Logical Religious Thought Experiment


Think this through:

Why would any kind, loving, graceful deity demand the torture and death of something innocent in order to be able to bestow simple forgiveness for wrongs committed against them? Why would they create such a system?

How would you feel about a human being who demanded the torture and death of an innocent 3rd party in order to be able to forgive a person who wronged them in some way?

Why would a deity demand humans forgive freely but refuse to do so themselves?

Let me know your conclusions if you wish!

(Want to help support this blog?)

19 responses to “Logical Religious Thought Experiment”

  1. Well because he’s God and he can get away with murder. That’s what most Christians would tell you, or some such thing like we’re still being punished for the sins of Adam & Eve.

    I’m going to get roasted for making that comment. But I agree with you. I took Comparative Religions in college where we studied all the World Religions.

    I prefer Hinduism & Buddhism myself. I don’t believe in a deity but I do believe in a higher consciousness, that of which we become a part of through love & right action.

    The only Hell, is the one we bring upon ourselves.

    Cool image, by the way.


    Liked by 2 people

  2. It’s all fiction, written by people, but it’s not entirely pointless. Sometimes there are reasons for the stories, hope that people will learn a lesson from reading and do better. The idea isn’t to emulate them! Oh well…

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Like it is said, history is only written by the ones who emerge triumphant, thus we will never know the real story. I sincerely doubt if the serene deity wished for blood but it was the men who coated their selfish motives with the word of a deity.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’ll give you a 2-part answer from a Christian (specifically Catholic) perspective. The first is, as Christians we don’t believe Jesus is a “3rd party” at all — we believe that while he’s fully human, he’s fully divine as well, the incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. And there’s a total unity of mind and will between Father and Son — the unity of the “Spirit,” the 3rd Person — so it’s not like the Father commanded the Son to do something he didn’t want to. It wasn’t God demanding something/someone “else” die, it was God freely sacrificing *himself* for our sake.

    Second, yes, I suppose in theory God *could* have simply snapped his fingers and said “OK, you’re forgiven,” but that wouldn’t have led to real reconciliation with human beings — we ourselves need to be transformed. Christians believe we’re all captives (even in our very hearts) within the dominion of sin and death, that of our own power we can’t escape it and be reconciled with the God who’s the source of goodness and love. So God freely entered into our whole human condition in order to deliver us, and this meant willingly bearing, on the cross, the attack against him of the whole weight of sin and death that’s part of our condition. But God was stronger than even their power — they couldn’t hold him down in the grave, he defeated them, light swallowed up darkness. And through the resurrection and pouring out the Spirit, a whole new creation was inaugurated and opened up to us (though it will be fully realized only at the end of history). The church is the community that’s the sacramental embodiment of this, called to live out God’s love and grace and forgiveness and healing justice in the world.

    I think the framing of the word “forgiveness” is partly an issue of semantics. In one sense one could definitely say that God has “always” forgiven us at the level of his own disposition, and then use a word like “reconciliation” to describe the mission of Jesus. But often the word “forgiveness” refers not to a mental disposition but to the communication of it — in that sense, one could say that God always had the “will to forgive” but “forgave” in the sense of definitively *communicating* his forgiveness only on the cross. In any case, in general I think it’s truest and most faithful to the broadest history of Christian thought to think of the cross much less in “retributive” and much more in “restorative” terms.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. In the Bible, the first animal sacrifice mentioned was by Abel, the son of Adam. His sibling Cain also made a sacrifice to the god, but with vegetables. The point to be noted here is that both sacrifices were not demanded by god. Both persons gave their best to please God, and god pleased with the sacrifice offered by Abel because he had the right intention in his heart. We don’t know why God was not pleased by Cain’s sacrifice, that God only knows, because he can see through our hearts.

    Read Genesis Chapter 4:1-26


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: