Religion
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I anticipate we will be seeing more from them in the near future.
Is it ok if I post some things like they have from an atheist hating site?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Atheism should not be exempt from mockery, in my opinion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)find particularly fun.
rug
(82,333 posts)Jesus did not have to be crucified.
that's good to know.
More explanation found below.
Still do not agree.
rug
(82,333 posts)The Catholic synopsis is in the catechism.
609 By embracing in his human heart the Father's love for men, Jesus "loved them to the end", for "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."425 In suffering and death his humanity became the free and perfect instrument of his divine love which desires the salvation of men.426 Indeed, out of love for his Father and for men, whom the Father wants to stve, Jesus freely accepted his Passion and death: "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."427 Hence the sovereign freedom of God's Son as he went out to his death.428
These are the footnotes.
425 Jn 13:1; 15:13.
426 Cf. Heb 2:10,17-18; 4:15; 5: 7-9.
427 Jn 10:18.
428 Cf. Jn 18:4-6; Mt 26:53.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)but are you saying that no Christian or sect of Christianity believes that he was ordained to die on the cross.
Because I could Google a hundred sites that claim just that.
rug
(82,333 posts)The premise of this cartoon is wrong.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)that is part of YOUR theology.
Many, many Christians believe that his suffering was necessary. And Predestined.
Dawkins is making a statement about what millions of Christians believe.
Just because you don't hold that particular belief doesn't make the cartoon wrong.
It is only wrong in regards to your own personal beliefs.
I am sure you do not say you are speaking for ALL Christians.
rug
(82,333 posts)edhopper
(33,587 posts)God can do anything he wants, he choose to have his son suffer for our sins.
And to many Christians, that needed to happen for redemption.
What part of that do you find difficult to grasp?
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/churchandministry/evangelism/gowen-dennis_jesus_suffer.aspx
rug
(82,333 posts)"The idea that God could only forgive our sins by having his son tortured to death"
His premise is false.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)that is the point.
The headline is basically saying he did have a choice and the idea that that was the only way is unpleasant. It's a stylistic way of saying it.
Your hatred for Dawkins has encumbered your reading comprehension.
rug
(82,333 posts)He didn't.
The premise is false.
The difficulty in comprehending what he actually (as opposed to basically) wrote is not mine.
The choice he did make is a far more interesting, yet less titillating, question.
But it's not the question Dawkins asked. Instead, he repeatedly demonstrates that he has no genuine interest in honest discussion.
Your reflexive defense of his dishonest pandering has clouded your reasoning ability.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)You obviously need your misreading of this to be correct.
So you win, the way you view Jesus' suffering, Catholicism and all of Christianity and atheism is completely correct.
Hope you feel better now.
I'm done.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
Blue Owl
(50,407 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)...why did God have to kill his son? Why not give a boil on our asses for our sins instead. My reaction is always 
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)See post #4.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)redeeming act, but there are different views as to whether he had to be crucified.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)A little kabuki theater for the mortals?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)pokerfan
(27,677 posts)and then rise from the dead three days later?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Where's the sacrifice?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I corrected my post to say he predicted it three times.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)They really suffered, too, and after they died, they stayed dead. Millions upon millions of people have been tortured to death in various hideous ways. They all suffered horribly, and none of them came back afterward. Furthermore, according to many Christians (not all, I understand), lots of those people who were tortured to death here on earth went to hell, to be tortured for eternity.
I understand the thinking of the other poster. When you know ahead of time that you'll be coming back to life after a few days, and will be able to visit with your friends for awhile, and then will then be brought to heaven to live forever, being crucified to death isn't really all that much of a sacrifice.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)in the end. I don't believe in hell.
okasha
(11,573 posts)just how horrible a death crucifixion was. "My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?" is not the cry of a man shrugging off his physical and psychological pain on the assumption that he "will be brought to heaven to live forever." It's a cry of despair from a deeply human core of experience.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)That might be true if Jesus was the only person ever crucified in history. But that's not the case. A lot of people have been crucified, exactly the same way he was. Every single one of those others experienced an equally horrible death. Making out like Jesus's suffering on the cross was somehow unique discounts and minimizes the suffering that all those other people experienced. The only thing that was unique and special about Jesus's death is that it was temporary.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Here's what I don't agree with:
being crucified to death isn't really all that much of a sacrifice.
