RELIGOUS THREAD (flashing sirens here)
 

So yeah, this is a question that has bothered me for pretty much all of my sentient life. It's a big part of the reason I stopped going to church. So, for all the Christians and amateur-theologians out there, I pose my eternal question:

How did the death of Jesus Christ help humanity?

Every answer I've heard for this is purely symbolic in nature - that his death was basically a sacrifice akin to the animal sacraments of the Hebrews, but since he was the son of God this absolved all sins for the rest of eternity. What I don't understand about this explanation though is why God would need to go through so much trouble and put his earthly embodiment through pain and torture in order to change his own mind about how things work.

This isn't a "your religion is illogical" thread. I am honestly trying to gain a better grasp here of the religion I grew up with and that is so dear to so many of my friends and family.

It forced us to recognize the level of depravity to which we had sunk and allowed us to choose to follow His word.

What he said.

Also, nearly all current religions are distorted beyond recognition due to the same above fact. Nothing changes, so the forces back then that killed Jesus ended up distorting his words constantly and continuously. Such is the way of things. Nothing could ever be passed down 2000 years without being unrecognizable from its foundation.

I think most protestant theologians who are honest will have to admit that question does not have a singular, logical answer. They will have their pet theories, and each will be able to support their ideas with scriptural references and reasoning from the old testament, but due to the accepted pluralism of protestant belief, that's as far as they should be willing to go. If someone tells you that they have a definite answer for why god does something, and its not explicitly explained in scriptures, they should immediately be suspect.

The post-modern interpretation Capo gives is definitely one of more popular interpretations taking hold in this day.

A more classical and structural interpretation, and the one you were probably brought up under, is the Calvinist theory of "penal substitution." This starts with the assumption that God's nature as a being of justice compels him, morally and legally, to punish that which does wrong or is sinful. In the pre-Christ era, sheep as sacrifices were given up by humans to take the punishment that should have been meted out on themselves. Jesus, being god, and also perfect, was even more valuable than sheep, and thus was the best sacrifice possible. By this formulation, the "ultimate sacrifice" is not so much one of symbolism, but one of balancing the scales of morality or justice.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of atonement mostly follows this line of reasoning, but also adds that believers must demonstrate that they have been atoned for by exhibiting "condign merit." In other words, you aren't atoned for unless you prove you are such by being good as well.

I am sorry to say I know little about Eastern Orthodox, so I'm not going down that road. However, I do know that their theology is less about morality and justice, and has a more "curative" approach to explaining atonement.

All these explanations are well and good, but they still spawn more questions than they answer. In the end, they all end up admitting that "it just works," without venturing into speculative metaphysics.
Welcome to the wonderful world of trying to rationalize the actions of a god that may or may not even exist in the first place.

...and you really needed Jesus to die for that? All the other depravities going on weren't enough?

I prefer non-belief to believing in a higher being that: 1) just leaves the world in the crappy state it's in, and 2) would murder its own son in a painful manner. A being which lacks such basic empathy means nothing to me.

Apparently the fact that this thread has been dead for months means nothing to you either.