Ok, here's the stock answer:
God is Perfect and Holy.
Man WAS perfect and holy, but sinned.
Therefore there is incompatability between God's Holiness and Man's Sinfulness.
My personal view is that traditional and conventional Christianity has misunderstood (and therefore distorted) the purpose of the crucifixion. While the New Testament records that "he died for our sins," I think this is where we're misunderstanding the whole concept. What does it mean by "our sins?" Who is being referred to by the pronoun "our?"
I think it is important to recognise that Christianity arose out of a culture not only permeated by a monotheistic religion, but also a religion deeply-rooted in law.
Laws have their interpretations. Some would argue that the purpose of Law is justice. Others would argue that its purpose is to maintain cultural, religious or national identity. When you have a written tradition associated with laws, it becomes somewhat more complicated, especially with regards to the notion of justice. People would have different opinions on that. Some would assert that because it's God's word, justice must come from an objective, impartial and impersonal interpretation of Scripture and such an emphasis on the written tradition often leads to people being technical. Others would assert that God's will, ultimately is justice but that it doesn't have anything to do with the way the laws have been written and that being technical about the way it has been written down is the wrong way of doing what God wants.
The technicalities and semantics arising out of the interpretations of laws and their purpose may lead to people forgetting, or going astray from what God actually wanted. If what God wanted was justice, then being technical and literal in one's interpretation of laws does not lead to one doing what God wants. If your goal is justice, you cannot really be sure that your technical interpretation of a written tradition actually leads to justice.
Technical-minded people like working in terms of rules. They like making rules a part of their mental framework. They create this reality, this culture, this way of seeing things that comes from that mental framework. The trouble with making rules and making people follow them is that you start judging and evaluating people on those rules.
Under this framework of rules, you do not see it as a priority to understand people and their struggles in life. You don't care about why they ended up with the kind of life they have now. You are not interested in helping them. All you care about is how is where you fit in with this system of rules.
The problem with this way of thinking is that it leads to an artificial form of morality, as well as an artificial sense of justice, and this is what I believe Jesus came to resolve.
My understanding of Jesus' life and sayings was that he was a defender of the poor, persecuted and the oppressed. Jesus said that, "whoever humbles himself will be exalted; whoever exalts himself will be humbled." He also said that "whoever is first in this life will be last in the kingdom of God."
I think we have to be pragmatic and practical in understanding what he meant. He surely could not have meant that you should be a bum or a slob, a bad-mannered or obnoxious person who doesn't care about morality because it's snobbish, phony, pretentious or pompous. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have dignity or self-respect. What he meant was that we shouldn't try to be important in the ways of the world, but important in what is ultimately right for the people of the world.
Evaluating oneself according to this framework of rules was one way of exalting yourself and being "first." It caused an injustice that I would call "ideological oppression."
Jesus didn't come to offer forgiveness for the saking of offering it. He came to deal with persecution, injustice and oppression in its many forms. Ideological persecution was one of the injustices he came to deal with.
Many of the people regarded as "sinners" were not really "sinners" in the sense of being despicable people. I think most of them were just misunderstood people. They were decent people with an inner dignity that society did not see. Jesus came to bring that private life out into the open so that those people could see the light inside them.
The woman with the alabaster jar, the prostitute was a woman who I believe wasn't responsible for the kind of life she lived. I imagine that she was really a sex slave, and that the reason why she was a "prostitute" was because she was probably sold into that profession or lifestyle when she was young. (I'd have to give credit to c0de, who is, according to my impression, a Muslim, for helping me understand that. I can't remember the thread where we discussed the topic of prostitution, but I just never thought of it the way he described it.)
What society regarded as "despicable people" were not really as despicable as they thought. This is where I believe the crucifixion comes into the story.
Jesus was a friend of these people. That was why he meant so much to them. He was their hero. That's why they worshipped him as a legend. He dared to challenge the oppressive attitudes of the society of Israel in the first-century. He died in support of these people. That is why I believe he died. He was a martyr.
But that is where I think we may start to misunderstand him. The whole idea of Jesus "dying for our sins" has to do with issues in the first century in Israel. The word "forgiveness," I believe has become cliche here. I don't think it was about "forgiveness" but "acceptance." Forgiveness implies that you have sinned. The people to whom Jesus was offering the so-called "forgiveness" didn't really need forgiveness. They were not sources of oppression, injustice and persecution. They were, instead, the oppressed and persecuted themselves! What I believe Jesus was really offering was acceptance. God accepted them. It was not God, but society that could not accept them.
