Why did Jesus have to be crucified?

[Add Homonym]

This isn't a trick question, or one that necessarily can't be answered in a sane manner.

Paul argues that Abraham got to heaven by faith, not law. Abe was ordered to kill his son, by Elohim, so he did so. This is the type of faith needed to get to be with God.

Here Paul directly contradicts Jesus:
Joh:3:12: If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Joh:3:13: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

I might have figured out how this magic trick is done:

Exodus 3

[6] Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Mark 12

[26] And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
[27] He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

It's a linguisitic trick.

[Add Homonym]

I'm sure it was God's plan all along.  The garden, flood.....everything.

Everything except the flood, because it didn't happen. There would have been a garden, somewhere.

[Patrick Henry]

Jesus had to be crucified to satisfy justice.  Justice needs to be done and that idea even is what we practice in our court system today.

I don't think any modern judge would require or accept one man's punishment in payment for another man's crime. Nor do I think that any person of sound mind and good conscience could consider that "justice".

Your right.  No modern judge would do that.  It wouldn't be justice to punish an innocent man for the sins of another.
In this case, the Judge Himself took the punishment for sin.   Because He loves you.

[ParkingPlaces]

Patrick

It usually takes us at least four or five days to figure out where any given theist is coming from. I tend to think that there must be an 11th commandment, one that says you guys have to beat around the bush. Now you just posted a long,detailed and commendably thorough response to wheels in another post, and that one certainly narrows things down a bit. But it doesn't clear up all of our questions.

We like to know so that we don't go complaining about some detail of scripture that you don't agree with anyway. Each of us atheists has to work with out own version of a generic Christian until the details get cleared up. With literally tens of thousands of versions out there, simply saying that one is a Christian isn't quite enough to define even the most basic and important aspects of your belief.

It sometimes takes us days to find out if a person is a fundamentalist christian who believes in a young earth. Other times it sort of sounds like that is what they are then they tell us they aren't. So anything you could say to make it clear where you're coming from would be appreciated. It will keep us from making erroneous assumptions, that can quickly muck up an otherwise fruitful conversation.

Clearly, at least so far, your biggest interest in in Jesus and the sacrifice, etc. The emphasis on that aspect of the bible tends to miff a lot of us for myriad reasons. If that is all you want to discuss anyway, that's fine. But again, the more we know about your religious position, the better for all of us.

Just to play fair, I'll start. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any god, even yours. I do not see the "evils" in the world as being anything other than a natural variation in human behavior, spurred on by genetics, family experiences, social conditions, propensities towards selfishness and other very human variables. As one who accepts the premise that we evolved, along side other animals, I see no reason for humans to behave perfectly, as much as I would love it if we could. I do not find aberrant behavior mysterious, and I cannot make it generic, as most Christians do (stealing bubble gum and killing are both sins, both will get you into hell (it would help to know your stance on the hell thing, by the way), and hence they are considered by most christians to be functionally equal).

Anyway, I'm trying to streamline the discussion process so that we don't all make bad assumptions about each other. The more you can do to clarify your version of Christianity, the better. If only to streamline of the conversation.

[Patrick Henry]

Jesus had to be crucified to satisfy justice.  Justice needs to be done and that idea even is what we practice in our court system today.
Sin entered the world and the natural and observable order of things in our world and our universe can be likened to the first law of thermodynamics.  That energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.  So when sin entered the world and continues to this day.  Each time, there is a payment that must be made for sin.  For example:  If I steal from you, you lose something and I get it.  If I destroy that thing, then I must pay for it, or insurance does, or you.....but someone has to pay for that item.
So in the big picture, when we all sin, the payment is stacking up.  Because God's plan for the universe is a plan for it to be sin free and perfect.  So Christ came into our world to pay for the sin of all who will believe in Him.  In the end, there will be a judgement day for those who do not believe.  They will make their own payment. 
- Patrick Henry

Well, first of all, welcome, Patrick Henry, even though I don't think the two of us are going to agree on much. Lets hope that you have more than one life to give this thread, though.

As a full-blown atheist who sees what you call "sin" as merely the byproduct of a less than perfectly evolved set of beings, living in a less than perfect world and in a less that perfect set of social situations, I see this "balance" thingy as yet another set of excuses for christians.

This payment deal: how can humans measure it? We're the ones doing it, how in the world are we supposed to measure it too? If I steal five bucks from you, you lose it. Now you said if I destroy it, than I have a debt. But what if I spend it? I get something else, like food. What if I eat the food. I get the energy, do I also destroy the five bucks and make my sin somehow worse? What if I steal it, feel bad, and give the five bucks to the Salvation Army? Am I even in that specific case, or did I make it worse somehow?

