Does the sacrifice of Jesus honestly make any sense . . .?
This explanation is probably going to be a bit too long for most of the people here . . . but please do try. ;) I've asked this before, and found the answers unsatisfactory. So, I'm hoping to get some better ones.
First off, and it's more of a minor point, what did Jesus "sacrifice"? I mean, I understand he was tortured and killed. But in light of the reward, it's kind of difficult to call it such. He knew he was getting eternity as ruler in heaven. Right-hand of God in eternal, ultimate paradise. Sounds more like one hell of a trade-off than a sacrifice.
And then God. John 3:16 is often cited as people just go "ohhhh, don't you see how much he loves us?!" No, I don't really. What did God lose, pray tell? His son had a few terrible days on Earth. He watched his son live for 30ish years, have a few bad days, and then he got his son back, living in eternal paradise. He lent him to us, for a little while, at the very best. No sacrifice was made on God's part.
Also, God is omniscient. Surely an omniscient being doesn't experience things like we would . . . he would already know exactly how it would all play out. (Which gets more into the emotions of an omniscient being - but that's a different topic.)
Secondly, and most importantly, why did God even sacrifice Jesus? It makes absolutely no sense.
HE set up the system himself. He knew, before he even did it, that setting it up in such a way would lead to him sacrificing his son. Yet he does it anyway? What? Being omniscient, he couldn't devise something better than a paganistic sacrifice of his own child? Did he think sacrificing his son would be flashier or something? Purely symbolic?
Why not just erase mankind's sin and allow them salvation WITHOUT the sacrifice? He is omniscient and sets up the rules, after all. Any system created must be exactly as God WANTED it to be. So - he wanted humans to be unable to attain salvation until he had his son sacrificed to . . . himself? Huh? He's doing it to fix his own rules?
In short, it's nonsensical. It doesn't follow logically, to me.
In essence, God sacrifices himself, to HIMSELF, to pay himself the price that HE demanded, because HIS creation, created by HIM, couldn't live up to HIS standards . . . and he deliberately sets it up to be this way.
Does this honestly make any sense?
@Silly G - - That depends. Was I certain, in my mind, that doing so would gain me eternity as the ruler of all ultimate paradise?
Your answer is full of fail. It's just one of those "you have to believe before it makes sense to have it make sense" answers. Which makes no sense.
@Shinigami - - That ignores one of the main points I made. God doesn't "need" anything. Unless he's not omniscient and omnipotent - which few would claim. He DID set it up. So, the blood sacrifice was only necessary in the sense that HE made it necessary.
Culture really has nothing to do with it, unless you make the claim that the story comes only from those writing it (to which I wouldn't argue). God, for obvious reasons, would transcend culture.
And if he sacrificed his son, pointlessly, just because it might make sense to those in the area . . . seems a bit sadistic. And basically undermines the cornerstone of Christianity.