Westerners in the 21st century don't have so-called "sins" that require forgiveness or acceptance. Western society is not inherently a guilt-mongering culture. Jesus came to save the first-century people from ideological oppression brought about by forced guilt mongering. Jesus declared these people "not guilty." But he needed to do that because they lived in a guilt-mongering religious culture.
The question is, if you're not a guilt-monger, what relevance could Christianity possibly have for you? You don't need to be set free from any guilt-mongering by having to think that Jesus died to set you free from the ideological oppression of technical religious dogma.
What I would say to that is that apart from setting people free from guilt-mongering, Jesus was a defender against the oppressed, poor and persecuted. Jesus would, therefore have relevance in the present global economic crisis. The moral of the story is, don't put your heart on wealth. There may be a time in your life when you'll have nothing. You will have to fight to survive. A recession or depression is an opportunity to share, to seek out social connections, to form a community, to share the journey in the struggles of life. You're not alone.
If you are a capitalist and handle large sums of money, be careful how you use it. You do not want to be a source of oppression and persecution. You don't want to be one of those people. Jesus was against that. To be a "Christian," therefore, is not to be one of these people with big money that can make people's lives hard and difficult.
If you do handle large sums of money, see if you can help someone with your money. Don't be so obsessed about making profits. Think about the people in your country. Don't just think about the money. Think about the people. The people. The people. Not the money.
And don't cause a sub-prime mortgage crisis by lending money to people who can't pay you back! Be prudent with your money. If you're a home-buyer or home-owner, it's the same thing. Don't buy houses you can't afford. Don't be greedy and don't live on debt. Be honest and don't live beyond your means. Don't fool yourself and cause a national or global financial crisis. Jesus wouldn't approve of such behaviour because you're making life hard for people in your country by destabilising the economy.
Disclaimer: I am not a socialist. I am just putting Jesus' words in context.
Personally, I think if Western societies had more community-connectedness, the economic crisis wouldn't make life so hard for people in Western countries, but market- and consumer-driven capitalism has thrown us into relentless competition against each other. Individuals have become more isolated. Economic crises are, I believe, a chance to get closer again.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, I believe that traditional and conventional Christianity has forgotten Christianity's true meaning, the true meaning, I think, of Jesus' crucifixion. They have gone back to the days of technicalising religious written traditions, and in doing so, ruined people's lives, persecuted and oppressed people and done lots of emotional damage.
I believe there is a medieval and 20th century equivalent of what Jesus called "the killing of the prophets." It is where the medieval Catholic Church burned thousands of so-called "heretics" at the stake and took part in witch-hunting, and the killing of doctors and surgeons in abortion clinics by 20th-century fundamentalist Christians.
Moreover, I think the people who say that traditional Christianity is oppressive are actually right. By saying that people have to think Jesus died for our sins, we cause a lot of ideological oppression because people think they have to align themselves to guilt-mongering dogma and ideology. They think that God can't love them if they can't create guilt in themselves. I think the proper way of thinking of the crucifixion is not that we have to be guilt-mongers, but that Jesus was a defender of the poor, oppressed and persecuted, and that guilt-mongering was only a part of what Jesus' life meant to people.
As long as there is Sin, there cannot be true communion between God and Man.
No doubt, that's the traditional way of seeing things, but my thinking would be a little different. It would be this. Before Jesus came, what separated people from God was a framework of rules created either by society or the religious establishment. It continues today in traditional and conventional Christian churches. When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life," he was saying that nobody, not the government, not even the Church or any denomination, can stand in the way between you and God. There is no institutional or ideological barrier between an individual and God. Jesus rescued us from ideological oppression. He defied the powers that be. He showed that nobody could stand between us or God. The religious establishment had no power over us. God can bypass the religious establishment and reach us directly. That was Jesus' purpose: to bypass the Establishment so God could connect with people directly.
In much the same way that the statues of gold and wood were lifeless objects that had no power even though people worshipped them, the governments, political systems, churches and denominations out there in the world have no power except what is created through political will. But even the political will of the people in this world, in principle cannot separate us from God.