Whether his death was temporary or not is a matter of faith. What is not a matter of faith, in my opinion, is that Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion was quite as horrible as the executions of the thousands of other resisters put to death in the same manner by the Roman occupation authority.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Every other person crucified not only went through the physical ordeal, but also a brutal mental one: "What will happen to me when I die?"
Jesus, in the story, knew full well what would happen to him when he died, and that the eventual outcome would be overwhelmingly good.
No other crucifixion victim had the benefit of that knowledge.
(We could also look at how long it took the average victim to die vs. how long it reportedly took Jesus. In that regard, many if not most other victims suffered much longer than he did.)
struggle4progress
(118,294 posts)innocent of any recognizable crime, in concession to demands from the local theocrats
One can understand this in various ways, but I'm inclined to see the matter as an entirely amoral attempt by the occupiers to keep collaborators happy
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The sins of humanity (going back to the Fall) washed away by the sacrifice of Jesus.
struggle4progress
(118,294 posts)but I will not feel obliged to agree with your views
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You are free to reject it, of course, and believe in your own religion.
struggle4progress
(118,294 posts)of Christians" and hence wonder whether you are really as qualified to present their views as you seem to feel you are
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Most Christians believe that Jesus died in order to forgive humanity's sins.
You of course are free to reject that. I certainly do.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)These discussions on belief are astoundingly dishonest.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Clearly there are different schools of thought within Christianity. What's the point of acting like there aren't?
If we first recognize that fact then we can have a more thoughtful conversation about what the majority position is. In doing that we should also recognize there can be a difference between the official position of a church and that of its members.
That said, I would think that the official position of the dominant churches is that Jesus had to die to wash away our sins. I'm not so sure whether a majority of the members of those churches would say the same. But they do choose to be members of churches for which that is a foundational belief, so there is that.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Are you and s4p actually suggesting that a majority of Christians might *not* believe that Jesus died for their sins?
eomer
(3,845 posts)I do think most Christians believe that.
What I'm saying is I wish we were all better at expressing what we mean. It would be helpful if we had better words to use. That Christian could possibly mean someone who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ or that Christ's dying washed away the sins is just asking for miscommunication. If we had a different word for people who advocate teachings of Jesus without believing those things then we would get back a lot of time that we waste talking past each other.
We also might have a better idea how many people were in each school if there were more definite terms for them. But my guess is that people who don't believe those core tenets are a minority among "Christians".
Someone here recently used the terms "worshipers" and "followers", which is a slightly different distinction but would probably mostly line up with the one we're discussing, which maybe could be called "believers" and "followers".
trotsky
(49,533 posts)He took issue with me suggesting most Christians believe Jesus died for their sins.
I agree that individual Christians can believe just about anything - but we can certainly make a few statements that large majorities of those who consider themselves Christians would agree with. The redemptive sacrifice of Jesus is a rather key element of the religion and safe to say, held by most.
rug
(82,333 posts)There are two points:
1) Jesus had to die to wash away sins. (Your point.)
2) Jesus died for our sins. (Trotsky's point.)
They're two different things.
Posting point 2 as a response to point 1 is indeed talking past each other.
eomer
(3,845 posts)What I meant by "had to" was that if he hadn't done so (died) then they wouldn't have been (washed away). Not that it was the only way.
And to be clear, not saying that I believe that (I don't) but rather that most Christians do.
rug
(82,333 posts)See, humanity needed it but God in no way was forced to. It raises a whole range of other questions than this meme simply tries to laugh away. That's why it's both inaccurate and dishonest.
eomer
(3,845 posts)That's the real point that Dawkins is getting at. You're missing the wheat for the chaff.
rug
(82,333 posts)If God had to kill his son, then his power is limited. Therefore he is not a god.
If he had another choice but chose this, he's evil.
There are of course other conclusions, if the death was voluntary, but that's not what he's interested in discussing.
eomer
(3,845 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)God exists outside of time. A more precise statement is that it was his will. A will that was accepted.
eomer
(3,845 posts)then he didn't need to torture and sacrifice his son. And so he finds the whole doctrine disgusting. He's not trying to catch out somebody on one of the fine-grained details of it, he is repulsed by the whole thing.
I transcribed a good bit of the exchange that that quote comes from so everyone can get a better idea of what Dawkins was saying:
Conder: First of all, the very first prophecy is in Genesis and there are many other, the whole foundation if you like or the basis for our faith, is, the accounts of Abraham, are in there and…
Dawkins: Abraham? Abraham, the one who nearly killed his son? Not a very edifying moral story is it?
Conder: It prefigures, really, what the Lord did, offered his son.
