Did Jesus REALLY sacrifice anything?

[cleanhippie]

From a blog I am reading. Interesting, as I really had not looked at it like this before. A new tool for my toolbox.


-----------------------

“The gift (of the relationship/eternal life) is free — but it cost Jesus everything.” OK, I hate to take what feels like a low blow, but, no, not really. It didn’t cost Jesus anything more than a few pints of blood and 36 hours or so. Think about it: If the crucufuxion and resurrection were true, and really happened as the Bible says, here is what must also be true:

* Jesus is God incarnate. At the very least, he’s of divine origin and nature.
* He knew exactly what was planned for him as shown by his “take this cup from me” prayer to…himself(?) (Not to mention all his prophesies.)
* He knew he was going to be resurrected and return to the right hand of God.
* He was resurrected in body, stayed around on Earth for a time making visits and talking to disciples.
* He did arise, as he knew he would be, back to Heaven.

This all means Jesus didn’t sacrifice a gosh-darn thing. He got his life and body back after a day or so. What was sacrificed? Really? He got to continue his preaching for a bit, start his religion, and pop on up to dad/self in perfect heaven. Seriously, what got sacrificed? What price was paid? What was given up?

For there to be a cost, a price, a sacrifice, something important has to be given up, for good, with no anticipation or belief in getting it back. This did not happen in regards to Jesus. He didn’t give anything up for more than a day and a half, and he knew he was going to get it back, he did, and he got more in return, which he knew was going to happen — and even planned for it.

Not only does the concept of “original sin,” the fall of Adam/man, make no sense and embodies a barbaric and psychopathic concept of blame and cruelty, but the atonement theory is entirely devoid of meaning and substance. The very foundation of Christianity, its raison d’etre, is empty and false and pointless. There is absolutely no purpose, need, basis for the very foundation for Christianity at its core. Christianity is a phantasm on top of a fantasy, surrounded by a house of cards.


http://www.celticbear.com/weblog/2010/09/27/how-can-we-have-faith-how-do-we-debate-ideas/

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Only his future.

Like any other political activist, he had a choice of knowingly challenging the government imposing its will on him and others and accepting the consequences or to stay silent.

He only offered his prospective years and what he might have accomplished or accepted obscurity. Who will ever know?

[BurtWorm]

9. So you believe the parts of the Jesus story that seem to reflect his human nature

and reject the parts having to do with the divine aspect of him?

What if someone today made this kind of sacrifice--allowed him or herself to be executed by the authorities--because he or she believed this would absolve future people of their sins if they believe he is their savior?

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Seems to me, if that person really could absolve everyones' sins,

i.e., was a god, then there was no sacrifice - just a little temporary inconvenience. If that person couldn't, then he was simply delusional.

So, if it really WAS a sacrifice, that proves he was NOT god.

[DirkGently]

26. Put your finger on the contradiction right there. Only a mortal can "sacrifice" his life.

[AlecBGreen]

47. I disagree

In fact I think its just the opposite. According to my belief, Jesus was God in the flesh. Thus, no one could TAKE his life by force; he could only give it up willingly.

[cleanhippie]

59. But he didn't "give up his life" at all

He is allegedly alive and well, answering prayers, performing miracles, talking to people, etc.

[DirkGently]

63. Understood. But where is the sacrifice for an immortal? And to what purpose?

"Died for our sins to be forgiven" doesn't really track. Not a real death, for a god, and not a real sacrifice, if Jesus and Yaweh are the same and are immortal. And not required for forgiveness, if God is just and all-powerful.

[no_hypocrisy]

33. The divinity aspect is an imponderable and it can neither be proven true nor false.

[AlecBGreen]

48. maybe its just semantics

but we can certainly ponder the mystery, but I also believe it is unknowable. That is to say, we can think on it all day long but we will never KNOW the whole truth.

I agree it cannot be proven true or false (at least in this life) but that is true of everything. Without getting into a huge ruckus about "what is truth?" I believe, as a scientist, that data can only support or not support a hypothesis; it can never "prove" anything.

[hendo]

136. DING DING DING!!!

The fact that we can never "prove" anything as false has been accepted since Popper. The fact that we cannot prove something as true has been accepted since Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos.

Yet all of these self-proclaimed intellectuals try to force their "proof" that God doesn't exist down our throats using tactics that are similar to those of the fundies.

Bah, I say! It is fine with me if you choose to not believe in my personal understanding of God. Don't try to tell me that I am wrong and I won't harass you about your beliefs.

And FYI, I have a lot of respect for Buddhism and believe that Buddha has a nice place in heaven.

edit: the Buddha statement was meant for another thread. The rest stands here though.

[darkstar3]

137. Intellectuals don's spend a lot of time trying to prove God doesn't exist,

or at least, they shouldn't.

The simple fact is that negatives cannot be logically proven, and no one should waste their time trying. Negative claims make no logical sense, but positive claims do and they very well can be tested. Here's an example.

Hypothetical: You have been accused of beating your wife.
Possible evidence that would definitively prove the positive (you did it): Physical damage, multiple corroborated testimonies, video/audio surveillance, etc.
Possible evidence that would definitively prove the negative (you didn't do it): ... ?

The lack of evidence proves neither side of the case, and if your wife testifies that you did not in fact beat her, well, she might just be lying out of fear.

This is exactly why certain types of smear campaigns work so well for politicians. All they have to do is say the words "hendo" and "drugs" enough times in the same sentence and no one will ever vote for you, because you can't prove you DIDN'T do drugs.

Now, if people would learn to be skeptical, and stop swallowing baseless claims hook, line, and sinker, maybe we wouldn't have that problem.

[hendo]

138. However, there are multiple ways to falsely

convict someone of doing something. All it takes is a setup.

There are numerous explanations for all of your evidence, that does not necessarily prove guilt. Nothing can be proven true, all we can do is show that something is more likely to be true than not. However, there will always be an exception, thus having the possibility of making something appear false at least momentarily.

Life is a game of probabilities, not absolute truths.

