Thoughts on forgiveness

[Tristan Jay]

So Jesus accommodates this particular world view of mankind (which was also present in Judaism) and essentially says: "OK, I'm going to put an end to this "sin" thing altogether. I'll "die for your sins" once and for all, and eliminate the need for further sacrifice and shame and guilt, so we can then get on to the business of having an adult relationship where "sin" is not an issue anymore."

I've focused on this part of your post for the sake of brevity, but I liked the whole post, and the ideas you throw out.  How I wish and hope for this kind of maturity in a relationship with a Creator-Deity who is described as Wise and All-Knowing.  Thank you for taking the time to sharing these thoughts and ideas. 

[Stevil]

So Jesus accommodates this particular world view of mankind (which was also present in Judaism) and essentially says: "OK, I'm going to put an end to this "sin" thing altogether. I'll "die for your sins" once and for all, and eliminate the need for further sacrifice and shame and guilt, so we can then get on to the business of having an adult relationship where "sin" is not an issue anymore."

I've focused on this part of your post for the sake of brevity, but I liked the whole post, and the ideas you throw out.  How I wish and hope for this kind of maturity in a relationship with a Creator-Deity who is described as Wise and All-Knowing.  Thank you for taking the time to sharing these thoughts and ideas. 

But it seems somewhat made up. Most Christians don't go with this idea. Are they all wrong, except for Ecurb? Does this mean that the bible, being the inspired word of god is such a failure that over a billion people whom have studied it, everyone of them except Ecurb have got it wrong, misunderstood, interpreted incorrectly what it is that god desperately wants people to know.
It seems to me very much that Christians do not want to know god or Jesus. They are much more comfortable inventing a personality that conforms to their own ideas. They then label this personality god or Jesus, tie it into some of the anecdotal stories of the bible such that they feel a common bond with other people whom state they they also believe in god and Jesus. They all quote names and events from the bible, but the interpretations are all different When the bible is clear and specific e.g. that people whom work on the Sabbath should be put to death, the vast, vast majority of Christians tend to interpret this not to mean that people whom work on the Sabbath should be put to death.
I really would like to see some Christians who are seeking the truth about god and Jesus rather than making stuff up in order to give themselves warm fuzzie feelings. Is it because they know that god is non material, non measurable, non interactive, that they are free to invent their own image of god as they please. No one will ever prove them wrong, so what is the harm in making it up?

[Too Few Lions]

What if "dying for our sins" was not necessary because God needed some kind of sacrifice to appease his wrath or legal requirements, but instead was necessary because of the general mentality of human beings at the time?  People 2000 years ago generally conceived of gods as needing to be appeased, and felt guilty or shameful because of their inability to keep whatever commandments their god required. So they sacrificed animals (or people) to appease the wrath of their god, and to keep in good standing with them. They all had some concept of their own "sinfulness" in the sense of falling short of their gods' requirements.

I think your idea of ancient religion and peoples' attitude towards their gods isn't wholly accurate. I don't think civilised people (like the Greeks and Romans) generally sacrificed animals (and never people) to appease their gods 2000 years ago. Animals were killed in a ritual manner (like Halal) in the temple, and then eaten in a ritual feast in honour of the god(s), which often also involved drinking, music and dance. It wasn't generally done out of fear but in celebration and thanks, pagan religion was far more celebratory of life than Christianity.

So Jesus accommodates this particular world view of mankind (which was also present in Judaism) and essentially says: "OK, I'm going to put an end to this "sin" thing altogether. I'll "die for your sins" once and for all, and eliminate the need for further sacrifice and shame and guilt, so we can then get on to the business of having an adult relationship where "sin" is not an issue anymore."

The problem with this argument is that sin was only a problem for the Jews and some early Christians. If people wanted to have a relationship with a god where sin wasn't an issue, they could have picked pretty much most of the other religions of the day, or even been gnostic Christians, who didn't believe in sin in the first place. By choosing what was to become orthodox Christianity, people were deliberately choosing a religion where sin was an issue.

