Quote:
Originally Posted by Concerto
God in those days accepted payment in the form of ritual sacrifice. Since humanity, as Adam, had caused willful damage to God's property, namely His perfect man Adam himself, we owed God compensation in kind to balance the books. Jesus, the second perfect man, paid this price for us with His life. Had this debt gone unpaid, God would have continued to disallow us admission into His heaven, where our perfect state is restored.
1 Corinthians 15:53-54 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
So I'm trying to understand the logic here. Let's see if this is correct. God created some humans. Since God created them, he owned them. However, Adam and Eve damaged them. That is, Adam and Eve damaged God's property (themselves). In order to make up for this damage, they have to, as it were, pay restitution--which I guess is to give God another perfect human.
Of course, since humans cannot create new perfect humans, they are unable to pay restitution on their own. However, their friend, Jesus, decides to help them out by creating a new perfect human (himself through the Incarnation) and giving it to God, thus making restitution for the property damage caused by Adam and Eve.
Here are a few of my concerns:
1) This is a funny view of humans and property rights. Mostly I think it is wrong to think that humans are "owned" by God. Sure, God created humans. But this is more like the creation of birth than the building of a car. I build a car, it's mine. I birth a child, and it is not "mine," at least not in the sense of ownership. Rather, the child owns herself--I am only a steward for her interests until she is mature enough to care for herself. It seems like it would be immoral for God to assert ownership over conscious sentient beings like humans.
2) Let's say I am owned by God. Doesn't that mean that God is responsible for my actions? I can't be held liable for doing anything if I do not own myself. In that case, it would be incorrect for God to say that the humans he owns are responsible for their property damage.
3) What about wear and tear? You buy a nice new computer. Over time, it breaks down. This doesn't mean that you are owed a nice new computer by your old computer. Similarly, if God owns a human, and purely through internal processes (choosing to sin) it breaks down, then that seems like just bad luck, not a blameable offense.
This goes back to point (2). Humans are only blamable for their actions if they are responsible for their actions. And they can only be responsible for their actions if they are independent moral agents--that is, they are not owned by God.
4) Why did Jesus go through the whole Incarnation and crucifixion thing then? If the point of atonement was merely to pay restitution, why didn't Jesus instead just create a couple of perfect humans and give them to God as payment? Since that would pay off the debt, that seems to be all that is needed.
5) Since Jesus is God, why is God going through this rigmarole to pay a debt to himself? Why not just tell the humans, hey guys, I know you owe big-time, but that's cool, I'll let it go. After all, that is essentially what the Crucifixion is, plus some torture.
6) Finally, why is it that after Jesus created a new perfect human (himself) to give to God, why is it that it was necessary to have this perfect human violently and maliciously tortured to death? That seems weird. Isn't all that is required a replacement of property? All the other stuff just seems medieval.