[darkstar3]

139. Lemme get this straight.

"Nothing can be proven true"

You're saying that video footage of you beating your wife wouldn't PROVE that you'd beaten your wife? I think that claim is laughable.

Rejecting the idea of proof does not legitimize God, it simply rejects many scientific and logical processes.

It seems we both agree that it is impossible to prove a negative. You are simply going a further step and attempting to claim that it is ALSO impossible to prove positive claims. That POV would completely invalidate our legal system, which requires in many federal cases that proof be shown "beyond a reasonable doubt." Computer algorithms, many mathematical proofs, and many scientific advances all go out the window if we throw out the idea of proof.

Much of life is a game of probabilities. Much of our advancement has been thanks to finding provable truths.

Example?
Truth: The earth is a rotating oblong spheroid hurtling through space in a fashion that can be modeled mathematically and predicted.
Result: This knowledge and associated discoveries gave us satellites.

Are you telling me we can't prove this truth? Will you become yet another solipsist in denial?

[skepticscott]

140. You don't have to "prove"

that Santa Claus doesn't exist in order to be quite certain that he doesn't, now do you?

Neither do you have to "prove" that god doesn't exist in order to show that the reasons for believing that he does hold no water, and are entirely based on faith, and not rationality.

And when have you had "proof" that god doesn't exist forced down your throat? What tactics like those that right wing fundy wackos used were employed?

[roguevalley]

34. agreed. I don't buy the pauline claptrap about being god incarnate

and the rest.

[AlecBGreen]

49. thats not Pauline, thats straight from his lips.

John 10:30 "The Father and I are one."

This was such a central tenet that the author of John codified it in his very first sentence: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

They are of one being, yet not the same. This is the mystery of the trinity. I like the way Hebrews puts it: "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being..."

[roguevalley]

53. given that paul won and the only thing we have is his version

of Jesus, someone whose reality he said didn't matter, only the Christ he created, those words are not his. He spent a couple of weeks with the family and friends and then spent the rest of his life creating his version of Jesus and fighting with the family and everyone who actually knew and heard Jesus.

[AlecBGreen]

57. Paul was and is a large influence on the religion of Christianity

I wont go into his motives because its pure speculation on my part. What I can say is that the 4 gospels were not chosen by him; they were adopted as the "only" gospels long after Paul.

Im sure Pauls interpretation was taken under consideration when deciding what should and what shouldnt be accepted, but he didnt have any direct involvement in deciding whether John should be included or not.

[aquart]

71. Well, Paul didn't invent that.

And he probably had only a little to do with it. When Elvis died on the toilet, people kept seeing him by the side of the road or buying soda in the supermarket. The Elvis wedding chapel is only half a joke, the pilgrimages to Graceland only partly celebrity curiosity. There is a real impulse toward deification. When Princess Diana died, she was given the honors of a goddess, not a divorced princess. The annual mourning for John Lennon at Strawberry Fields has become a tradition. In a world where information can't speedily remind you of their mere mortality, these people would be already known to have performed miracles and their body parts would be revered in temples.

[phleshdef]

2. Oh, I dunno. I guess he could have spent the day relaxing at the mall.

[stopbush]

3. Indeed.

That brings up another question: was there any chance in hell (pun intended) that Jesus would not be victorious over the powers of hell when he descended to the nether world after his death? I don't think so. It's a little like the Baltimore Colts taking on a Pop Warner football team. The outcome is preordained.

[trotsky]

4. This has *always* bothered me about the Jesus myth.

It bothered me in Sunday School, for crying out loud. That plus the whole "need" for sacrifice in the first place were the things that just never made sense to me, and paved the way for me to become a non-believer.

[TlalocW]

11. The thing that has always bothered me (other than this) is

The final battle between the forces of Heaven and Hell. If the Devil is a fallen angel, and God is all-powerful, then the Devil must know this so why would he bother? And why would God bother? Plus, it spells out in the Book of Revelation what's going to happen so once again, why would the Devil bother? And in Revelation, God is supposed to send angels to fight demons. Why? Say, the Devil decides, "Oh, what the hell (ha)... Let's go ahead and start the war!" and starts an attack, why wouldn't God just blink and make the whole situation go away?

I remember seeing some popular Christian rock singer at the time performing a song whose "plot" was based on Jesus and Heaven losing and at the climax of the song when the body of Jesus is viewable after the smoke clears, everyone in the audience leaped up with their arms stretched upwards, wavering back and forth or fell to their knees, weeping, and I'm like, "Dude... It's God and Jesus... They're all powerful. This isn't going to happen. Stop being doofuses."

Maybe the concept of omnipotence back then is different than what I'm thinking of. Dunno.

TlalocW

[trotsky]

15. LOL, forgot about that too. Make that three things that have bothered me.

:)

[BurtWorm]

18. God changed the definition of omnipotence in about 2004, I think.

[DirkGently]

27. Yeah. Metaphysics wasn't so meta in those days. Gods were just, like, really big, angry guys.

[roguevalley]

35. I believe in him, his guts, his grace, his wisdom. the rest is pauline

manufacture. I love Jesus, I hate the story around him because it doesn't make sense to me and I have read enough of Paul in the bible to see that he was a spiteful man who hated Jesus' family and said the man, Jesus, didn't matter, just his Christology. Paul hunted Messianic followers. He is a SOB in my book.

[trotsky]

38. The irony is that if it weren't for "Paul," you would likely have never heard of Jesus. n/t

[roguevalley]

52. possibly. but then again, because of Paul, the real man is buried

and the real man matters to me the most.

[stopbush]

62. How can you talk about "the real man" outside of what Paul wrote?

Paul created Jesus, and created him as a spiritual being, not a corporeal being. His writings precede all of the Gospels. The first Gospel written was Mark, and it's an allegorical fiction that many scholars believe was written by a follower of Paul. Ergo, Mark was influenced by the writings of Paul. The other three Gospels are all based on Mark, which means that they are all based on Paul's writings as reflected in Mark.

