Is not Love itself forgiving?
Is not Love itself forgiving?
I used to love this metaphorical story about a court trial... we are the defendant, God is the judge, the devil - prosecutor - and we have no lawyer - so we're hopeless, we lose, get sentenced, and then Jesus comes and takes the punishment for us so we are let go.
This is often used as an 'illustration', within some kind of 'vicarious atonement' model, however I don't think it really satisfies being the reason that God could forgive anyone, since its assuming a 'vicarious atonement' is 'necessary' as an assumption/presupposition, but this is all it is. Other atonement models exist, and we of more liberal theological horizons, could even question the validity of 'blood atonement' on various grounds, although certain symbolic or allegorical interpretations can be associated with 'blood'.
It also still holds that by the principle of 'self-responsibility', one is responsible to make atonement for his own sins by reparation/repentance, and if possible restitution (if he is able). Since a sinner suffers for his own sins, he is therefore also responsible for his own salvation, by choosing such. Another person cannot fully or wholly 'pay the price' or 'atone' for the sins of another, not while that one has any degree of 'responsibility' for his own sins and the ability to make amends or reform his ways. - and these are just a few points that challenge a 'vicarious atonement' concept.
Then I realized if this metaphor says how it really is in the story of salvation... God doesn't really forgive us anything. The guilt is still punished and someone has to suffer.
But we're back to the 'belief' that some one has to suffer for another sins.
Why? Back to the principle of self-responsibility,....we all suffer for our own sins, and are also responsible for our own salvation (returning to God and his laws....returning to righteousness)
by our own repentance. No one can repent for us! So, you see, 'vicarious atonement' has some problems. We also discuss the law of karma
here 
Jesus did forgive some people before crucifixion (for example in Luke 7:48), God did that many times in Old Testament, too (e.g. 2 Samuel 12:13).
Surely, and did you notice in the OT, a 'blood-sacrifice' was not ALWAYS needed to make an atonement for sin. Prayer, repentance, grain/flour offerings, money, and other tokens were accepted and availed to make 'atonement' back in those days. Also in the NT, Jesus forgave sins and commanded his disciples to forgive sins. Yep, he authorizes his disiples to forgive sins, heal the sick, cast out evil spirits, etc. This issue of 'forgiveness' is a wonderful subject in itself. Furthermore, we cant even enjoy forgiveness (a condition of free intercourse/fellowship) with God if we do NOT forgive our brother,....so forgiveness in some ways is 'conditional' on certain levels.
My question is - why can't God just... forgive me all of my sins? Without the sacrifice of Jesus? Just because God is good and forgiving? We aren't taught in the Bible to forgive with any substitute sacrifice, right? What is the problem then?
Since God is a Good and Loving Father, of course he can forgive sins just out of his own loving, merciful nature and will. Why would LOVE not forgive, if one qualified to receive that forgiveness by doing what is proper to receive it? It then becomes a question of where this idea/concept/belief of 'animal slaughter' or even 'human sacrifice' is necessary to effect an 'atonement'? Is such a theology rational or logical? That's something you have to decide for yourself, by the 'light' of God within your own soul, teaching you divine wisdom and reason. Good questions,...some don't question, so don't grow, evolve or progress along the path, they just have a rigid sterile belief-system, a 'theoritical' salvation, merely 'conceptual'. Some concepts may be better than others, but they are just 'concepts',....how useful they are is another question.