  Maybe you are making it too complicated.  If you steal $5 from me.  You owe me $5.  I don't care what you do with the money after that.  Even our laws reflect this reality.

What if I stole five bucks from you, but you earned that five bucks by overcharging for a bag of popcorn? Do two wrongs make a right? What if, when I am running across the road to escape your attempt to get the money back I cause an accident, and a person injured in the crash goes to the hospital and while there being treated for non life threatening wounds, the doctor finds cancer and the medical community is able to save that persons life because they found it in time. Do I get any credit for doing something good?

Not sure why you are trying to make the analogy more complicated than it is. See answer above.

We have no economy for sins. The bible doesn't describe one. It describes sins, yes, but there are no lessons about how to measure them, how to reconcile the sin books, how to figure out our sin taxes. As per your book, we are born into sin debt and it only gets worse with every breathe we take, because as much as your god loves us, he's still a bit piqued about the garden affair, something that he, since he is only omniscient, couldn't see coming. I have been told by other christians that if a person is not "saved" before they die, into the overheated basement they go. Which means my wonderfully warm and caring great grandmother, who carefully carried bugs out of her house instead of squishing them, is deep-frying even as we speak while some mass murderer who found JC three minutes before his execution is hanging around in heaven with Pat Boone and 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses.

The answer on how to reconcile the "sin books" as you say, are in the bible.  It is Christ crucified on the cross for your sins, if you will believe.  Regarding your question of  "measurement", the bible seems to say that some sins are worse than others. But the point isn't that.  We are all eternally lost in our sins without Christ.  But Christ took the eternal punishment for your sin if you will believe.  Yes He could take an eternal punishment for your sin because He is eternal Himself.  If your grandmother believed that bugs were more important than believing in Christ, then it's possible that she isn't saved.  I certainly hope that isn't the case.  God knows her heart better than anyone though. 

Which means human sins, if measured and balanced and the cause of indebtedness and bought and old on the stock market and such, are horrible, horrible, horrible, while the game your god is playing is the ultimate frisbee of righteousness.

I prefer being an atheist. I don't have to steal five bucks to put in the collection plate on Sunday and I can measure right and wrong on a sliding scale, versus one where every sin is equally wrong, no matter how minor or major.

Right and wrong doesn't matter without Christ really.  You could be a very moral person by society's standard, but without Christ you will die in your sin of pride and disbelief.  But first you must realize there is not a sliding scale that you create for yourself.  God sets the bar. 

People aren't perfect. And a good way to keep them that way is to make up stuff and pretend its real. It gives folks even more ways to do it wrong.

PatrickHenry, Please give some time to learning to quote. Merely using bold text does not help, especially when you do not leave line breaks. I have spent some time making this post readable.

GB Mod

[Patrick Henry]

Patrick, welcome.

Jesus had to be crucified to satisfy justice.  Justice needs to be done and that idea even is what we practice in our court system today.

I'm not sure that this a good analogy. First, if justice was done, then there would be no more need for further justice. So, did Jesus atone for mankind's sins or not?[/b]
Jesus atoned for the sins of those who will believe.  "....whoever believes in Him will not perish"

Taking your analogy further, other than Christianity, can you tell us of system of justice that condemns people to infinite torture for finite actions committed by others? Further, which justice system judges the majority of people in this planet as guilty without a trial, particularly when many would have no reason to be aware of this law?

Honestly, I love that question! That is a great question and one that I have wondered myself.  It doesn't make sense that people who live in a finite world would have to pay infinitely for their sins.  It bugs me that more Christians don't openly ask about it.  First of all I think we have to realize that what we do here on earth matters.  A lot!  So there is an accountability that is incredible.  We don't take our lives seriously enough.  God has gone to unimaginable lengths to save us from our sins and still give us the dignity of free will.  I believe that free will within humans is a gift from God that will ultimately settle the issue of eternal punishment as well.  The short answer is a quote from CS Lewis. He said the gates of hell are locked from the inside. It is real, and people actually go there. But they are there by their own consent. Hell is a place of self-exile.  So in that sense people choose eternal separation from God. 

What, is your interpretation, is "sin"?

Sin is breaking the laws of God as listed in the bible.  Sin at its core is idolatry.  Putting anything ahead of God in your life.  Since all have sinned, and the only way of salvation is through faith in Christ as the atonement for your sins on the cross, then the ultimate thing that separates you from eternal salvation is your choice not to trust in what He has already done.   

You mention the laws of thermodynamics by way of analogy. Does your god obey the natural laws as we understand them? If not, then how can you claim that "sin" is something that in any way has an analog to the laws of thermodynamics? You seem like reasonable fellow, I hope you won't do the science when it suits you but not when it doesn't thing.

