count themselves dead in Christ. To accept Christ is to have already died and paid for sin. We are just awaiting Christ's return to live for eternity. So it is of no consequence to the Christian if s/he dies in this life. We all will die! Even an Atheist believes that. No one escapes death. It comes to everyone. The point is whether one will live again and for eternity having already died in Christ prior to actual death.

Like I mentioned before, God "made" the rule and God lives by the rule. Everyone is judged according to their works here on earth. Either you are judged by your own works...which lead to death, or we put our lives in Christ's life and are thus seen through His works which are perfect.

While we are in a state of sin and imperfect, our standing in Christ is perfect. Through Christ's death we are declared righteous and perfect, but we are not "made" perfect until He comes and finally makes us so.

God sent his son because his son is God. While some may disagree with me (Jac3510), God died when Jesus died. While God the Father remained, part of the God-head died. God had to die...it was only God's death that could pay for all humanity. Had it been only a perfect human life that needed to die, God could've easily made a perfect human for that purpose. Or even an angel... Christ's humanity died and so did his divinity. He felt what we would feel if we were to die our own ultimate and everlasting death...that being total and complete separation from God.

Blind Electric Ray wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:there is nothing one can do to gain heaven. It is of faith only.

So you can lead a goodly life, do only good things, spread the word of Christ, but have a sneaking doubt, and miss out?

That seems a bit rough.

A sneaking doubt? In a sense yes. But we all go through doubt and mostly in the sense of our own pathetic life and how unworthy we are of such a gift. Other than that...I'll have to refer to our forum pastor on that question. It is one most Christians have trouble with within themselves.
.
.

Blind Electric Ray wrote:I don't understand this. God is the person sinned against - the "victim" of the sinning. How does God sacrificing his son afford reconciliation at all? Couldn't God have just as easily said "if you accept me, I'll absolve your sins"? I am trying to get to the bottom of the need for God to send his son and for his son to die.

I think A2C's response about the debt was fairly good, but you ask why couldn't God just absolve our sins?

I'm of the opinion that God simply absolving "sin" is basically the same as God just turning a blind eye. Sin essentially means an act committed against God. So if someone doesn't believe in God, then they're not going to believe we've sinned against God, and so they can just opt out of listening to a reply. I do want to add that "sin" isn't a uniquely Christian idea, but many non-Christian faiths retain such a concept. This seems to me a little strange if "sin" is just an idea invented by Christianity, as I've heard some Atheists claim.

So if God were simply to absolve everyone from their sins, then such would mean He may as well be joining with us in going against Himself. This is because nothing was done to actually fix the problem God has with us, which in turn becomes our problem if we desire a relationship with God. And so God simply glimming over the fact we are against Him, doesn't make too much sense unless God goes against Himself which is simply absurd. From this it becomes apparent "something" is required in order to fix the problem, and that something must allow God to remain compatible with Himself. What that something is... well we say was through Christ, and within early Christian councils there was a consensus that He was both fully divine and fully human. In a sense this makes Christ a midpoint lense, where we are able go to Christ to be patched up with God, and God is able to accept us through Christ who is without blemish. Christ becomes our high priest, with whom we become connected to God.

It also seems to me that God's love was greater in coming down to Earth in the form of man, and paying a price to set us free from our sin. He got his hands dirty with us (so-to-speak), and it sure took more effort on God's part which in my opinion shows He really does love us. God wants us to be with Him so much that He would go to all that trouble to make a way. It could have been otherwise.

Kurieuo.

Bavarian Wheels, I have to confess I didn't really understand much of your post.

Kureiuo wrote:I'm of the opinion that God simply absolving "sin" is basically the same as God just turning a blind eye. Sin essentially means an act committed against God.

This the bit I don't understand: The sin was against God, and yet God (the "victim", if you will) is the one that sacrifices his son? How does that work? Shouldn't the sinner be atoning for the sin, not the sinned against? Wouldn't it be better - for God - just to turn a blind eye, and keep his Son?

And since God made the rules (per BavarianWheels) and made the Universe (per nearly everyone), including all of us in it, and made us to be "in a state of sin and imperfect[ion]" (per BavarianWheels again) then isn't it a bit rich to be getting all antsy when we sin?

I do want to add that "sin" isn't a uniquely Christian idea, but many non-Christian faiths retain such a concept. This seems to me a little strange if "sin" is just an idea invented by Christianity, as I've heard some Atheists claim.

There's a subtlety here that I think you're overlooking: It's not "sin" the idea that is invented by Christianity, but the particular expression of sin: i.e. the ten commandments are uniquely [Judeo-]Christian

Now there is something of a closed logical system/circularity in the Christian conception of sin I think: you can be forgiven your sins if you come to Christ, but until you've come to Christ, they're not necessarily sins.

(Caution: if you claim that the commandments exist independently of God, then you might avoid the circularity, but instead you run the risk of making God (morally) redundant - so be careful how you address this!)

Blind Electric Ray wrote:Bavarian Wheels, I have to confess I didn't really understand much of your post.

That's probably why I'm not a pastor or theologian. I'm an average joe who understands the Gospel, but apparently cannot put it down in words.

Sorry...I'll keep trying.

Blind Electric Ray wrote:And since God made the rules (per BavarianWheels) and made the Universe (per nearly everyone), including all of us in it, and made us to be "in a state of sin and imperfect[ion]" (per BavarianWheels again) then isn't it a bit rich to be getting all antsy when we sin?

Have you ever built something (an r/c plane perhaps) knowing that one day you may actually crash the plane? Why would one build it anyway?

