Why is physical death needed for sins?

[Orion]

I've been over and over with this in my mind. I'm trying to figure out how physical death is the wage for sin. Why is the act of the body dying so necessary, . . . the "shedding of blood", and how is that supposed to pay for sin?

 

[Vic C.]

I've been over and over with this in my mind. I'm trying to figure out how physical death is the wage for sin. Why is the act of the body dying so necessary, . . .

Rent the movie, Soylent Green. :-D

the "shedding of blood", and how is that supposed to pay for sin?

Me thinks we've been over this many times in the past. It all started here:

Genesis 3:21, Genesis 3:7, Genesis 3:10

 

[unred typo]

The soul that sins, it shall die. Once your body dies, you can’t really enjoy eternal life in it, since it is going to rot, like a seed in the ground. Only when there is life in the seed does it sprout and grow. When you have the Son, you have life, so even though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is alive because of Christ.

 

[wingnut]

Because the thought of dying really focuses the mind and gets our attention.

It gives God teeth. Yes God has carrots, but ultimately, bottom line - fluff up and you die.

 

[Orion]

First, I cannot take the stance that most of Genesis, or the Jewish Torah, is anything other than "tribal legends" (and some history of their people) and that what they say was God's own words, wasn't in actuality.

But back to the topic. What was the purpose of this "death of a lamb" to pay for the sins of the people, . . . .when the soul lives on for eternity. First, the lamb's death was supposed to be a sacrifice for the sins of people. What good does the blood of some animal do for some guy who stole from his neighbor? If he repents of it, what does it matter if some animal dies later that week at some big sacrifice serimony? How did that pay for his sins? How does a physical death of an animal have any bearing on someone's immortal soul? All these questions are rhetorical.

I can understand if the soul pays for what it does, but the life on this planet, the bodies we inhabit, are just vessels that carry who we are, the soul. It's physical death only tends to scare those who think that this life is all there is. The body dies, and the soul continues to live. The question of "how it exists in that state" is important, of course. But our bodies are bound to physical urges, based upon chemical responses in the finite brain. We are powerless against most of them. The urge to eat, sleep, breed, have shelter, possess what we don't have. . . etc. They are a part of our earthly make up. I see the soul as [many times] an unwilling companion because without these influences, the soul (the actual essence of the person) would probably make different choices.

I'm getting side tracked here. The bottom line is, what is the purpose for this physical death as a "wage of sin", when it is the soul which is immortal?

 

[Rick W]

First, I cannot take the stance that most of Genesis, or the Jewish Torah, is anything other than "tribal legends" (and some history of their people) and that what they say was God's own words, wasn't in actuality.

The answer is within Genesis as has been pointed out already.
But you don't believe Genesis so ...
:smt102

No point in trying to answer your question.

 

[Orion]

Genesis 3:7, they saw that they were naked, . . . . which isn't a sin.

Genesis 3:10 shows them afraid of God because "they were naked", . . . which isn't a sin.

So in Genesis 3:21, God makes Adam and Eve garments of the skins of animals to "hide thier nakedness". . . . . .which isn't a sin.

So, the death of the animal wasn't to pay for their "sin of eating the fruit", but to cover that which wasn't a sin. If they were the first married couple, their nakedness shouldn't have mattered.

 

[Rick W]

Adam knew what he did and hid from God through shame, he was "found out", naked before God. And Adam tried to blame not only Eve but God also. In the end blood was shed to cover Adam's shame, his nakedness.
A little study in the inner workings of the temple may help. Why was there a curtain or veil? Why was blood used to cleanse all things within the temple? What was the purpose of the individual sacrifices and why was it necessary to do sacrifice over and over again?
It all culminates with Christ's work on the cross.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

To understand what Christ did one must first understand what Adam had done. And to believe what Christ had done one must believe what Adam had done. It all goes back to Genesis, which you don't believe anyway.

 

[Orion]

So, the "nakedness" was just figurative, and so was the action of "covering up the nakedness with the animal skin". Adam's nakedness wasn't the problem, but the inner self. Blood doesn't cover that which resides inside a man. So the practices of animal sacrifices throughout Jewish history (although no longer practiced now) was also figurative of the inner sin.

So then, was Jesus's death on the cross also figurative? If the actual blood shed of the animal was only a symbol, then why would you need an actual death of "the spotless Lamb"? And I could ask, is that symbol "in vain" and powerless for those who choose not to believe that the event even took place? (I'm not saying I'm among those who don't believe.)

 

[Rick W]

You don't believe Genesis is real and said so. So I seriously doubt you'll believe any real answer no matter what it is. You don't want answers Orion. I'm not going to waste any more of my time beating a dead horse.
:smt039

 

[Guest]

Orion - for the sake of discussion. If someone were to wrong you or do something against you, would you expect or desire some form of payment or compenstation?

If you seek the answers to your questions, I humbly ask that you merely answer the questions given and try not to read into them.

I also must ask - are you seeking answers, or seeking to disbelieve?

 

[Orion]

Orion - for the sake of discussion. If someone were to wrong you or do something against you, would you expect or desire some form of payment or compenstation?