Simply, I see a parallel to our physical universe that the bible calls sin and the atonement for it as being necessary.  It makes sense to me that the God who made our physical universe and the laws of physics also made spiritual parallels for us to see and relate to in the physical realm. Does God obey the natural laws?  God is the creator of the natural laws and He uses them to accomplish His will. 

Insurance, That's when you pay someone else to pay you back should you have a loss. With insurance you pay twice. Once for the item, once for the insurance. Also, even when aggregated, the money I might get back from insurance is not from some guilty party, it's from someone who is innocent of my loss. Or, is your analogy of insurance more akin to protection money as demanded from the mob?

No

So, back to sin. What is the payment for sin? Earlier you said that Jesus satisfied this matter with his death. Now he hasn't because I have to pay even though he paid? Pretty much a waste of his time then, wasn't it? What did Jesus achieve that everyone forever must continue to pay for his supposed payment? This is where I go "Huh?".

Certainly not a waste of time.  Many believe in Christ and are being saved. Jesus paid for those who believe.  Those who don't will stand before Him and give an account of their lives.  Romans 14 & Revelation 20

Still wondering what sin is and if I've never had an opportunity to be aware of the rules how you hold me accountable? Also, is your god omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent? Apparently not seeing as (a) his plan as Jesus failed and (b) I'm supposed to pay because Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough?

First of all I don't hold you accountable.  The bible says that God is the Judge.  Jesus sacrifice was absolutely enough if you believe in Him and what He has done.  There is no salvation for those who do not believe. Mark 16

Oh, so Jesus came to pay, but it wasn't enough, even though he was god and now we mortals have to pay your god because his payment to himself wasn't sufficient?

It was enough.  You just need to accept the free gift and believe. 

That doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify these contradictions? And welcome again.

Thanks for welcoming me.  I hope it makes better sense to you now.    

PatrickHenry, Please give some time to learning to quote. Merely using bold text does not help, especially when you do not leave line breaks. I have spent some time making this post readable.

GB Mod

[Patrick Henry]

Patrick

It usually takes us at least four or five days to figure out where any given theist is coming from. I tend to think that there must be an 11th commandment, one that says you guys have to beat around the bush. Now you just posted a long,detailed and commendably thorough response to wheels in another post, and that one certainly narrows things down a bit. But it doesn't clear up all of our questions.

We like to know so that we don't go complaining about some detail of scripture that you don't agree with anyway. Each of us atheists has to work with out own version of a generic Christian until the details get cleared up. With literally tens of thousands of versions out there, simply saying that one is a Christian isn't quite enough to define even the most basic and important aspects of your belief.

It sometimes takes us days to find out if a person is a fundamentalist christian who believes in a young earth. Other times it sort of sounds like that is what they are then they tell us they aren't. So anything you could say to make it clear where you're coming from would be appreciated. It will keep us from making erroneous assumptions, that can quickly muck up an otherwise fruitful conversation.

Old earth.  Though God could certainly do it anyway He chooses.  I think to make the earth and especially the universe look old then tell us it's young seems misleading and out of character. I don't think the bible tells us that it's young.  That's my quick answer.  I will say that the evolution v creation debate could go on forever.  Unless you are a boots on the ground scientist, then we are all just quoting someone else.  So pick who you want and the next guy will quote another.  On and on and on......been there done that.  Willing to do it more, but I have a another life, family, etc.  Time is limited.

Clearly, at least so far, your biggest interest in in Jesus and the sacrifice, etc. The emphasis on that aspect of the bible tends to miff a lot of us for myriad reasons. If that is all you want to discuss anyway, that's fine. But again, the more we know about your religious position, the better for all of us.

Just to play fair, I'll start. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any god, even yours. I do not see the "evils" in the world as being anything other than a natural variation in human behavior, spurred on by genetics, family experiences, social conditions, propensities towards selfishness and other very human variables. As one who accepts the premise that we evolved, along side other animals, I see no reason for humans to behave perfectly, as much as I would love it if we could. I do not find aberrant behavior mysterious, and I cannot make it generic, as most Christians do (stealing bubble gum and killing are both sins, both will get you into hell (it would help to know your stance on the hell thing, by the way), and hence they are considered by most christians to be functionally equal).

aberrant?  Who decides what is aberrrant?  Who is qualified to do such a thing?  Is right and wrong relative to the times and society in which it is judged?  I don't think so.  I believe that it is absolute.  That God sets the standard and that standard shows us that none of us meet it.  We all need Christ.

Anyway, I'm trying to streamline the discussion process so that we don't all make bad assumptions about each other. The more you can do to clarify your version of Christianity, the better. If only to streamline of the conversation.