Dawkins: It does, doesn’t it?
Conder: It does.
Dawkins: Yes, they’re both just as ugly as each other, both of the stories.
Conder: Well, if you at it initially like that on a first glance, yes, you might come up with that conclusion. But for me, Richard, when you look at the whole Bible and you look at particularly the life of Christ, he had such compassion, he healed the sick, he raised the dead, he wept with those that wept, who were mourning. And Jesus, the character of Jesus, is not at all like I believe that you believe him to be and he is a direct representation of God.
Dawkins: Jesus seems to me to have been rather a good man. The story that he gave his life for our sins is a story that was made up later and it’s a very unpleasant story indeed. I mean the idea of the scapegoat, the idea…
Conder: Well, Genesis, let me start you there, Genesis Chapter 3 Verse 15, I believe, is actually, talks about that there would be a Messiah that would actually be bruised in the heel, you know, almost put to death, but raised, if you look at that, Bible scholars do again say that that is the very first prophecy in the Bible alluding to Christ…
Dawkins: Time and again you come back to a biblical quotation as though I’m supposed to be impressed, I mean, why would you expect me to be…
Conder: No, I’m not trying to impress you, Richard, I’m just trying to give you, I’m happy for you to have your belief in evolution and long term, you know, sort of understanding of how we evolved… I would just ask you, um, I’m not going to be rude to you, I’m asking you to consider my position so that you can see where the differences are and perhaps open for discussion not just on this issue.
Dawkins: Yes, I consider your position. Your position comes from reading the Bible and I’ve tried to suggest to you that there’s no particular reason why you should read the Bible rather than any other holy book which you could get from anywhere around the world. Now we started to talk about Jesus and Jesus’ self sacrifice, which you pointed out mirrors that of the sacrifice of Abraham’s son. Now, the idea that God could only forgive our sins by having his son tortured to death as a scapegoat is surely from an objective point of view a deeply unpleasant idea. If God wanted to forgive us our sins, why didn’t he just forgive them? Why did he have to torture, have his son tortured?
Conder: That’s a very good question.
Dawkins: Well, what’s your answer?
Conder: Genesis.
Dawkins: How does Genesis answer that question?
Conder: Because Adam was made perfect and what happened through his disobedience, if you like, a simple test, a he lost that perfection for us, for us all as a human race, according to scripture. And the need for a Messiah, or another perfect being of the same degree of perfection could only be the proper ransom for our redemption.
Dawkins: God was in a position to accept any ransom he chose, why on earth would he have his son tortured for the sin of somebody who lived, how long before? Four thousand years before, if you believe that Adam did? Because Adam scrumped an apple, why would that sin reverberate down the ages and have to be redeemed by the torturing of God’s own son? Why didn’t God say, “I forgive you, I forgive you, it’s in my power to forgive you”? But no, what he said was. “my son has to be tortured to death, just like Abraham”.
Conder: I don’t think that was the way it was, certainly not the way I read it but I see it that God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son as a ransom…
Dawkins: Well, you’re quoting scripture again but why wouldn’t God just forgive us if that’s what he wanted to do?
Conder: He could have done it that way but he chose, being the God that he is, allowing for us to have free will, and it wasn’t just scrumping an apple, there was more to it than that – Adam was plainly disobedient and I think he even admits it himself from the fact that he hid from God that particular evening because there was a fellowship between man and God every day, so…
Dawkins: Adam was disobedient and that sin reverberated down the ages, is inherited by all humans, what kind of a doctrine is that? Inherited by all humans and had to be redeemed by the son of God being tortured to death – what kind of a morality are you propagating there?
Conder: That’s a very good question. Paul puts it very well in Romans Chapter 5…
Dawkins: Well, Paul invented it so he would.
Conder: No, because Paul was in the era at the time of Christ and we’re talking four thousand years before that. Paul said that just through one man’s disobedience, Adam, death came to all mankind because all have sinned, you know, it’s, that’s why we needed another perfect life and Paul talks about it very clearly much better than I do that the ransom price had to be a perfect life. And that’s another reason why he was born of a virgin and had no earthly father, because his bloodline… But, you know, we could argue all day about these things and I haven’t even got to some of the emails, but
Dawkins: Let’s go on then
Conder: … but I, please Richard, you know, see my heart, not my intellect because my heart is for mankind as well…
Dawkins: Oh, I can see that.
Conder: …and we both care for the future and, but you know I just wondered, and I mean this with all sincerity, is that, is there something in particular that really you can’t stand about God?