But "sin" is a big business, and without it priests and preachers have been deprived of their stock in trade.  So the "sin" idea is kept alive after Jesus by organized religion, which has been reaping more benefits from "sin" than Las Vegas for 2000 years.

too true, and the promotion of the idea of sin has caused untold suffering and misery in the world.

But if Jesus came to "take away the sin of the world" as the gospel of John says, then maybe from God's viewpoint it's not an issue anymore. Maybe organized religion is just deceiving us, and keeping us from having free communion with God.  Jesus also said in John 8 that "if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."  I don't think sin is an issue with God anymore, so the only real forgiveness that needs to take place is forgiving oneself or forgiving others who have wronged you.  God's already forgiven, if he actually had to in the first place.  He didn't need the sacrifice of Jesus - humankind did.  Maybe it's time to move beyond that to real freedom.  

Mankind didn't need any such sacrifice (if any such sacrifice ever took place, and only a Christian could view Jesus' death as a sacrifice), as the majority of people alive at the time didn't believe in sin in the first place! The trouble with arguing that Jesus sets us free from sin, and your god's forgiven us from sin, is that sin is an imaginary thing that only exists if you're a Christian in the first place! We're being forgiven for an imaginary crime that we don't have to believe we ever comitted.

And yes, organised religion is a deception, but everything you believe (albeit in a generally unorthodox way) derives from an organised religion - Christianity. Jesus, Yahweh, the Bible, they're all products of organised religion. True freedom is atheism -no sin, no need for forgiveness.

[Tristan Jay]

So Jesus accommodates this particular world view of mankind (which was also present in Judaism) and essentially says: "OK, I'm going to put an end to this "sin" thing altogether. I'll "die for your sins" once and for all, and eliminate the need for further sacrifice and shame and guilt, so we can then get on to the business of having an adult relationship where "sin" is not an issue anymore."

I've focused on this part of your post for the sake of brevity, but I liked the whole post, and the ideas you throw out.  How I wish and hope for this kind of maturity in a relationship with a Creator-Deity who is described as Wise and All-Knowing.  Thank you for taking the time to sharing these thoughts and ideas. 

But it seems somewhat made up. Most Christians don't go with this idea. Are they all wrong, except for Ecurb? Does this mean that the bible, being the inspired word of god is such a failure that over a billion people whom have studied it, everyone of them except Ecurb have got it wrong, misunderstood, interpreted incorrectly what it is that god desperately wants people to know.
It seems to me very much that Christians do not want to know god or Jesus. They are much more comfortable inventing a personality that conforms to their own ideas. They then label this personality god or Jesus, tie it into some of the anecdotal stories of the bible such that they feel a common bond with other people whom state they they also believe in god and Jesus. They all quote names and events from the bible, but the interpretations are all different When the bible is clear and specific e.g. that people whom work on the Sabbath should be put to death, the vast, vast majority of Christians tend to interpret this not to mean that people whom work on the Sabbath should be put to death.
I really would like to see some Christians who are seeking the truth about god and Jesus rather than making stuff up in order to give themselves warm fuzzie feelings. Is it because they know that god is non material, non measurable, non interactive, that they are free to invent their own image of god as they please. No one will ever prove them wrong, so what is the harm in making it up?

Oh, I didn't miss the fact that seems speculative in nature.  I was just entertaining a moment of unrealistic, wishful, hopeful thinking.  I was interested to read his thoughts, but that's all, really.

I too agree that it would be nice if Christians would be a bit more diligent about seeking truth (as opposed to their pretentiously capitalized "Truth") .  And a bit more honest about when apologetics doesn't hold up, and end up falling back on "faith."  It occurs to me that they would have to start off by treat the word "faith" as a bad word to make genuine headway with truth, logic, and reason.