PatrickHenry, Please give some time to learning to quote. Merely using bold text does not help, especially when you do not leave line breaks. I have spent some time making this post readable.

GB Mod

[magicmiles]

Hi Patrick

You'll need to learn how to quote text. There is an FAQ section located here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,75.0.html

And a test area to practice in here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,28.0.html

[Patrick Henry]

We got us another one. Paying attention to one person's swearing and totally ignoring the comments of others who didn't happen to choose to four letter words at the time. Presumably because he had no good response.

Guess I should have cussed. Then at least he would have been able to understand one thing I said. Oh well.

I noticed as well he failed to address the question,other to say God must have planned it that way. This makes this god a crazed murderous psychotic,not something to be praised

I'll answer it with a question to you.  Why does that make God crazed and murderous in your eyes?  Is it possible that there is something that you just don't understand?  If God were real, and you were rejecting Him as you are right now, doesn't it stand to reason that you wouldn't understand much?  After all He is God, and you are, well........ you.  Human, frail, weak, not smart at all compared to Him.  You are a created being.  Not equal to Him. 

 Maybe your pride and lack of understanding are simply getting in the way.  God is saying that you need to have faith in Him.  He has given all of us a good way to live, how to treat people, etc through the example of Christ.  It works if you are willing to drop your pride and follow Him.

Thank you

GB Mod

[wheels5894]

Patrick,

If, as you suggest, us atheists could not understand the mind of god as we are humans then what you say makes good sense. After all, this god might some much higher purpose in his mass killing that anything we can think of. (Of course this god is whole lot nicer that the Babylonian gods who also sent a flood to kill the people but because they were too noisy!)

The major snag with this line of thinking is the fact the it is often argued in favour of god that he is the one that set up all the laws of nature and is responsible for everything going on the way it does. I suppose that implies he makes sure the moon doesn't crash into the earth and so forth. In practice this means that this god has produced a universe that has laws we can work out and that we can use to predict things in the future. So this is a god of order.

Another thing we are told about god is that he is the source of morals - the objective morals which guide our lives. Now it is interesting that, for example, in the Decalogue the only killing banned is murder. There is nothing to suggest that fighting wars and killing afterwards is bad. In fact the OT god gives Joshua instruction at various times to enter a town and kill everyone in that town, men, women and children. In other cases, the soldiers are allowed to keep virgins for their own use. So the impression we get from the Torah is that in fact mass killing is actually not such a bad thing.

Combining these two ideas, I think I agree with you, Patrick, that god probably did plan to kill everything in the world. I think that sort of extermination is quite within his character and his way of working. I suspect Jesus would violently disagree with this sort of action, advocating, as he did, turning the other cheek. There's nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest fighting wars and mass killing are OK. Quite the opposite - he defines thinking badly of someone is the equivalent of murder. So, yes, this god in the OT certainly seems capable of killing any number of things - but there is  catch....

There is not the slightest evidence of a world-wide flood anywhere. Most cultures in the world have this story in some form and it may well refer to a localised flood but what's sure is that there never was 29,000 feet of water flooding the earth. So what we have here is a nice story telling us what the killing mad god of the OT would do- if he had existed of course.

[jdawg70]

I'll answer it with a question to you.  Why does that make God crazed and murderous in your eyes?  Is it possible that there is something that you just don't understand?  If God were real, and you were rejecting Him as you are right now, doesn't it stand to reason that you wouldn't understand much?  After all He is God, and you are, well........ you.  Human, frail, weak, not smart at all compared to Him.  You are a created being.  Not equal to Him. 

I would like to make something very clear here Patrick:

I am not rejecting god.  I do not believe the entity exists.  I think the entity is not real.  If there is anyone that I am "rejecting", it is the other people purporting that this god entity exists.

I really think that this is an important distinction.

Maybe your pride and lack of understanding are simply getting in the way.  God is saying that you need to have faith in Him.  He has given all of us a good way to live, how to treat people, etc through the example of Christ.  It works if you are willing to drop your pride and follow Him.

May I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps it is your pride that gets in the way of seeing the world for what it is - that you do not have a special place in the cosmos, that you will not have eternal life?  That your pride is getting in the way of seeing that you are not entitled, at all, to even earn eternal life in some form or fashion?

[wheels5894]

Actually, Jdawg, you have picked up on an important point so I'd like to join in here.

Patrick,

1. the reason why we are atheists is simply, and only, because we have not found any convincing evidence that any god exists. Over the years there have been lots of god, thousand upon thousands but we have not found any evidence for any of them.

2. The only difference between you and us atheists is one god. You reject all the countless gods that have been around in various culture for thousands of years and you pick on just one god. we ought to discuss, sometime, why you picked that one and not Allah or any other gods.