Dawkins: About…
Conder: God.
Dawkins: I don’t think God exists so that obviously that won’t apply. There’s something I can’t stand about Christianity, which is just what I’ve been saying about this really obnoxious doctrine of original sin, which I think is actually hideous, demeaning, and is, it’s a vengeful doctrine, it’s the idea that one can be absolved, that a sin by somebody else has to be paid for by a different person, which is a horrible idea. It’s everything about it is an obnoxious doctrine.
Conder: Again, I can see where you’re coming from and I mean that with all sincerity but let’s take the case, say, of a thief that’s gone before the courts and he’s guilty even though he might have said he wasn’t guilty, you know, it’s proven he is without doubt and he’s sentenced, and quite rightly so. The judge, because he’s a good judge, he says alright, you’re guilty but I’m going to pay your fine or you can go to prison for it. In a way, a simple way, that’s the way I see how God set up for his son to be the ultimate sacrifice, so I can’t think of….
Dawkins: Well, that would be persuasive if the judge said, “you’re forgiven”, that would be great, that would be the kind of thing one could empathize with. But that’s not what he said. He said, “okay we’re going to hang somebody else for your crime”…
Conder: No, the judge said, “I’ll give you my son”. Now wouldn’t that be incredible?
Dawkins: Uh, I think it would be disgusting. I mean, I think it’s a horrible idea that somehow, given that the judge has, is all powerful, given that the judge has the power to forgive if he wants to, that the only way he could do it is to sacrifice his son…. I mean, what an incredibly unpleasant way to do it when, given that you’ve got the power to forgive, you’re all powerful.
Conder: I see it differently, that he loved his son so much that he was willing to do that and having just gone through a terrible week with the tragic death in our family, sudden death of a young boy, we would have, you can see how much God must have gone through to see his son go through that painful sacrifice…
Dawkins: That makes it even worse, I mean, it makes it even worse, given that he could have simply forgiven, well have forgiven us…
Conder: Well, we don’t know. For example, there could have been a conversation between the son and the father, in heaven, before coming down, and maybe in that sense Jesus said, “look, I will do it”. And there could have been… it’s a hypothesis…
Dawkins: But that presupposes that it was necessary for somebody to do it. Why not just say, “okay…”
Conder: It had to be somebody perfect…
Dawkins: But why would it have to be somebody sacrificed at all?
Conder: A life for a life…
Dawkins: A life for a life, exactly, what kind of a morality is that?
Concer: Well, I personally believe that that helps us to live a good life and respect for each other that I would stop if I was angry at someone from taking their life and letting it go further, but to forgive.
Dawkins: Well, I would forgive as well but we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about a life for a life, which is very different. But you had some other questions, didn’t you?
Conder: Yes, I did indeed…
Transcribed from video in the following link, about 46:00 to 55:00
http://www.jeremystyron.com/tag/son-of-god/
rug
(82,333 posts)Much more productive than posting cartoons.
\
rug
(82,333 posts)It holds that redemption is necessary. It doesn't hold that Jesus had no choice but to be crucified.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)and went on to live and teach, how do the tenets of Christianity change.
If Jesus doesn't "die for our sins" does Christianity exist?
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't know.
okasha
(11,573 posts)But "Christianity" becomes what it was originally, a branch of Judaism.
MissMarple
(9,656 posts)You either get the religious experience or you don't. Some people do, some people use it for personal advantage. There are many who fall in various other places. So, either figure out what the Jesus experience is or not, people will still keep seeking the divine, the why of it all. It seems to a part of the human make up. It also seems to keep us working in groups for good or ill.
This puts me in mind of John Donne:
"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
dimbear
(6,271 posts)That's why McDonalds accepts coupons from Burger King.
The history of this particular approach is extensive, BTW. Osiris is a good place to start.
okasha
(11,573 posts)of Geb torturing Osiris, or Osiris torturing Horus, if that's what you're getting at. Cite?
dimbear
(6,271 posts)came and went in that part of the world. Fraser went to town on the topic in "The Golden Bough" which I'm sure is over there on the third shelf down.
Some of them have wonderfully evocative names, but many of them are different names for the same god or goddess. The fact that they needed to die and then sometimes come back to life, often enough after three days, seems to indicate something rather contrary about the human imagination. Of course they aren't being actually tortured by other gods, they're all imaginary--but the minds that require this stuff are real.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)The whole thing is complete hogwash. The Bible absolutely fails every logical reasoning test.