You may as well blame Margaret Mitchell for not showing us the "real" Scarlett O'Hara.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. If you believe in such things, his actions were required to change...

the nature of the universe. Before Jesus death and resurrection, salvation was not possible. Take the story of Jesus harrowing hell, literally going to hell and bringing back the ancient biblical saints and saving them.

Now, a cynic would say that was just a Christian myth to attempt to attract Jews by co-opting their important spiritual figures, just as Christians co-opted pagan gods into saints and holy pagan shrines into holy Christian Churches. If you accept the premise that Jesus' sacrifice was that of a deity who suffered as humans did, died as humans did, and went to hell as humans did in order to bring salvation, then the sacrifice had real meaning. Because salvation was not possible until Jesus died for peoples sins. The sacrifice provided the energy necessary to change a fundamental aspect of the universe, the way souls of the dead are handled. Heaven had no doors until Jesus made them with his sacrifice.

Though Jesus apparently knew what Jesus was doing, sacrifice was the way that Jesus felt every beings pain, by going through the same process that souls pass through.

Like Anubis, Jesus was the opener of the way, who led people to the after life. Like Tammuz, Jesus was the dieing God that died in Autumn and renewed the world with his rebirth in spring. Jesus unifies a lot of these mythic properties in a single deity.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. And like both of them, he was fictional. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

19. Mythical is not exactly the same as fictional...

I am quite happy to accept that there likely was a personage who the Jesus myth was based on. Now, rising from the dead, or bread to wine...not so much. I don't think you can distract the belief that others have that Jesus sacrificed himself by walking a mile in human shoes.

But then, I also accept that ball players who played in precolumiban Mexico for the privilege of being sacrificed to the gods, if they won, felt that their sacrifice was both real and worthy. I think each ball player was a Jesus for his people and felt that way right up to the point where they ripped open his chest and cut his heart out with an obsidian blade. As the people feasted on his flesh, just as Christians feast on the flesh of JC, they were thankful and believed themselves redeemed by the sacrifice.

Belief is powerful.

[cleanhippie]

30. Powefeul, indeed. As well as dangerous.

[arKansasJHawk]

43. Yog-Sothoth knows the gate.

Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth. He knows where the Old Ones broke through of old, and where They shall break through again. He knows where They have trod earth's fields, and where They still tread them, and why no one can behold Them as They tread.

[pgodbold]

6. Your new tool has the depth of a Pyrex measuring cup. I realize you can’t understand that.

Good luck along your chosen path.

[cleanhippie]

10. So you insult my idea, tell me I am an idiot, then leave me hanging? WTF?

Explain it to me then, great wise one. Otherwise your comments indicate you may just be a cowardly blowhard.

[trotsky]

17. WWJD?

Be a dick, apparently.

[cleanhippie]

22. Seems pretty par for the course.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. You're stark, raving mad to believe that stupid old myth

Good luck to the rest of us whose path might cross yours.

[ET Awful]

7. I never got that far in my evaluation of the story. . . My thoughts went more along the lines of . .

According to Bible:

1. God is Omnipotent and all powerful, can do anything.
2. God requires a human sacrifice of his son (or himself in the form of his son depending on which Christian sect you listen to)in order to earn his forgiveness.
3. If God was omnipotent and all powerful, why is a catalyst or middleman required in order for him to forgive sin?
4. One can only conclude that either (a) God is not omnipotent and there are limitations to his power requiring human sacrifice to enhance his power enough to grant forgiveness to mankind; or (b)God IS omnipotent, he's just a malicious, vindictive, masochistic kind of guy.

[gmoney]

8. the crucifixion was a necessary career move

One could argue that a lot of historical figures and/or celebrities owe the magnitude of their legacies in large part to an untimely death.

Without the crucifixion story, would Jesus be "remembered" today, especially in the "western world" -- we seem to need conflict and death for people to really register with us.

Reminds me of someone's line (paraphrased) -- "if Orson Welles had been hit by a truck the day after he finished Citizen Kane, he'd be considered the greatest filmmaker of all time."

[immoderate]

127. So dying helped Jesus' career. It didn't do much for us.

If no one had ever made up Jesus, or heard of him, the world would be no worse off. And who knows, we might have avoided the Dark Ages. :shrug:

--imm

[StandingInLeftField]

12. I'd like to paraphrase something I've read alot on DU.

"Just shut up, and pray! It's the lesser of two evils."

[texastoast]

14. The Levite priests and Constantine made it all clear about the Christian religion for me

Once I learned about them, a whole lot of my questions were answered about why Christianity the religion is so very fucked up and so distant from my readings of Jesus' words in ALL the gospels.

[aquart]

20. Been saying that for years.

He gave a three-day weekend???? That was his contribution? His suffering? We have people who have tortured in prisons for months, YEARS and then murdered. We don't worship them.

Because none of them got up and walked away. So it ain't the suffering we adore, it's the survival. This is the guy who walked out of the tomb.

What I don't understand is why anyone thinks that the rules for gods apply to man. Or that if we do what his followers say we should do (Because, frankly, we're a little slim on verifiable quotes) eternal life will be ours.

[Mariana]

37. Not only are many people tortured for month or years

and then murdered, but according to Christianity, lots of them subsequently go to hell to be tortured forever.

Like I said below, I'd be much more impressed if the story had Jesus going to hell to burn for eternity in our place.

[unblock]

23. i wanna know about the whole eternal damnation thing

if christianity is all about atonement and forgiveness, why is it that if i don't atone during my human life i go to hell *forever*?

i mean, what if, after taking it hard for the first 1,000 years or so, i finally "get it" and accept jesus into my heart. but apparently it's too late, i'm in hell for all eternity.

why would forgiveness be limited to the time before i shuffle off this mortal coil?

[cleanhippie]

31. Hmmm, thats an interesting take as well.

Lets discuss this more. I like it.


I do not believe because I have not seen any evidence that would support any belief in a god, especially the christian one. If that god is all knowing and powerful, it knows what evidence I would require to believe, right. So if I died and was sent to hell, I would then have my evidence and become a believer in that god, so why am I being punished for something that god refused to provide me with even though it knew what I needed?