3. To reject something requires that the something exists to be rejected. Atheists think the evidence for the existence of gods is so thin that it is reasonable to conclude that there are no gods. Thus no one here rejects any god - they are not there to reject.

4. God is not saying anything - indeed in all probability he has never ever said anything. Let's look at the evidence for this claim. The only records we have of god saying anything are from people who made records of it years after the event and no doubt the story passed down generation to generation before being put in writing. That no longer counts as evidence or anything except that there was a story. Even when we come to the gospels, the stories about what Jesus said have passed through a couple of generations  so that we cannot know whether any of them are original Jesus let alone which. So, if you want to claim the god says anything you will probably have to back up your claim.

[Truth OT]

So in the big picture, when we all sin, the payment is stacking up.  Because God's plan for the universe is a plan for it to be sin free and perfect.  So Christ came into our world to pay for the sin of all who will believe in Him.  In the end, there will be a judgement day for those who do not believe.  They will make their own payment. 
- Patrick Henry

The above begs the question that if God's plan was to have a universe free of sin, why would he not have created it so that sin would not enter? With him being God surely he could have accomplished that feat if that was what he wanted. If we presumme God is, a better case can be made that God's plan included and called for the existence of sin in his universe because he set things up so that sin would be not only probably, but a reality.

We must also keep in mind the definition of sin and that is missing the target or mark. If God had not set marks/rules, then no sin could exist. It's a real case of God rigging the game against the participants so that we cannot win.

To God, nothing is ultimately or should I say innately wrong. Eating fruit is not wrong, unless he forbids it. Killing non virgin women and children and taking virgins as war spoils is not wrong, unless he declares it so. Taking slaves is not wrong, unless it's it a slave from among one's countrymen that God as dictated otherwise about. Attempting to kill (Gen 22:2) or having your own son killed as a sacrifice to God (Rev 13:8 ) is not wrong, but don't dare offer your kids to Molech (Lev 18:21). In God's view wrong or sin is simply the act of not obeying or falling in line with his guidelines so as long as God doesn't speak against something (take slavery for example), then it's okay to engage in.

[jdawg70]

4. God is not saying anything - indeed in all probability he has never ever said anything. Let's look at the evidence for this claim. The only records we have of god saying anything are from people who made records of it years after the event and no doubt the story passed down generation to generation before being put in writing. That no longer counts as evidence or anything except that there was a story. Even when we come to the gospels, the stories about what Jesus said have passed through a couple of generations  so that we cannot know whether any of them are original Jesus let alone which. So, if you want to claim the god says anything you will probably have to back up your claim.

Follow on to this point:

Patrick, the bible is a pretty...dated...work at this point in time.  It's over a thousand years old.

Why no new bible[1] or otherwise written/divinely inspired work[2]?  I mean...it seems to me rather evident that some additional communication - some additional guidance - from god is in order here.  There are thousands of different sects of Christianity; there are large disparities on what god's will is within Christian ranks alone - further disparities still when considering other religions.  To me, it is unabashedly clear that we, as a society (i.e. all of humanity), could use a little bit of help in understanding what's all going on here, in particular with respect to the nature of god and the nature of god's will.

At one point in the past, god saw it fit to pen a book of instruction (or 'inspire' a book of instruction).  Back then, there were far fewer literate people and far more difficulty in passing the message around.  Today that is not the case.  I think it's fair to say that at least the majority of people in the world are literate, and thanks to advances like the printing press and the interwebs, passing information back and forth is rather trivial.  There is clearly confusion as to what god wants from his cherished creation.  Would it not be sensible for god to once again step in and try to make his intentions and his guide to life clear?  I simply cannot get over how silly it is - the idea that god, who possess vast (infinite?) power, who possess vast (infinite?) knowledge, who possess vast (infinte?) compassion, would be so adamantly against being clear and direct about...well, anything, but, at the very least, about what it is he expects from humanity.

And you can always say that he's already made himself clear...but here's the thing - he hasn't.  He just plain hasn't.  A number of people on this planet do not believe he exists.  A number of people on this planet do not believe that Jesus was his son[3].  A number of people claim that god will protect you from handling snakes.  A number of people claim that god only 'helps those who help themselves'.  A number of people claim that god is nothing but 'the ground of being' (or whatever wootastic contentless collection of words they want to use).  A number of people claim that reciting some trite declaration of faith is sufficient to attain salvation.  A number of people claim that declaration of faith is insufficient to earn salvation.  So you can claim that he has made himself clear, but frankly the evidence around you, unabashedly, says otherwise.