God created this universe perfectly. See Genesis 1 and the story of creation. God created a perfect man and a perfect woman...with freewill. In other words, they had the capacity to choose. From the initial wrong choice, sin has "ruled" this earth. God, knowing what would result from creating a freewill human, provided a plan long before creating man of how to reconcile man back to Himself for eternity.

Likewise one would not opt to not build for fear of a crash if one gained joy in flying them. One would build it anyway and knowing it may crash one day, would rely on the skills in building it to repair it and fly it again.
.
.

no need to apologise! You christians apologise too much (except Troy, who doesn't apologise enough)

Blind Electric Ray wrote:

Kureiuo wrote:I'm of the opinion that God simply absolving "sin" is basically the same as God just turning a blind eye. Sin essentially means an act committed against God.

This the bit I don't understand: The sin was against God, and yet God (the "victim", if you will) is the one that sacrifices his son? How does that work? Shouldn't the sinner be atoning for the sin, not the sinned against? Wouldn't it be better - for God - just to turn a blind eye, and keep his Son?

This is why John Newton sings, "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me..." It's entirely God's gift of love to us. God didn't have to do it and could have turned a blind eye (in which case we could never be with Him for the reasons described previously), but He loved us so much that He did.

Ray wrote:And since God made the rules (per BavarianWheels) and made the Universe (per nearly everyone), including all of us in it, and made us to be "in a state of sin and imperfect[ion]" (per BavarianWheels again) then isn't it a bit rich to be getting all antsy when we sin?

I think you're misleading what BW meant by his words--being "in a state of sin and imperfect" is different from being "made" in such a state. Obviously the strawman is faultable, but it's not the strawman we believe. The most God allowed for was the opportunity for sin, for which it could be said God saw our freedom of choice as much more valuable despite the sin that would occur.

Ray wrote:

K wrote:I do want to add that "sin" isn't a uniquely Christian idea, but many non-Christian faiths retain such a concept. This seems to me a little strange if "sin" is just an idea invented by Christianity, as I've heard some Atheists claim.

There's a subtlety here that I think you're overlooking: It's not "sin" the idea that is invented by Christianity, but the particular expression of sin: i.e. the ten commandments are uniquely [Judeo-]Christian

Now there is something of a closed logical system/circularity in the Christian conception of sin I think: you can be forgiven your sins if you come to Christ, but until you've come to Christ, they're not necessarily sins.

(Caution: if you claim that the commandments exist independently of God, then you might avoid the circularity, but instead you run the risk of making God (morally) redundant - so be careful how you address this!)

After the ten commandments it is written, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates." (Deut 6:5-9)

This suggests the specific commandments were not inherent, or at least, fully clear to all. Yet, the values on which they are based are recognisable to all. Love is good, fairness is good and so on. Christ also summarised the ten commandments saying: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:36-40)

So this means the commandments were derived from an independant standard of good. They aren't foundational in and of themselves. The values we recognise within us as good I'd say are foundational, and such values are rooted in God's character. Therefore I don't see any circularity. We all sin according to the same standard rooted in God, whether we acknowledge such sins or not.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:I think such is misleading of BW's words, being "in a state of sin and imperfect" is different from being "made" in such a state. Obviously the strawman is faultable, but it's not the strawman we believe. The most God allowed for was the opportunity for sin, for which it could be said God saw our freedom of choice as much more valuable despite the sin that would occur.

Did I imply God made humanity imperfect? I hope not. I think my last post clears that up...that God made all perfect...and humans with the ability to choose the Godly and the ungodly.
.
.

Hi BW, just letting you know I didn't get that implication in your words, but I just thought to clarify the point further.

Also, just something additional to think on is that Genesis only ever says God saw his creation as "good" and "very good." I believe Augustine within the fourth century was perhaps the first to introduce the concept of a "perfect" creation in trying to formulate his own response to the problem of evil given everything was created by an entirely good God. Yet others have pointed out since, that if God's creation was perfect, then it is contradictory to say something went wrong spontaneously with it. I find this argument to be a sticking point myself.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:Hi BW, just letting you know I didn't get that implication in your words, but I just thought to clarify the point further.

Also, just something additional to think on is that Genesis only ever says God saw his creation as "good" and "very good." I believe Augustine within the fourth century was perhaps the first to introduce the concept of a "perfect" creation in trying to formulate his own response to the problem of evil given everything was created by an entirely good God. Yet others have pointed out since, that if God's creation was perfect, then it is contradictory to say something went wrong spontaneously with it. I find this argument to be a sticking point myself.

Kurieuo.

Obviously not being good with words myself...by "sticking point" I'm assuming you mean a "good" point?

I would agree to a certain extent looking at things in a human manner. Something perfect shouldn't have anything go wrong. However, God didn't create a human, perfect in obedience...rather a perfect being physically and mentally with freewill and allowed the Deceiver his role in the outcome.

I'm not arguing against you, Kurieuo, but clarifying my position a bit for BER to hopefully better understand.

If I'm off in left field...let me know. I have a hard time sometimes following you intellectual types.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:I would agree to a certain extent looking at things in a human manner. Something perfect shouldn't have anything go wrong. However, God didn't create a human, perfect in obedience...rather a perfect being physically and mentally with freewill and allowed the Deceiver his role in the outcome.

I guess it comes down to what people mean when they say "perfect." I think your understanding is perhaps what most people tend to mean by perfect, and I can't really see anything wrong with that sense.

Kurieuo.

PS. I get most of what you're saying, so I think you're pretty well in field.