Why was a sacrifice needed at all?

[nobspeople]

It's said Jesus came as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. But to whom did the sacrifice matter? God? If Jesus was also god, in a way (like some claim), he was sacrificing himself to himself...? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
If Jesus is not god, then Jesus sacrificed himself to god. Why does god need a sacrifice at all? Some would say 'god can't be with sin' or the like. But why not? Surely, if god is the god it's said it is, god could change any 'rule' set up (as god itself had to set up the 'rule') and not require such a painful, terrible sacrifice? Isn't god 'enough' that being in its presence would, for lack of a better term, vaporize or negate all sin? God is greater than all sin (as some claim) then why is a sacrifice needed)
For discussion:
Why would god need a sacrifice if god created everything that is and had the ability not to need a sacrifice at all?

[Hawkins]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

It is the same mathematics I mentioned in another thread. By the degree of free will given to the angels, there will be 2/3 angels surviving the Final Judgment of Law. By the degree of free will granted to humans, it is expected that there will be less than (how less will depend on how much more free will is given to humans) 1/3 humans passing the same Final Judgment. This is however under the circumstance that there is no interaction between angels and humans. The future Heaven is for angels and humans to live together with God. So the interaction between angels and humans must be counted in. The story of Eden indicates how this math shall be calculated. Under the bad influence of the 1/3 fallen angels, the result is that no humans can be saved as angels are much more intelligent and capable than humans. Under their influence (Satan's influence) humans will all become captive in the end.

Now the figures are,
No interaction between angels and humans: 2/3 angels saved, less than 1/3 humans saved.
With interaction then: 2/3 angels saved, 0% humans saved.

It means humans cannot be judged by the same set of Law applied to angels, or else none of them can be saved (that is, as the Scripture put, no one is righteous, not even one!)

A better judgment can be provided is a subjective judgment from God Himself instead of the objective Law. Law can only take effect to judge one's past and one's behavior. God however can judge one's heart and even one's future. However, a justification must be made such that humans can be judged this way (a better way) alternatively. To put it another way, in order for humans to be judged differently than the angels, a justification must be made. This justification is the sacrifice of Jesus (God the Son), such that humans can be LAWFULLY judged using an alternative way.

Now the figures are,
With the Final Judgment of Law: 2/3 angels saved, and 0% humans saved (due to influence cast from bad angels).
With Jesus' sacrifice, which makes it possible for a judgment of covenants (instead of Law): less than 1/3 humans are saved.

[Purple Knight]

Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave and by what I know, most of people must pay taxes.

I agree. By my thinking, all taxes assessed on property are slavery, because they force labour.

Let's say I have a house. I pay off my house. I have a sustainability garden and a few animals. I catch rainwater and store it.

Can I rest now that I have paid off my house? Nope. I am forced to labour for someone else to merely keep what is mine.

Maybe I can sell enough corn to pay my taxes, but now the labour I perform on my corn has been transformed into labour I am forced to perform for someone else.

Yep. That's slavery.

Assessing slavery on whether or not you "own" a person is ridiculous. The American slave owners could have just said, we're keeping them here, we're forcing their labour, but we don't own them. A more accurate portrayal of slavery is one person being forced to labour for another.

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course there's a difference between slavery and paid labour. One is property, the other is a workforce that has to exchange time and effort for living. Humans - indeed animals - have always had to do that. In effect it's 'slavery' by nature, not by humans, even though humans have made it less hit and miss and more regularised. A boss pays his workforce to stay and work or they're gone. Slavery means they can't leave and don't need to be paid; they are property.

[1213]

....Slavery means they can't leave and don't need to be paid; they are property.

The owner in case of taxes is the government. People may have right to move to another country, but the same situation will be also there. I don’t know any country where one could really be free from taxes.

[1213]

...Even if it was true, it was unfair for the blame to be applied to all Jewish people even at the time, let alone thereafter. ...

Nice to see that we are no very far from each other. I can agree especially with this, I think it is wrong to accuse all Jews.

I don't know whether you do not take seriously that there has to be something more to Jesus dying on the cross as something planned by God, than just a resurrection that they saw. But maybe you have a case. ...

