Oliver,
Your question is excellent.

I really don't understand why a god, who supposedly is all powerful, could not forgive humans for their sins without having to send his son to earth on a suicide mission, having him tortured and killed.

I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions (sins?) and would hate the idea that someone else would have to be tortured and killed to let me off the hook.
Speaking about a culture of death!

"Sells and Poly simply will not address the matter of Christ's suicide and Hosea 6:6. "
I'm eagerly awaiting their reply.

Oliver

I think what Sells is trying to say is that Christ offers hope that is universal and eternal. As long as Gods love is possible then it is inappropriate for us to truncate that possibility. Suicide, euthanasia and abortion are each, in their own way, actions that represent the abandonment of hope.

The problem I have with Sell's article is the implication that we can legislate for hope. Anglicans still havent adjusted themselves to the separation of Church and state and still believe that their version of Christian morals should be enshrined in legislation.

The question of sacrifice is interesting. If you read Hosea carefully, and other similar passages, you will find that God's problem with sacrifices is that they have become an easy substitute for true righteousness. God expects Her people to be prepared to make sacrifices as part of a righteous life but that is a very different thing to the easy business of slaughtering one or two beasts now and then in a futile attempt to appease God.

Trying to legislate hope is a little like making easy sacrifices. Easier to get some words on paper than to deal with the real human pain. Legislation must needs be rational and cannot but attempt the impossible task of weighing up consequences. Hope, on the other hand, like love, is not entirely rational.

It is entirely appropriate for Christians to encourage people to continue to hope and to look for Gods love in every situation. In Christian terms failure of hope is a human weakness but that does not make it a criminal offence. Sells appears to me to be making easy judgements where even God struggles.

waterboy,

The iissue of righteousness was very important centuries later with Luther whom felt himself a good monk but could never as a human appease God. The concept of Justification by faith was amplified from the Bible. Appeasement and justification wre coupled. If substitutionary randsom is valid, I should be able to goal to by proxy, were my brother to commit a crime.

Please excuse brevity. Work.

waterboy,

If justification is perfect then salvation is a fait compli. Even for atheists! In the Christian after-life at least. Hope in this life is transient.

Oliver

Im not sure what you mean by 'Christian after life'.
If you imagine that we all rise up form the dead and spend forever partying along in heaven with all those weird angels then I must confess I dont regard this as a particularly Christian image.

Righteousness is not some sort of existential state one needs to achieve in order to please God. Righteousness describes the actions of those who make the lame to walk and the blind to see. The righteous set prisoners free, care for the outcast and heal the sick. Sadly, this sort of righteousness is neither universal nor 'fait accompli'. It is, however, an option for every one of us irrespective of all our past actions.

I do not regard rewards in heaven as a Christian notion but if I did then I would have to agree with you that it is either universal or meaningless.

waterboy,

I agree that righteousness exists in a humanistic sense, amongst peoples of faith and non beleivers. If, to a believer, Jesus made everybody righteous, even Hiltler* is saved. A perfect sacrafice does not need the churches as a back-stop: That is what I meant by fait complait. The crucifixation is a fait compli event.

If an entity called made perfect ransom, there is no need for rites. Just, perhaps, an historical account that an event took place.

*who was a Catholic, incidently.