[Kablooie]

41. The answer is always, "God works in mysterious ways." So there!

[unblock]

42. i think the whole mythology thing makes a whole lot more sense if you presume god DOESN'T love you

rather than saying he loves you, then backtrack with "but the lord moves in mysterious ways" to explain his apparent indifference or worse to your suffering.

if you presume god is callous, egotistical, arrogant, and more than a little sadistic, the way they presumed many gods to be back in the days of polytheism, it makes a whole lot more sense. or at least, it's more consistent with the evidence you do see.

[Pendrench]

44. Hi Cleanhippie...you ask a very interesting question...here's my take on it...

Personally, I don't think that God would condemn any unbeliever to hell. From what I can tell, most atheist come by their take on the existence (or non-existence) of God honestly...they have not seen empirical evidence for God's existence, so they do not believe in God.

And if God is all powerful, all knowing (and) all loving, He would understand this point of view and not condemn those that do not believe in Him because of a lack of evidence. In fact, I think that God treats believers and non-believers based on how we live here on earth...by how we treat the "least of our brothers":

"When I was hungry you gave me food, when I was thirsty you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me."

In this parable, both those who did take care of the needs of other and those who did not, asked the same question: Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, alone, naked, ill or in prison?

It would seem to me that this would imply that those who did NOT take care of these needs of others would have done so if they knew they were doing these things for God - in other words, they wanted to either a) be rewarded for their actions or b) avoid punishment...so they were self centered. Those that did take care of the needs of others did os without thought of reward for their deeds (or avoidance of punishment) - they did it out of compassion and caring.

And so if there is a God, I think He will be fair in his judgment - and reward us accordingly.

But these are just my thoughts...I appreciate you bringing this up for discussion!

Tim

[Kablooie]

40. And what are the criteria for going to heaven vs hell?

God is not clear on this at all. Every version of Christianity has it's own interpretation. Which one do you follow to keep from going to hell?

And what is the tipping point? Heaven/Hell is a black white choice but life is an infinite wash of grays. Which shade of gray is the dividing line between heaven and hell?

And of course in some versions of Christianity you simply follow a few simple rules at the very end of your life like saying you accept Jesus as your savior and you will be forgiven all your sins and go to heaven. You have leave to be as evil as you want during the rest of your life and still avoid hell.

It is the screwiest moral system that has ever been devised.

[AlecBGreen]

50. criteria? it depends on who you listen to

Here is what Paul had to say: ""If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." -Romans 10 : 9

So does that mean then that we "have leave to be as evil as want during the rest of life and still avoid hell"? Another person's salvation is not for me to decide, but Jesus said "Why do you call me, `Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" He had a low opinion of hypocrites.

edit - Romans 10 : 9 turned into Romans 10:9 hehehe

[DirkGently]

24. The sacrifice of Jesus does seem like an odd construct. Can't help

thinking that, as an evolution (or offshoot) of the Hebrew religion, it represents a transformation of the previous animal sacrifice traditions into the idea of a human being sacrificing for the common good. Thus all of the "blood of the lamb," nomenclature in the Bible. It's a new notion of "sacrifice" -- not of animals or wealth, but of self. I could find a way to read that as a worthwhile metaphor about social responsibility, and as an inspiring story of simple human bravery and integrity, but at the mystical, religious level, "Died so your sins could be forgiven" is hard to compute, due to the contradictions pointed out in your post.

I am much more moved by the idea that Jesus may have been a man who preached peace and love, and was brutally executed for that. For one, a human being facing persecution and death for the sake of ethical principles, particularly ones as strong as empathy and non-violence, means something, even today. For another, I can easily imagine that exact thing happening. Who wouldn't be tortured to death for preaching empathy and peace? Try that "Love your neighbor / turn the other cheek" stuff at most political rallies, or, say, a Little League game these days, and they'd string you up before you could finish your sentence.

But a god posing as a human and pretending to die, then leaving for 2,000 years with a promise to return and reward people who believe the story with eternal life is a bit of a head-scratcher. This is where I tend to conclude history got bent to conform to religious thinking, rather than the other way 'round.

[K8-EEE]

25. IMO "GOD'S" sacrifice is bogus

He "gave his only begotten son" first of all he's GOD he can have 100 of them tomorrow if he wants -- secondly he's the one making the insane rule that somebody has to be tortured and murded to "save" the rest of us, who haven't even been born yet, for sins we haven't committed but surely will. It's all so nutty to me.

[jgraz]

28. Thinking makes the Baby Jesus cry.

Stop it! Stop it right now!!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

135. ...

[DeSwiss]

29. K&R

[jimlup]

32. As Richard Dawkins is fond of saying

Christian theology is "barking mad".

[Mariana]

36. I was told (in Sunday School) that Jesus "took the punishment

for our sins" when he was crucified. He "died in our place". Which is absolute bullshit, of course. He'd have gone to hell to burn for eternity if that were true. Now THAT would be a sacrifice worthy of the name, and it would make a lot more sense if the story went that way.

[cleanhippie]

45. Exactly. The "sacrifice" was really anything but...

[dimbear]

39. This kind of thinking, being reasonable and all, isn't new.

There was an ancient heresy, which means a dissenting view, which incorporated this sort of idea. Docetism. There were others also.

The idea that all that suffering didn't amount to much wasn't accepted by the proto-Catholic church, so the Docetic gospels went to the fire.

Enough remains to piece it together pretty well.

[rug]

46. How long can you take a nail through your wrist?

[cleanhippie]

55. Depends on how much damage it does.

But what we humans can take is irrelevant. Whats your point?

[rug]

56. Your theology is off.

Orthodox Christian theology holds Jesus was fully man as well as fully divine.

A flip characterization of a crucifixion - of any human - as no big deal kind of makes whatever follows irrelevant.