If you seek the answers to your questions, I humbly ask that you merely answer the questions given and try not to read into them.

I also must ask - are you seeking answers, or seeking to disbelieve?

There have been many times where someone has wronged me and I knew I'd never be repaid for their actions. I chose to move on and not let them affect my life and hold a grudge against them, because it doesn't do anything for me when I do.

I am truly seeking answers because I've been a Christian all my life, but was introduced to "secular thinking" and it messed me up to the point where I'm questioning stuff that I didn't in the past. That's why I started to think that a lot of what we claim was "God's own words" were that of man and only said to BE God . . . . . us speaking for God when God never said such things.

I may be completely wrong and I hope to find these answers. I'm just glad that God doesn't give up on me, even in my questions, even when Potluck does. :-?

 

[Guest]

Orion - for the sake of discussion. If someone were to wrong you or do something against you, would you expect or desire some form of payment or compenstation?

If you seek the answers to your questions, I humbly ask that you merely answer the questions given and try not to read into them.

I also must ask - are you seeking answers, or seeking to disbelieve?

There have been many times where someone has wronged me and I knew I'd never be repaid for their actions. I chose to move on and not let them affect my life and hold a grudge against them, because it doesn't do anything for me when I do.

I am truly seeking answers because I've been a Christian all my life, but was introduced to "secular thinking" and it messed me up to the point where I'm questioning stuff that I didn't in the past. That's why I started to think that a lot of what we claim was "God's own words" were that of man and only said to BE God . . . . . us speaking for God when God never said such things.

I may be completely wrong and I hope to find these answers. I'm just glad that God doesn't give up on me, even in my questions, even when Potluck does. :-?

Orion - then I must simply ask why are you not questioning the 'secular thinking'?

Here is my problem Orion - I did not ask if you thought you would be repaid, or if you knew you would not be repaid etc etc.

I asked a very pointed question:

If someone were to wrong you or do something against you, would you expect or desire some form of payment or compenstation?

 

[Orion]

If someone wronged me, I don't expect them to make it better. It would be good if they DID say they were sorry, but I won't let those who don't ruin my life.

I have questioned many of the secular thinkings, but there are some which I still have problems with. The idea of a "sin offering" and being bound to it, when it is more the matter of a person's heart, that kind of makes me wonder "why". Then the whole notion that IF the sacrifice was actually necessary, it has no power outside those who just happened to not believe it, or were born in a different culture/religion. I would say that IF this physical sacrifice was necessary, then it is for ALL sins, even for those who don't ask for it or don't know about it.

But if it is a symbol of "the price being paid", then it is paid in full. But it was still something phyisical and temporary (the body) paying for the eternal (soul). I would think that there would have to be a "soul sacrifice". :-?

 

[Guest]

If someone wronged me, I don't expect them to make it better. It would be good if they DID say they were sorry, but I won't let those who don't ruin my life.

I have questioned many of the secular thinkings, but there are some which I still have problems with. The idea of a "sin offering" and being bound to it, when it is more the matter of a person's heart, that kind of makes me wonder "why". Then the whole notion that IF the sacrifice was actually necessary, it has no power outside those who just happened to not believe it, or were born in a different culture/religion. I would say that IF this physical sacrifice was necessary, then it is for ALL sins, even for those who don't ask for it or don't know about it.

But if it is a symbol of "the price being paid", then it is paid in full. But it was still something phyisical and temporary (the body) paying for the eternal (soul). I would think that there would have to be a "soul sacrifice". :-?

So, Orion - if someone were to come into your house and steal your possessions, you would not want some form of 'justice' or 'compensatation'?

 

[Drew]

How does a physical death of an animal have any bearing on someone's immortal soul?

I have no time to give a more comprehensive answer, but I will offer these thoughts quickly:

1. It is incorrect (unScriptural) to think of the human person as having a consciousness-bearing soul (or spirit) that somehow "is housed in" a physical body, such that the soul "flies away" to somewhere when the body dies.

2. I assert that the animal sacrifices never actually accomplished the forgiveness of any sins - these sacrifices were a foreshadowing of a sacrifice that actually did blot out sin - the sacrifice of Jesus.

3. So why did Jesus have to die?: Why couldn't God simply forgive sins unconditionally, without requiring the spilling of Jesus' blood? I will suggest that this question only arises because we falsely split reality up into the "physical" and the "spiritual" - as if "forgiveness" were a "spiritual", and therefore "no-physical" type of thing. If reality is much more "monistic" or unified in nature (as I believe it to be), we can take a lesson from the nature of physical reality and argue as follows: In the physical realm, if something is "stained" we simply cannot "wish the stain away" - something has to happen in physical terms for that stain to be washed clean.

It seems entirely plausible that, in a world where there is no fundamental difference between the physical and the spiritual, the "physical" damage that sin does to the world has to be "undone" by some equally real and physical process - it cannot simply be "forgiven" away into non-existence. Now, of course, even if this argument has some sense to it, the question as to why the shedding of Jesus' innocent blood does this. But I do think that seeing reality as monistic makes it seem more sensible that in order to undo sin (an act which damages the monistic physical / spiritual world), some real change has to take place in that same monistic world since, just like in the physical world, no damaged item can be "restored" without something actually happening.