Thanks. Another reason for it can be this:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

But I think that would not necessary mean that Jesus should have died in horrible way.

[1213]

I just want to clarify, I didn’t mean that Jesus was rebel in that sense he would have been violent or done something wrong.
...

I think a problem here's that 'violent' is a subjective term.

Maybe so. I meant with violent that Jesus didn’t fight back, didn’t use a sword or arms to hit back, or anything like that. By what the Bible tells, one of his followers hit with a sword one of the soldiers and Jesus healed that person. That is why I think there would not have been any good reason for to arrest him. But, he obviously was a threat for Jewish and Roman leaders, which is why I believe they wanted to kill him.

The chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him. For they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.
Mark 11:18

When they sought to seize him, they feared the multitudes, because they considered him to be a prophet.
Matt. 21:46

People would have wanted to make Jesus their king, which obviously was not nice for the rulers.

Jesus therefore, perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
John 6:15

At this, Pilate was seeking to release him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you release this man, you aren’t Caesar’s friend! Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar!”
John 19:12

[JoeyKnothead]

I think a problem here's that 'violent' is a subjective term.

Maybe so. I meant with violent that Jesus didn’t fight back, didn’t use a sword or arms to hit back, or anything like that. By what the Bible tells, one of his followers hit with a sword one of the soldiers and Jesus healed that person. That is why I think there would not have been any good reason for to arrest him. But, he obviously was a threat for Jewish and Roman leaders, which is why I believe they wanted to kill him.

Plenty fair. As I mentioned, I don't see turning over the tables as some kind of 'evil', but personally consider it a form of violence.

But I think you've got the best of it here.

For those scoring at home, that's point to 1213

[Purple Knight]

....Slavery means they can't leave and don't need to be paid; they are property.

The owner in case of taxes is the government. People may have right to move to another country, but the same situation will be also there. I don’t know any country where one could really be free from taxes.

I would ask him whether he thinks it would have made American slavery significantly different if slaves could leave their masters at any time and go to a new one, if they still didn't have to be paid and could be forced to labour.

[TRANSPONDER]

....Slavery means they can't leave and don't need to be paid; they are property.

The owner in case of taxes is the government. People may have right to move to another country, but the same situation will be also there. I don’t know any country where one could really be free from taxes.

But the human condition is not the same as chattel slavery, which is the ownership as property of one person by another. Having to work to survive is life, not slavery, and the point of organised society is that specialised labour arranges that one person does a particular task and trades that (with barter or currency) for the things they would otherwise have had to find for themselves.

Working and paying your taxes in order to have someone cart your trash away and provide power and water, food and information is no different from having to hunt, farm and provide heating and water for your family. It's just better organised, gives us a lot more leisure time and allows us to learn more about ourselves and our world that would have been possible when we were hunting Mammoths.

That is not slavery. I doubt whether you see it as such, but are just tinkering with semantics to try to pretend that Biblical slavery is no more than normal life. If so, I have to say again, I give thanks every day that I am not a Religious believer.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Even if it was true, it was unfair for the blame to be applied to all Jewish people even at the time, let alone thereafter. ...

Nice to see that we are no very far from each other. I can agree especially with this, I think it is wrong to accuse all Jews.

I don't know whether you do not take seriously that there has to be something more to Jesus dying on the cross as something planned by God, than just a resurrection that they saw. But maybe you have a case. ...

Thanks. Another reason for it can be this:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

But I think that would not necessary mean that Jesus should have died in horrible way.

Yeaaahh... I suppose the same lesson would have been taught if Jesus had died of old age some time after the Jewish war and resurrected then (1). I think it would have worked and without having to blame the Jews (through the Sanhedrin and whatever crowd they'd got together (according to the gospels) and excuse the Romans from blame for killing Jesus. I think it's wrong to accuse ANY Jews of killing Jesus (even metaphorically - I've been accused of killing Jesus by not being a Christian) as despite what Matthew (nobody else) wrote, no god (or religion) worth a cuss would blame their descendants.

(1) "There's still a couple of stones left upon another"

"Shaddup"