Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

I just want to discuss the morality of substitutionary sacrificial atonement. Many cultures throughout the ages have practiced the idea of sacrificing an innocent person or other animal to atone for their wrong doings. IMO, this act is barbaric in nature, to murder an innocent thing in hopes that your wrong doings will be forgiven. Why didn't these people take the responsibility on themselves instead of killing something else in their place, not only that, but why was sacrifice even an option for them? How did killing this innocent creature atone for their wrong doings? How did shed blood make things better for them?

How is it moral for people to accept the sacrifice of an innocent being as a substitution for their own wrong doings? What happened to "If you do the crime, you do the time?" It is akin to me murdering someone, then going to trial for it. Only when I go on trial, the judge offers me freedom from conviction if I allow the payment for my crime to be made by executing a newborn baby in my place. What would be the moral thing for me to do? It would be for me to accept and receive my punishment. That is just. What is not just or moral is to allow some other innocent thing take my place. Thoughts?

p.s. Sacrifical in the title should be Sacrificial. Spell check failed me.

You see it as horrible that an innocent something should be killed for another's wrongdoing.

How about when a person is called to end their life and another stands up to take their place. That would be considered heroic by most.

Whats the difference since they are both innocents being sacrificed for the sake of another? Well, it's considered heroic because it's a selfless act that the person took on voluntarily.

Interesting. Before I get roped into this; Am I to assume that when I say "No, it's not moral to sacrifice something in your place." your next question is going to be.... "So, then is it acceptable to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins?"

reply to post by Hydroman


It's insane if you think about it. God sends himself down to be born of a virgin, though scripture points elsewhere, then have his own children violently crucify him is absurb. It kind of goes like this: your child is disobedient so you say to him/her, "bring me a hammer and hit me over the hand, really hard, so that I can forgive you of the naughty behavior you have committed."

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by Hydroman

 

It's insane if you think about it. God sends himself down to be born of a virgin, though scripture points elsewhere, then have his own children violently crucify him is absurb. It kind of goes like this: your child is disobedient so you say to him/her, "bring me a hammer and hit me over the hand, really hard, so that I can forgive you of the naughty behavior you have committed."

If you take the position that Jesus is God. Then you have a situation where God is taking responsibility for His actions. He's sacrificing Himself for the sins of the species he created, rather than continue to ask for the blood of innocent animals.

Originally posted by Hydroman
I just want to discuss the morality of substitutionary sacrificial atonement. Many cultures throughout the ages have practiced the idea of sacrificing an innocent person or other animal to atone for their wrong doings. IMO, this act is barbaric in nature, to murder an innocent thing in hopes that your wrong doings will be forgiven. Why didn't these people take the responsibility on themselves instead of killing something else in their place, not only that, but why was sacrifice even an option for them? How did killing this innocent creature atone for their wrong doings? How did shed blood make things better for them?

How is it moral for people to accept the sacrifice of an innocent being as a substitution for their own wrong doings? What happened to "If you do the crime, you do the time?" It is akin to me murdering someone, then going to trial for it. Only when I go on trial, the judge offers me freedom from conviction if I allow the payment for my crime to be made by executing a newborn baby in my place. What would be the moral thing for me to do? It would be for me to accept and receive my punishment. That is just. What is not just or moral is to allow some other innocent thing take my place. Thoughts?

p.s. Sacrifical in the title should be Sacrificial. Spell check failed me.

edit on 12-4-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

I assume this is about Jesus...

The roots of this issue stem from earlier beliefs in sacrifices to the Gods... This idea infiltrated what is considered "Christianity" right to its core beliefs...

His death wasn't necessary... but it was going to happen either way... Claiming to be Gods son was a crime to the religious authorities of the time....

As to the morality of the issue.... Think of it this way...

Is it not moral to sacrifice ONE for the good of the ALL?

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
Interesting. Before I get roped into this; Am I to assume that when I say "No, it's not moral to sacrifice something in your place." your next question is going to be.... "So, then is it acceptable to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins?"

That's exactly what he will say, yes.

reply to post by Hydroman


We're already in prison. We're already slaves. Anyone who Sins is a slave to Sin.
Our penalty is death. It's justifiable and we deserve it. Our accuser is Satan, who sits in Heaven and accuses the Saints of the Most High day and night.

Want to know the difference between God's Grace and Mercy?
Mercy is God holding back what you DO deserve.
Grace is God giving you what you DON'T deserve.

We deserve Hell, but through Mercy we are saved through the blood of Christ. Why? Is this barbaric? It was men who slaughtered him, who tortured him, who crucified him. So yes, men are barbaric. The Father rose the Son from the dead, so that any who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life.

How does this work? It seems kinda simple, really. Try not to complicate it - Jesus, being perfect, sinless, is the only one Worthy. He became our intercessor, who stands between us and the accuser. Satan is the accuser. God is the judge. Jesus is our intercessor.

Jesus had to die, to defeat death. He rose again. He died, so that we never truly die, but will be raised up on the last day. Even the Jewish Authorities knew this - John 11:50 - Don't you realize that it is better for you to have one man die for the people, instead of having the whole nation destroyed?