 

[Orion]

That is an interesting though, Drew.

 

[Guest]

How does a physical death of an animal have any bearing on someone's immortal soul?

I have no time to give a more comprehensive answer, but I will offer these thoughts quickly:

1. It is incorrect (unScriptural) to think of the human person as having a consciousness-bearing soul (or spirit) that somehow "is housed in" a physical body, such that the soul "flies away" to somewhere when the body dies.

2. I assert that the animal sacrifices never actually accomplished the forgiveness of any sins - these sacrifices were a foreshadowing of a sacrifice that actually did blot out sin - the sacrifice of Jesus.

3. So why did Jesus have to die?: Why couldn't God simply forgive sins unconditionally, without requiring the spilling of Jesus' blood? I will suggest that this question only arises because we falsely split reality up into the "physical" and the "spiritual" - as if "forgiveness" were a "spiritual", and therefore "no-physical" type of thing. If reality is much more "monistic" or unified in nature (as I believe it to be), we can take a lesson from the nature of physical reality and argue as follows: In the physical realm, if something is "stained" we simply cannot "wish the stain away" - something has to happen in physical terms for that stain to be washed clean.

It seems entirely plausible that, in a world where there is no fundamental difference between the physical and the spiritual, the "physical" damage that sin does to the world has to be "undone" by some equally real and physical process - it cannot simply be "forgiven" away into non-existence. Now, of course, even if this argument has some sense to it, the question as to why the shedding of Jesus' innocent blood does this. But I do think that seeing reality as monistic makes it seem more sensible that in order to undo sin (an act which damages the monistic physical / spiritual world), some real change has to take place in that same monistic world since, just like in the physical world, no damaged item can be "restored" without something actually happening.

I guess because God deemed it that way is not a strong enough arguement for you or Orion?

Do we really need to know the mechanics of it?

 

[Drew]

Do we really need to know the mechanics of it?

I think it is indeed important to have some sense of the "mechanics" of things for the specific reason that a world-view that can be sensibly explained will have more of a ring of truth for both we who already believe and, perhaps more importantly, for those who do not.

I believe that one reason people reject Christianity is that there are so many things that seem either morally implausible or "technically" implausible. The content of the faith may contain mystery but when it seems "non-sensical". that is a sign of trouble - either a doctrine is wrong or it needs to be more clearly explicated.

Examples of things that I think are morally implausible:

1. God consigns unrepentent sinners to an eternity of torment;
2. God "pre-destines" some to this fate, giving them no possibility of escape

I happen to think that neither of the above positions are Scriptural. I (and Christians generally) would be put in awkward position if they were Scriptural precisely because these assertions do such violence to universally held concepts as "punish in proportion to the offence" and "punishment is only appropriate if the power of contrary choice is present".

The whole question of why blood needs to be spilled to forgive sin is an example of something that "technically" implausible at least in the context of the dualist worldview most Christians ascribe to. If we can come up with a more correct view of the way "things really are", the idea that blood needs to be spilled becomes more reasonable and more easy to accept.

It is never a bad thing to try to make sense of the world. It is in our nature to understand and explain unless such healthy exploratory instincts are crushed into extinction (which sadly happens all the time).

 

[Guest]

Do we really need to know the mechanics of it?

I think it is indeed important to have some sense of the "mechanics" of things for the specific reason that a world-view that can be sensibly explained will have more of a ring of truth for both we who already believe and, perhaps more importantly, for those who do not.

I believe that one reason people reject Christianity is that there are so many things that seem either morally implausible or "technically" implausible. The content of the faith may contain mystery but when it seems "non-sensical". that is a sign of trouble - either a doctrine is wrong or it needs to be more clearly explicated.

Examples of things that I think are morally implausible:

1. God consigns unrepentent sinners to an eternity of torment;
2. God "pre-destines" some to this fate, giving them no possibility of escape

I happen to think that neither of the above positions are Scriptural. I (and Christians generally) would be put in awkward position if they were Scriptural precisely because these assertions do such violence to universally held concepts as "punish in proportion to the offence" and "punishment is only appropriate if the power of contrary choice is present".

The whole question of why blood needs to be spilled to forgive sin is an example of something that "technically" implausible at least in the context of the dualist worldview most Christians ascribe to. If we can come up with a more correct view of the way "things really are", the idea that blood needs to be spilled becomes more reasonable and more easy to accept.

It is never a bad thing to try to make sense of the world. It is in our nature to understand and explain unless such healthy exploratory instincts are crushed into extinction (which sadly happens all the time).

Life is found in the blood. Atonement can only be made through the spilling of blood.

This is explained in the Scriptures. Does it really matter "WHY" it is that way? Or does there need to be a level of acceptance that it is that way - regardless if we understand the 'why' of it.

Something about having "faith' in things unseen....