1.	Why doesn't the book of Mormon count?  Why doesn't the Quran count?  Or do they?
2.	The Blog of God or somesuch perhaps?  Maybe the occasional text from THE ALMIGHTY to remind people that making people DIE is a bad thing?
3.	and him at the same time

[Truth OT]

God is saying that you need to have faith in Him.  He has given all of us a good way to live, how to treat people, etc through the example of Christ.  It works if you are willing to drop your pride and follow Him.

Here is a point most believers miss about the position non believers like myself take. You assume that the god you believe in has actually said anything while we look at the writings you believe to be god's words and we see them as the writings of men with no objective verifiable evidence those writers were inspired by the god you claim exists.

What I would assert is that your worship of god is in vain because what you follow are merely as Matthew 15:9 says, are the doctrines and commandments of men that claim to speak for god.

[jtk73]

You just need to accept the free gift and believe.

Which is it? Free gift or gift with requirements? If it has strings attached, it is not a free gift.

Also, in what way is it a gift if the gift giver placed me/you/whoever in the predicament where a 'gift' is required?

[MadBunny]

Maybe Jesus had to be crucified, because he was such a misleading teacher?

I made a thread on this topic a while back, rather than repost the whole Op, here's a link.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,8319.msg187801.html#msg187801

Sacrifice.

If you are to look up the term scapegoat, you'll see that it is rooted in sacrifice.

The scapegoat was a goat that was driven off into the wilderness as part of the ceremonies of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, in Judaism during the times of the Temple in Jerusalem. The rite is described in Leviticus 16.

Since this goat, carrying the sins of the people placed on it, is sent away to perish, the word "scapegoat" has come to mean a person, often innocent, who is blamed and punished for the sins, crimes, or sufferings of others, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes.

The point here is that the goat, or animal is used to absorb whatever various sins and is sent off to die, or just killed.

Sacrifice is just a more abbreviated version of this.  The animal metaphorically absorbs sins, usually if the animal is more valuable (A bull rather than a goat, a 'perfect' specimen rather than an old or lame one) is would be considered a better sacrifice.  This sacrificing, or scapegoating would be to appease whatever anger the gods, or god had toward a group.  The Christian bible is filled with many examples of sacrifice to please their god.  History, in fact is also full of examples.

What would have more sacrificial value than a human?  A pure human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

We see that societies would frequently try to skirt this purity theme by sacrificing alternatives such as captured warriors, or even servants.
When it comes to value though, the virgin is the gold standard.  A pure, beautiful virgin.

Jesus represents the perfect metaphorical sacrifice.
Pure and virginal, check.
Valuable (son of god), check.
Human, yep.

So, Jesus, representing the perfect storm of metaphorical value for sins absorbs not just the guilt and sin of those around him but apparently the sin of all mankind and is killed.  When he dies he takes all this sin with him and mankind is forgiven.

I gets a little weird after that, but hey, this is religion we're talking about.

[Patrick Henry]

Patrick,

If, as you suggest, us atheists could not understand the mind of god as we are humans then what you say makes good sense. After all, this god might some much higher purpose in his mass killing that anything we can think of. (Of course this god is whole lot nicer that the Babylonian gods who also sent a flood to kill the people but because they were too noisy!)

The major snag with this line of thinking is the fact the it is often argued in favour of god that he is the one that set up all the laws of nature and is responsible for everything going on the way it does. I suppose that implies he makes sure the moon doesn't crash into the earth and so forth. In practice this means that this god has produced a universe that has laws we can work out and that we can use to predict things in the future. So this is a god of order.

Combining these two ideas, I think I agree with you, Patrick, that god probably did plan to kill everything in the world. I think that sort of extermination is quite within his character and his way of working. I suspect Jesus would violently disagree with this sort of action, advocating, as he did, turning the other cheek. There's nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest fighting wars and mass killing are OK. Quite the opposite - he defines thinking badly of someone is the equivalent of murder. So, yes, this god in the OT certainly seems capable of killing any number of things - but there is  catch....

I disagree with your depiction of God using words like extermination, as if God is evil and His purposes are not good.  From my point of view it lowers the accountability of human beings at that time.  I believe they were accountable for their sins and yes it even affected their children, who were killed along with their parents in a few cases.  If God were true, then it makes sense to me that He has every right to take away the lives that He gave in the first place.  For His purposes.  It may be entirely possible that those children were given eternal life.   

[ThatZenoGuy]

Are....are you seriously suggesting that a mother/father has every right to murder their children if they are sinners?