So, if you want to assume God is real, and that Jesus was real, and that everything the Bible says is real.. then you must realize the Sacrifice was necessary. If you sit there and say Jesus dying was barbaric, you're basically saying the entire world going to hell is LESS barbaric.

reply to post by Hydroman

Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

From who's perspective?

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
Interesting. Before I get roped into this; Am I to assume that when I say "No, it's not moral to sacrifice something in your place." your next question is going to be.... "So, then is it acceptable to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins?"

This is more than about Jesus. This is also about the animals who were sacrificed before hand. They were sacrificed for he purpose of atoning for someone else's wrong doing.

The question wasn't "Is it acceptable?" The question is "Is it moral?" The were other people sacrificed all through out history to various gods. Was it moral for them to do this? The Hebrews weren't the only ones to participate in sacrifices.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

From who's perspective?

From your perspective.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
We deserve Hell, but through Mercy we are saved through the blood of Christ. Why? Is this barbaric? It was men who slaughtered him, who tortured him, who crucified him. So yes, men are barbaric. The Father rose the Son from the dead, so that any who believe in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Wasn't this the biblical god's plan for it to happen this way since the beginning of time? Why blame it on men?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
How does this work? It seems kinda simple, really. Try not to complicate it - Jesus, being perfect, sinless, is the only one Worthy. He became our intercessor, who stands between us and the accuser. Satan is the accuser. God is the judge. Jesus is our intercessor.

The only way to become our intercessor was through him being sacrificed?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Jesus had to die, to defeat death. He rose again. He died, so that we never truly die, but will be raised up on the last day. Even the Jewish Authorities knew this - John 11:50 - Don't you realize that it is better for you to have one man die for the people, instead of having the whole nation destroyed?

You realize that Jesus made up this whole rule to begin with, right? Also, why would the whole nation need to be destroyed?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
So, if you want to assume God is real, and that Jesus was real, and that everything the Bible says is real.. then you must realize the Sacrifice was necessary. If you sit there and say Jesus dying was barbaric, you're basically saying the entire world going to hell is LESS barbaric.

No, your god sending people to hell to burn forever is more than barbaric. It is insane, imo anyway.

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
If you take the position that Jesus is God. Then you have a situation where God is taking responsibility for His actions. He's sacrificing Himself for the sins of the species he created, rather than continue to ask for the blood of innocent animals.

What actions is god taking responsibility for again? And, why is sacrifice the answer? Why did he make this up? It was his idea, wasn't it? An omniscient god could only come with "spill the blood of innocent creatures to atone for sins"?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
Interesting. Before I get roped into this; Am I to assume that when I say "No, it's not moral to sacrifice something in your place." your next question is going to be.... "So, then is it acceptable to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins?"

This is more than about Jesus. This is also about the animals who were sacrificed before hand. They were sacrificed for he purpose of atoning for someone else's wrong doing.

The question wasn't "Is it acceptable?" The question is "Is it moral?" The were other people sacrificed all through out history to various gods. Was it moral for them to do this? The Hebrews weren't the only ones to participate in sacrifices.

It is not moral to Sacrifice anything for the self... You can not attone for sin though the pain of another being... That is a selfish act...

Causing another living being pain does nothing but create negative Karma within the world...

Originally posted by MeesterB
How about when a person is called to end their life and another stands up to take their place. That would be considered heroic by most.

Whats the difference since they are both innocents being sacrificed for the sake of another? Well, it's considered heroic because it's a selfless act that the person took on voluntarily.

If the person deserves the death, he should not let anyone else take his punishment. That is the moral thing to do, imo. Would it be heroic for someone to offer to die for someone else's crime, yeah I think so. But morally, the accused should take the punishment. That's my opinion.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Substitutionary sacrifical atonement: Is it moral?

From who's perspective?

From your perspective.

I'm immoral, how can I define moral, can I use the Bible?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm immoral, how can I define moral, can I use the Bible?

You can't tell right from wrong without the bible? Can you own a person as your property? What does the bible say about that? I would imagine Hindus have a since of morality. Do they use your bible?

reply to post by Hydroman

Wasn't this the biblical god's plan for it to happen this way since the beginning of time? Why blame it on men?

That's bad Physics. We live in the time domain, God lives outside of it. Judas was prophesied to betray Jesus, but Judas was still responsible for his actions.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
That's bad Physics. We live in the time domain, God lives outside of it. Judas was prophesied to betray Jesus, but Judas was still responsible for his actions.

Does god live outside of our reality? If not, then he lives within a time domain.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm immoral, how can I define moral, can I use the Bible?

You can't tell right from wrong without the bible? Can you own a person as your property? What does the bible say about that?

The God of the Bible is how I define morality, it's what I appeal to. I cannot appeal to myself then we'd all have a different standard and definition of morality. That's the huge self-refuting nature of moral relativism.

My brain doesn't operate like that.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The God of the Bible is how I define morality, it's what I appeal to. I cannot appeal to myself then we'd all have a different standard and definition of morality. That's the huge self-refuting nature of moral relativism.

My brain doesn't operate like that.

So, can you own a person as your property? What does the bible say?