[cleanhippie]

58. You seem to missing the whole point of the sacrifice then.

If he was as human as you and I are (I disagree with that, since humans can't perform miracles and such as he did, therefore he couldn't be human like you and I) then he should have died and stayed dead and then burned in hell for eternity for his sins. THATS a sacrifice. He did not do that, he suffered for about a day and a half, then it was over, with nothing more. How is that a sacrifice when children are born everyday with painful, debilitating problems that last YEARS before they die, causing immense amounts of suffering?

My point is (as is the point of the author that I got my OP from) that the "sacrifice" really was not much of a sacrifice, especially compared to the real sacrifices that people have made throughout history.

[trotsky]

64. You are absolutely correct.

Millions of people suffer much worse, for far longer than this Jesus fellow supposedly did. And he knew all along everything would work out just fine in the end. I have personally known dozens of people who have sacrificed more than Jesus. I don't worship them, but I sure do admire them - far more than a temper-tantrum-throwing Jewish carpenter in the first century CE.

[charlie]

65. Yup. Jesus' torment is exceeded every day on God's earth

I know it's all fired important that His "sacrifice" be horrific beyond compare, but it just ain't so. Not even close.

[rug]

66. If you're really interested in the meaning of this sacrifice, read about the hypostatic union.

You're entitled to judge the only proper sacrifice is eternity in hell, but that's simply an opinion uniformed by the theology of hell, choice and redemption.

The suffering of people is a topic entirely distinct from sacrifice for sins, unless of course you hold the bizarre notion that their suffering is the result of their sin.

Again, anyone's suffering, regardless of the intenisity or duration of it, is nothing to be glib about.

[trotsky]

68. I dunno, I think the folks who are "glib" about suffering...

are the ones who insist what this Jesus character went through is more significant than what countless individuals have to endure here on Earth every day. That's pretty fucking glib.

[rug]

69. I'd love to read anyone saying Jesus' suffering was greater. Post it.

[trotsky]

72. You did. Above.

The crucifiction of Jesus was supposedly greater because he was simultaneously human and divine.

In fact, it's critical to dogmatic faiths such as yours that Jesus' suffering and sacrifice be far greater than ANY other, or your whole theology falls apart.

[rug]

73. You can't read.

[trotsky]

74. And you're not familiar with your church's official position on suffering. n/t

[rug]

75. Yes, I'm a blithering idiot.

You, on the other hand, may save yourself from this fate by starting with the Passionists' view on this topic.

http://www.passionistjpic.org/2010/03/the-passionist-contribution-to-catholic-social-teachings/

[trotsky]

76. Oh I'm well aware that your church thinks suffering is a wonderful thing.

Mother Teresa denied pain medication to many of her patients for this very reason. What a wonderful woman.

However I appreciate you providing the link that shows me to be right, and you to be wrong. That was very helpful of you.

Through the mystery of incarnation Jesus took on our suffering.

Aren't you late for mass?

[rug]

77. If you think it teaches pain is wonderful, you're spouting willful ignorance.

Don't you have an urgent post to make on Pharyngula?

[trotsky]

78. Well, with your usual in-depth one-liner response...

I know that once again you're out of your league.

[rug]

83. What was that about Mass, again?

Forget leagues, you're not even in the same game.

[trotsky]

86. Do try to keep up, won't you?

That came AFTER your traditional retreat to one-liners. If you aren't trying anymore, why should I?

[rug]

87. Speak up, I can't hear you from back there.

[trotsky]

91. Ooh, you get so testy when you have no answers. n/t

[rug]

92. What?

[trotsky]

95. I bow to your superior debate tactics.

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

80. And that right there means you can no longer defend your position.

I see a pattern to your posts, rug. You make claims, often irrational, then when you can no longer defend them intelligently, you digress into insult and name calling. Does that make god proud?

[rug]

84. Read it again. Who is making the claim that suffering is wonderful?

And who is failing to provide evidence for that claim?

PZ wept.

[trotsky]

85. First let's pin down those goalposts.

What sources will you accept for documentation of the claim?

[rug]

88. Let him answer for himself. He actually has something of substance to say.

[trotsky]

90. Unlike you, obviously. n/t

[Sal316]

107. HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAH!

That's funny, coming from an infamous goal-post mover like yourself.

[trotsky]

109. Hey Sal!

Is your rear end all healed up from the last paddling you got in here? Welcome back! Got anything of substance to add? Or in the tradition of your beloved Jesus, just some more insults and personal attacks?

[rug]

129. ,

[trotsky]

130. LMAO

It took you a day and a half of thinking and Googling to come up with THAT?
:rofl:
King of the comebacks, aren't ya?
:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

79. I'm not being glib, I am asking how the "sacrifice" of one who already knew

what was going to happen and how it was going to play out, whose pain and suffering pales in comparison to regular humans suffering, is such a big deal? Thats called critical thinking, its not being glib.

There is a word for how you are answering these questions: irrational.

[rug]

82. Use your critical thinking then. If it's not a big deal, what is it?

[cleanhippie]

93. I don't know. That what I asked you.

I don't see it as a big deal, especially after rethinking about it and putting it into context of what normal humans go through every day.

Why IS it a big deal?

[rug]

94. For one thing, it's not a comparison to what normal humans go through each day.

It was entirely unnecessary and entirely voluntary. Not to sound trite, but John 3:16 does explain it. To slough it off as an insignificant act is to miss the point. Assuming there is a creator and that that creator is a person, as opposed to a concept, why would it subject itself to that torture otherwise?

You can certainly reject the belief but that is not a license to distort its theology. It's disingenuous to say you'd only be impressed if he went to hell for all eternity, particularly if you reject the fundamental premise in the first place.

[cleanhippie]

96. It IS an apt comparison to what humans endure, thats what our reality is.

How can we compare it to something that doesnt otherwise exist?

I am only using the same criteria that the christian god uses. I think that if anything has been distorted, it IS the theology. Distorted to make a trivial act into something more, especially since the ones that are to follow it and "be like jesus" are the ones who ACTUALLY suffer in the first place.

It is conversations like this, where a believer bends themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize and justify what logical thought shows is nonsense, is just more reason to think that its all just a sham. A sham made by men to control other men.