[Patrick Henry]

4. God is not saying anything - indeed in all probability he has never ever said anything. Let's look at the evidence for this claim. The only records we have of god saying anything are from people who made records of it years after the event and no doubt the story passed down generation to generation before being put in writing. That no longer counts as evidence or anything except that there was a story. Even when we come to the gospels, the stories about what Jesus said have passed through a couple of generations  so that we cannot know whether any of them are original Jesus let alone which. So, if you want to claim the god says anything you will probably have to back up your claim.

Follow on to this point:

Patrick, the bible is a pretty...dated...work at this point in time.  It's over a thousand years old.

........  There is clearly confusion as to what god wants from his cherished creation.  Would it not be sensible for god to once again step in and try to make his intentions and his guide to life clear?  I simply cannot get over how silly it is .......

And you can always say that he's already made himself clear...but here's the thing - he hasn't.  He just plain hasn't.  A number of people on this planet do not believe he exists.  A number of people on this planet do not believe that Jesus was his son[1].  A number of people claim that god will protect you from handling snakes.  A number of people claim that god only 'helps those who help themselves'.  A number of people claim that god is nothing but 'the ground of being' (or whatever wootastic contentless collection of words they want to use).  A number of people claim that reciting some trite declaration of faith is sufficient to attain salvation.  A number of people claim that declaration of faith is insufficient to earn salvation.  So you can claim that he has made himself clear, but frankly the evidence around you, unabashedly, says otherwise.

1.	and him at the same time

I'm actually impressed with the bible and how such old texts still do speak relevantly to modern man.  Solomon in Ecclesiastes talks about how the soul is never satisfied.  He doesn't hide his struggle, and we see that all over the place in western culture especially.  The wisdom in Proverbs is a good example of teaching. There is also in the new testament particularly, teaching of forgiveness, grace, discipline, love.  All good stuff and applicable for us today. 
I see the bible as clear teaching with a clear message about who God is and where salvation comes from.  Christ commands His followers to tell others, so I think that it is important that you not be confused and think that we need another new revelation from God.  It's here. 

[Patrick Henry]

May I be so bold as to suggest that perhaps it is your pride that gets in the way of seeing the world for what it is - that you do not have a special place in the cosmos, that you will not have eternal life?  That your pride is getting in the way of seeing that you are not entitled, at all, to even earn eternal life in some form or fashion?

I don't see how it's prideful to submit to God as my creator. Christians don't think they are "entitled" to eternal life by their own merits.  Just the opposite, in fact.

[ThatZenoGuy]

I don't see how it's prideful to submit to God as my creator. Christians don't think they are "entitled" to eternal life by their own merits.  Just the opposite, in fact.

I find that if anyone even thinks of life after death, especially infinite life, their intentions for the life can only be that of greed.

There surely cannot be any other reason as to why someone would even think of such a thing.

[wheels5894]

I disagree with your depiction of God using words like extermination, as if God is evil and His purposes are not good.  From my point of view it lowers the accountability of human beings at that time.  I believe they were accountable for their sins and yes it even affected their children, who were killed along with their parents in a few cases.  If God were true, then it makes sense to me that He has every right to take away the lives that He gave in the first place.  For His purposes.  It may be entirely possible that those children were given eternal life.

Well, if there were an all-powerful god, I suppose he would have the right to do anything, though there is a moral dimension we might get to later that could affect that. There again, god is also said to be all-loving. Now bad people, however bad, have the chance of reforming and cutting their live short gives them no chance to do that so killing, by an all-loving god would seem to be against his nature... at least it would if he was the god of the NT. The god of the OT is very much less loving and more more inclined to war - at least to sending men out to fight wars.

Then there are the children. Now if you think that it is OK to kill children because of the acts of their parents, well, you are not like anyone I have ever met. Children who have not done anything wrong are not for killing on any grounds. Any claims to moral superiority by a god that orders the killing of children vanish as he says the words. Even atheists don't do that!

Oh, and to make it clear, god is shown as wanting get rid of all the people in Israel so that the Hebrews can take it over so I still say that is genocide.

[Ataraxia]

BTW.....using curse words isn't helpful, and makes you sound unintelligent.
Patrick

Bollocks. I wouldn't normally pick up on this, because spelling and grammar are simple mistakes to make (even when you have spell check available), but since you are playing the curse card, if anything makes you look unintelligent, it's this:

Your right.

That's not including your inability to grasp a fairly simple quoting system.

No modern judge would do that.  It wouldn't be justice to punish an innocent man for the sins of another.
In this case, the Judge Himself took the punishment for sin.   Because He loves you.

