First and foremost, it seems that this is going to be a logical debate rather than a liturgical one. But let's have at it.
Establish some facts first: In this instance we are under the Law of God: Sin = Death. If we sin, we separate ourselves from God and we die. Since we are not without sin, we are doomed to be separated and die.
Secondly, within the God's law, there is a provision of a redeemer (the all-knowing being set up a pretense for the law way back at the beginning). A redeemer was a person who could assume the debts I had accrued and pay for them for me if they were debtless. However, the redeemer had to be a close relative. This person was known as the Go'el.
So, now that we examined the law, what would be God's motivation?
Most quoted verse in the entire Bible, John 3:16, For God so LOVED... Love! Love! Love drives us to do many crazy things... The world that he gave his only begotten son.
1 Corinthains 13: Love is patient, kind, long-suffering...
John 15:13: Greater love has no man than this, to lay down their life for another.
So, with these established ideals, what's the rationale course?
1) Redeem your people (which you seek companionship with) from their sins.
Well, if you love your people, it's time to go save them. Countless Hollywood movies tell us this motif, so it's gotta be true. Well, at least central to our core.
Also, God made a promise, the covenant to Abraham, and He will keep it even if we do not keep our end of the bargain, because God will not sin. Part of his promise, FYI, is to deliver his people -- so already the need for the redeemer is valid -- and God knew in advance that his people would need deliverance (we do so tend to find trouble easily).
Thus, under the law bound in a covenant, a redeemer is necessary. However, a human redeemer can't accomplish the task because we are flawed from the start. We are born into bondage. Thus, Jesus is born of a woman (needing to be a close relative) and divinely conceived. He is without blame according to the law, and only he who is without debt can pay our debt, to free us from our bondage to sin and wickedness and make us right with God as the intermediary.
In Revelation 5 we see a scroll with 7 seals, and only one man is able to reclaim that scroll. It is often believed that this is the deed to the earth, and since the debt is paid, Jesus claims it.
Now, this is a quick and dirty run down and of course it can be argued, but this topic is by no means a small one.
This is an insane question. First off it would be my son's decision not mine. This is exactly why in another question I mentioned the fact that churches teachings/dogma are the problem not the bible! God did not force Jesus to die he chose to. That was the whole point of him being tempted by the devil. It would not be for me to choose only to accept his choice as a mother and support him as it would be any mother's position to do.
It's cool, he's not even really "dead" so his "dying" isn't even an issue yo like don't think so grim and whatnot when it's just dandy that he died once and came right back! Heck if this is the case I'd kill him on purpose for stealing my pretzel snacks.
Christian doctrine on human nature and salvation has holes; if humans are inherently sinful and Jesus suffered on the cross to redeem humankind, then all one must do is accept that Christ died for our sins? It can't be that easy. If you do something heinous and you say, "I accept that Jesus died for my sin", does that mean you are automatically forgiven?
Nobody in their right mind would send their son to torture and die. I am trying to see if christians feel that God sending Jesus to die for humanity's inherent sins is valid, especially from a all knowing all powerful being (how much ever sense that makes). Anyway, nobody needs to suffer and die for another's 'sins'/wrongdoings.
If I was all knowing and all powerful I would just forgive them and make sure they do not mess up again. Or I would have made sure they didn't mess up in the first place. The Greek philosopher Epicurus explains this issue quite well. You should look him up.
Jesus Christ died because God wanted to show what happens when people act as a collective against an individual, to illustrate how evil that really is. How some people misinterpret it is that they think that Jesus SHOULD have died for everyone's sins. He should NOT have, and God was trying to tell humanity this through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That was a long time ago, though. And obviously, human beings have not listened to God because there is still war, which is caused solely by collectivism (I am fighting for my RELIGION/COUNTRY/GROUP OF SOME KIND).
I wouldn't send my son to die to forgive all humans for their wrongdoings simply because he is incapable to die for all the sins in this world.
But God shows that he is willing to send his son to die for our sins, and that he is capable of doing it
I am not my son. I cannot force him to do anything he does not want to do or hold him back from doing something he does want to do. If he is under the age of eighteen I would say no for him, but if he is eighteen or older I would encourage him not to die to forgive all humans of their wrongdoings, but if he really wanted to I could not hold him back. People should be held accountable for their own actions anyway. Why should one person shoulder the burden of the sins of billions of people on his shoulder? What qualifies as a wrongdoing? If the person committing the wrongdoing believes it to be wrong or if other people no committing the wrongdoing believe it to be wrong?