[rug]

97. A trivial act?

Okay.

[cleanhippie]

98. Compared to what humans endure on a daily basis, yes, trivial.

I'm sorry you don't see that too.

[rug]

99. Then you haven't been reading this thread.

Nevertheless, if your starting point is that the crucifixion is a trivial act, I'm afraid there's too much underbrush to cut through.

[cleanhippie]

100. Actually, I have already removed all of the underbrush

and can see quite clearly what is going on. You seem to be trying to put it all back to obscure the view.

Why won't you answer my question to you, why IS it a big deal?

[rug]

102. I did and you ignored it, which is a species of distortion.

Answer #94.

[cleanhippie]

103. Referring to a bible verse is not an answer.

But continue to project.

[rug]

104. That verse has a content which you ignore again.

As you wish.

[cleanhippie]

105. Ahh, the old "context" argument.

How about you just explain it to me, in your own words, so there is no misunderstanding.

[rug]

106. No context. It's just one line. It won't bite you.

It's simply a one sentence comment on sacrifice.

[trotsky]

108. Plenty of parents have sacrificed their children...

by sending them to die in wars.

So what makes your god's sacrifice greater?

We're waiting for an answer IN YOUR WORDS. Should be extraordinarily simple for a thoughtful theologian like yourself.

[rug]

113. It was done for no gain.

Simple enough for you?

[trotsky]

114. No gain, huh?

Then why was it necessary?

[rug]

115. It wasn't.

[trotsky]

116. I am once again underwhelmed by your complete failure to actually say something.

Oh I completely understand the kindergarten theology you're trying to peddle - "ooh, yahweh sacrificed his son for us even though it wasn't necessary and that's what makes it a special Mystery."

Sorry, I think too much to accept such shallow crap.

[rug]

117. Lol. I guess a diect answer to a simple question is too shallow for you deep thoughts.

[trotsky]

118. Yeah, I've always had a problem with "Because I said so" as an answer.

I guess that's why I couldn't cut it as a believer.

[cleanhippie]

131. But thats what YOU have failed to do, provide a direct answer to a simple question.

[cleanhippie]

121. Then it wasn't a sacrifice.

I'm glad we cleared this up.

[cleanhippie]

120. WHAT was done?

IMO, nothing was done. Thats the whole point, it really was NOT a sacrifice.

[Mariana]

67. Thousands upon thousands of people experienced

exactly the same thing at the hands of the Romans. Don't try to make it out like Jesus was the only person who was ever hung up from nails through his wrists.

[AlecBGreen]

51. some thoughts

with the usual caveats about taking the Gospels at face value (did he exist? did it happen the way the Bible says it happened? etc)

The following are my personal beliefs. If you want further explanation, feel free to ask.

Humanity has a moral code that God expects us to live by. Rule #1 - Acknowledge the existence of our Creator and love Him/Her/It with all your heart, mind & soul. At all times. Rule #2 - Love your neighbor as yourself. While we are capable of attempting this, we choose not to. We put ourselves first and we put our own desires first. We believers often try to make room for God in our life when in fact, we should surrender our life to God as a living sacrifice. We allow our ego & our selfishness to overrule our determination to live by God's two great commandments. We are perpetually in a state of non-compliance.

God is perfect and calls us to be perfect as well. To anyone who believes in God, this is an obvious impossibility. (So why would God ask us to do that? Thats a question for another time :) ) A Rule of Law is only just if there are consequences for non-compliance. In God's realm, the penalty is death. In the OT, that was often meant literally (hence the stoning). In the NT, the focus is more on spiritual death. So for not loving God, for putting ourselves first, the penalty is spiritual death. I take that to mean two things: If you choose to live outside of God, if you do not seek God or seek to follow the commandments given, YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD. You are living in darkness and you are just a hollow shell of what you could & should be. By extension, if you physically die in a state of emotional and spiritual death/darkness, your "soul" (please dont ask me to define it, I dont know) will follow that trajectory into the afterlife.

OTOH, once a person has realized they are a part of the body of Christ, they have been given life. They are walking in the light. They know where they have come from and they know where they are going. Attaining perfection is unnecessary once you understand you ALREADY ARE part of something perfect. Does this mean we can continue to live a life of sin, breaking God's commandments with impunity? NO! If you truly believe that you are a part of Christ, and by extension a part of God the Father, you cannot willfully continue to harm yourself by sinning. To do so means you dont believe. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' yet not do as I say?"

I apologize for not answering your OP question, this is what came to mind and I felt compelled to share it. I suppose I addressed the question of "WHY was his sacrifice necessary" not "DID HE sacrifice anything?" I will think some more on your question and get back to you. I'll be working in the basement so that'll give me time to reflect. :hi:

[AlecBGreen]

54. What did he sacrifice?

From a mortal perspective, he sacrificed much. He was beaten and flogged severely, nearly to death. He was forced to carry a monstrous beam of wood, near death, to his own execution. He was hammered onto the cross and set up into the hot desert sun. Not to belabor the point but I dont think you can underestimate the physical and emotional suffering he endured. To make it worse, he knew this was coming. Like ripping off a bandaid or awaiting an injection, the anticipation of whats coming seems to make things worse. They say that his grief was so intense, he literally sweated & wept tears of blood.

I think the emotional suffering outweighed even the physical torture he endured. He was betrayed by his disciple and disowned by one of his closest friends, Peter. He was mocked and spat upon by the people he was trying to save. At the height of this, when he needed God the Father the most, he was (or at least felt) abandoned. At the moment of death, the one solid foundation he had known his whole life (and, on the divine side, for all of eternity) was either stripped from him or deserted him. He died in complete and utter despair.

After this physical and emotional torture, he was cast into hell for three days. Believers know that time is not the same for God as it is for us. "A day is a thousand years, and a thousand years a day." etc. Those three days could essentially be an eternity. Another way of looking at it from my science background: we know that as you travel faster and approach the speed of light, observable time slows down. Hypothetically, something traveling at the speed of light would be 'frozen' in time. Jesus was often called the true light. Maybe in some way he IS still in hell. No Im not trying to explain religion w science, its just a way to visualize a concept that is hard to comprehend. Assuming that Satan exists (I do) I cannot begin to imagine what he had in store for the only son of God when he was cast down there into the pit.