No modern judge would be so psychology screwy to do that either.
There's a problem here for God - the problem of sin, yet he thinks the best way to deal with that is to diminish all responsibility of it on to himself, and anybody who doesn't agree with that and prefers to make amends and deal with the problem themselves isn't deserved of his company. No, that's left to those are happy for the judge to be slayed for it because they think that shows how awesomely loving he is.
No, it makes him look like a friggin' weirdo. I really can't see you cheering with adulation on the prosecution in court, watching a self-harming judge take the rap for the man found guilty of murdering your child. Replace that with God though, and suddenly that judge becomes some love genius. Buzz! Wrong. He's loopy-doop - he's off his tree. He is not acting lovingly.

[Ataraxia]

I disagree with your depiction of God using words like extermination, as if God is evil and His purposes are not good.  From my point of view it lowers the accountability of human beings at that time.  I believe they were accountable for their sins and yes it even affected their children, who were killed along with their parents in a few cases.  If God were true, then it makes sense to me that He has every right to take away the lives that He gave in the first place.  For His purposes.  It may be entirely possible that those children were given eternal life.

What word would you like to replace "extermination" with? How are you going to spin such a word around so not to emit negative connotations here? People die. People die at the 'apparent' order of God. People die at the 'apparent' hand of God. Civilisations have been eradicated at the 'apparent' hand /order of God. If you replaced God with any dictator throughout human history you'd be cursing them, but because it's God who has done it then somehow you flip 180 and it's all fine and dandy.
....And what about free will? What happened to the free will of these children? I keep hearing that God has free will on pretty high priority, if not the highest, yet here you have the purposes of God superseding it. What have these children done so that they deserve to be slaughtered? If you can't think of a valid reason why innocent children deserve to be killed, and lay it all on "well God knows why and knows best" kinda bullshit, then you have surrendered your compassion and integrity to sycophantically follow a dictator who you find unquestionable.

This is where this moral quiz that apologists throw out gets flipped on its head, the "would you torture a child to death just for fun" nonsense. Well no, I wouldn't, and I wouldn't torture a child to death just for God either. I can't say I'm too confident that your answer would be the same.

Oh, and while in this theology it may be possible for these children to be given eternal life it's also possible that they won't, and since you don't consider yourself the judge of who's in who's out, then just throwing the possibility out there to cover you and your Gods arse serves no purpose but to show that you will do anything to spin the slaughter of children into a positive. It's disgusting. No, it's fucking disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Hatter23]

I don't see how it's prideful to submit to God as my creator. Christians don't think they are "entitled" to eternal life by their own merits.  Just the opposite, in fact.

I find that if anyone even thinks of life after death, especially infinite life, their intentions for the life can only be that of greed.

There surely cannot be any other reason as to why someone would even think of such a thing.

I hardly call not wanting to die, 'greedy.' It may seem so if you think of it as "infinite" but not wanting to die today isn't greedy, and it is always today.

[xyzzy]

I disagree with your depiction of God using words like extermination, as if God is evil and His purposes are not good.  From my point of view it lowers the accountability of human beings at that time.  I believe they were accountable for their sins and yes it even affected their children, who were killed along with their parents in a few cases. If God were true, then it makes sense to me that He has every right to take away the lives that He gave in the first place.  For His purposes.  It may be entirely possible that those children were given eternal life.

Earlier I asked you what "sin" was, and you replied:

Sin is breaking the laws of God as listed in the bible.  Sin at its core is idolatry.  Putting anything ahead of God in your life. 

Now, back to the part that I put in bold. Here you are telling us several things.

God gave people life and if those people don't idolize him (sin at it's core), they are at risk of death. Further, their children too are at risk. And their children's, children.

This god is petty and vindictive. It "gives" something, something that people didn't ask for; it attaches conditions that people have no choice over (out the window goes the free-will excuse); and the penalty for not adhering to those dictates is death.

Worse still, those people have to choose between adhering to the rules or dozens, if not hundreds, of competing gods. That's assuming that a god even exists.

At this point, theists often call life a "gift from god" - do you think this is a "gift"? A "gift" that comes with conditions so stringent that the punishment is death and, possibly, eternal torture.

Knowing that you don't respond to people who cuss, I'll say that I think that's whacked. Frankly, I think it's way worse that that. Worse than that, though, is your attempt to justify the actions of this morally repugnant monster that you call god.

[Hatter23]

Are....are you seriously suggesting that a mother/father has every right to murder their children if they are sinners?

Funny how Christians always try to wriggle off the hook of this line of thinking. The reasons for their "but that's not the same" are universally lacking.

[ThatZenoGuy]

I hardly call not wanting to die, 'greedy.' It may seem so if you think of it as "infinite" but not wanting to die today isn't greedy, and it is always today.

That is fine, as i do not want to die.

But eventually i must, no?

If i lived to the age of 3000 years, i would probably be so outright bored and tired that i would simply want to die.

But the thought that people want more than what they need is greedy.