The question was raised, "didnt he know this was going to happen? doesnt that lessen his sacrifice or negate it altogether?" Knowing there is a light @ the end of the tunnel doesnt always make the trip much better, IMO. Ask anyone quitting smoking, heroin or chronic alcohol dependency. They KNOW they can beat it but the present state is pure & total misery. Do you think they feel like they arent sacrificing anything? They suffer just as much. Furthermore, Im not positive he knew what all awaited him. This is part of the mystery of his human/divine nature. The Bible records him as being "amazed" at things (the belief of the centurion, and the non-belief of his hometown). How could he be surprised if he is omnipotent? I dont know, but I dont doubt it. He also wept at the news of Lazarus' death. Why? Didnt he know he could/would raise Lazarus for the glory of the Father? Again, I think this just highlights the unfathomable nature of the human-yet-divine Christ.

[MikeH]

60. What you say seems to be the general understanding among Christians; I have some problems

This is the general understanding according to Christians, especially fundamentalist Christians:

God is perfect and calls us to be perfect as well. To anyone who believes in God, this is an obvious impossibility. (So why would God ask us to do that? Thats a question for another time :) ) A Rule of Law is only just if there are consequences for non-compliance. In God's realm, the penalty is death. In the OT, that was often meant literally (hence the stoning). In the NT, the focus is more on spiritual death. So for not loving God, for putting ourselves first, the penalty is spiritual death. I take that to mean two things: If you choose to live outside of God, if you do not seek God or seek to follow the commandments given, YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD. You are living in darkness and you are just a hollow shell of what you could & should be. By extension, if you physically die in a state of emotional and spiritual death/darkness, your "soul" (please dont ask me to define it, I dont know) will follow that trajectory into the afterlife.

OTOH, once a person has realized they are a part of the body of Christ, they have been given life. They are walking in the light. They know where they have come from and they know where they are going. Attaining perfection is unnecessary once you understand you ALREADY ARE part of something perfect. Does this mean we can continue to live a life of sin, breaking God's commandments with impunity? NO! If you truly believe that you are a part of Christ, and by extension a part of God the Father, you cannot willfully continue to harm yourself by sinning. To do so means you dont believe. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' yet not do as I say?"

One major problem I have is that, according to Christian teaching, especially among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, a person has a chance to become "saved", to become part of the "body of Christ", only in this lifetime. If a person misses his or her chance to "accept Jesus Christ" in this life, then too bad. If that is true, then an "unsaved" murder victim is condemned to hell, while if the murderer later "repents" and "accepts Christ as Lord and Savior", the murderer is let into heaven.

Also for me, even if I might "accept Jesus Christ" for myself (which I did once), I absolutely could not ever accept having to worry about whether others are "saved" or "unsaved". And I could never accept the duty of telling others about Christ, and their need to "accept Christ", with that thought in the back of my mind and motivated by that concern. That is a duty I absolutely reject with all my being. I do not see how one can get any joy or enjoyment out of life if one always has to wonder or have in the back of one's mind that any person might be "unsaved", and condemned to hell for all eternity if that person, for whatever reason, does not "accept Christ" in this lifetime.

And it really seems that according to standard conservative Christian belief that "salvation" is a matter of guessing correctly. If a person guesses correctly by "accepting Jesus Christ", then that person is "saved" (and is let into heaven upon death). However if a person guesses wrong by adhering to a religion other than Christianity, then that person is "lost" (and is condemned to hell upon death).

And I did once "accept Christ" for myself, and considered myself to be a Christian for a period of time. I eventually came to find that my being a Christian, and supposedly "having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ", and supposedly being in the "body of Christ", did not at all help me in enabling me to deal with any source of pain, frustration, or unhappiness in my life, and did not ever help me in enabling me to better deal with any difficult or painful circumstance in my life.

I have since parted company with the Christian faith, and have particularly absolved myself of any duties and obligations specifically imposed by the Christian faith (as opposed to those incumbent on any good or moral person). I am as certain as I am of anything that doing this was the right and healthy thing for me to do.

The Bible was written by fallible human beings, and from what I can tell the Bible exhibits human fallibility and human prejudice just like anything else that has ever been written.

I would consider myself to be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism">Deist, and just on the believing side of agnostic. I am not a Christian any more, but I have reasons for not being an atheist. Deists, among other things, generally believe in a God or supreme being who created the universe, but do not accept any alleged revelation from God, such as the Bible or the Koran, as actually being such. I am definitely with them about the latter.

[frogmarch]

61. Odin sacrificed himself to himself about

250 years before Jesus. What is it with these gods dong that, anyway? Sure, some say Jesus wasn't a god, but he essentially was.

Odin pierced his side and then hung himself on the tree of the world for 9 days and nights to obtain the wisdom of the runes for himself and mankind.

Jesus was pierced in the side and hung on a wooden cross to obtain salvation for mankind.


Comparing religious myths is interesting.

[struggle4progress]

89. "The only surviving source for Hávamál is the 13th century Codex Regius"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1vam%C3%A1l

That is five hundred years after the first Christian missionaries appeared in Scandanavia. Syncretism, of course, can work in multiple directions: nothing would obviously prevent appropriation of a Christian story into Norse mythology during the period when Christian and Norse religious cultures simultaneously existed

I'd certainly like to know if you are aware of an argument that dates this Odin-suicide-in-seeking-the-runes story to somewhere before about the eighth century

[frogmarch]

125. Yes, I'm aware of the argument.

The most ancient part of the Havamal is believed by some scholars to have been written in the 13th century, but the oral tradition upon which it is based goes back further in time. It may predate Christianity.

I doubt it will ever be known for certain when the earliest portions of the Havamal were written. So, I think that trying to determine when the Runital poem was written, or when the Odin self-sacrifice myth was born as an oral tradition pre-Runital, will be a continuing source of entertainment for scholars.

I'm not one, so arguing with me about it would be pointless. If you're not one either, well... we could at least laugh at each other.

[struggle4progress]

126. I wasn't proposing to argue with you: I was wondering if you knew of any way

to make a good case that the material in question predated the arrival of Christian missionaries in Scandanavia

[Igel]

70. Try this one.

You're Bill Gates. You have billions.

So you decide that for the next 5 years of your life you're going to be homeless. In Buffalo, NY. At the end of if you'll be beaten up and put into a coma.

You know that with your money they'll be able to wake you up, patch up the sores, replace the fingers lost to frostbite, put in dental prosthetics to replace the lost teeth.

Now let's make it more interesting. If at any point you say that you're Bill Gates you've forfeited your money. To Steve Jobs.

What, exactly have you given up?

Time. Freedom from pain and poverty, from humiliation and degradation and abuse. And the possibility that you won't get away from them.

Then somebody comes along and says that he really didn't give up much. Talk about empathy.

So you're God. You can do what you want. You decide to give up 30+ years of it and stop actually being godlike. At any point, if you flub up you get to live out your life and die. Pfff, quite possibly no more God--and certainly you've failed to achieve the goal of the pain and humiliation (technical term, kenosis). Then, at the end, the things you created kill you, your friends leave you, and all you have as you die is faith that you didn't flub up, that the God that let you die is going to bring you back to life. Immortal, you get to experience death and be completely non-existent for three days.

What have you sacrificed? Well, you know what it's like to be fairly powerless. You know what it's like to be abused and in pain, to be subject to all the things that you've told others not to to. Then you were killed, only having faith that you'll live again. Gods don't typically have to rely on others for their existence.

Keep in mind the entire definition of omniscience and omnipotence we use isn't an early Xian construct but a rather late and often secular construct, one that's never actually expounded in the OT or NT. It's one that's nice for pointing out inconsistencies in the OT and NT, but isn't one that actually tries to fit itself to the OT or NT narrative. IT assumes inconsistencies and then demonstrates inconsistencies, proclaiming "QED". In other words, it's philosophers' setting up fairly impossible criteria for judging God, not likely to be the kind of thing found in the OT or NT.

[cleanhippie]

81. But your anaolgy is wrong because your premise is wrong.

Bill Gates is a mortal human. He has money, but money does not provide certainty and immortality. In your analogy, Gates is taking a risk, a serious risk, becuase it MAY not turn out how he hopes.
Jesus is god, omniscient and omnipotent. Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen and how it would end, because he is god and he made it happen that way. To imply that jesus took some kind of "risk" is ludicrous. If there was ever any uncertainty to the outcome, then he would not be omniscient, and therefore not a god, and therefore the whole christian religion is a sham.

[struggle4progress]

101. Here is what the homeless Rabbi from Nazareth said about hell and resurrection two millennia ago:

There was a rich man, living in luxury, dressed in expensive clothes. And on his doorstep lay a scabby beggar, Lazarus, hoping for whatever fell from the rich man's table, while the dogs licked his sores

The beggar died, and angels carried him to Abraham. The rich man died, too, and from hell he saw Abraham in the distance with Lazarus by his side. So he begged Abraham, "Pity me and send Lazarus to cool my tongue with water, because I am in agony"

But Abraham replied, "Between here and you is a great chasm that no one can cross"

The rich man answered, "Please send Lazarus to my father's house, to warn my five brothers about this place of torment"

Abraham said, "Let them hear Moses and the Prophets"

"If someone visits them from the dead," said the rich man, "surely they will repent"

"If they will not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they cannot be convinced even by someone rising from the dead"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&version=WYC

[trotsky]

110. Do you believe in hell, s4p? n/t

[struggle4progress]

111. I'm an existentialist, Trotsky. I think that in important ways each of us chooses the world

in which we live. We don't have complete freedom to choose, of course: we operate under constraints. But we do get to choose what is important to us and what is unimportant to us, not only conceptually and verbally but also by our actions and inactions -- and such choices determine who we really are. And who we choose to be ... well, that is not at all inconsequential

[trotsky]

112. So do you believe in hell?

Yes or no. Circle one.

[struggle4progress]

119. Answer yes or no: did you ever stop kicking stray kittens?

My semantics isn't binary

Some ways of being are better than others; some actions have a more lasting value than others. It's possible by words or deeds to make oneself and others either happier or unhappier. It is possible to serve life to the world in various ways, and it is possible to serve death to the world in various ways: most of us do both

We remember pasts; we imagine futures; but it is eternally NOW where we all live

The impassable chasm between Abraham and the rich man in the parable is nothing more or less than the difference in their ways of being: Abraham sees hungry thirsty strangers and offers them refreshment; the rich man sees a sore-covered beggar dying on his doorstep and ignores him. Abraham's humane view brings blessing to himself and others; the rich man's indifference brings misery to others and to himself

[trotsky]

122. Jesus believed in hell.

Is Jesus a binary thinker, inferior to you too?

[Flipper999]

123. I know that parables shouldn't be taken literally, but...

the rich character in this particular story landed in a very literal hell. And Abraham basically taunted him from heaven.

The lesson can basically be boiled down to "Be nice to the downtrodden... OR ELSE!" In this case, the "OR ELSE" described is eternal torture while being mocked. With no chance of parole. Lovely.

[trotsky]

124. The message of said parable also having the effect...

of telling the downtrodden, "Don't worry about your shitty life. Just put up with everything and after you die you'll get rewarded. Don't be so damn uppity."

[Lost-in-FL]

128. Only if we stop sinning

Remember, he died for our sins.

[cleanhippie]

132. Not mine. I wasn't even born, nether were you.

And there are sins only because someone else "said they were", hardy a very good argument.

Besides, there very little evidence to even suggest that any of that ever happened at all...

[Lost-in-FL]

133. I was being sarcastic.

:+

[cleanhippie]

134. Ahh, sorry.

Missed that part.