How did Jesus die for our sins?

[Atheos]

Sacrifice and suffering are closely related.

Buddhism manages to place suffering front and center without all the bloody imagery.

Anyway, without suffering, there is no awareness and without awareness there is no questioning, without questioning there are no answers. Something like that.

A child doesn't have to be in pain to ask "Why is the sky blue?" I agree that there are some questions that cannot be answered without the involvement of suffering but I'd be willing to wager that if there was no pain in the world it would still be possible to have intellectual advancement about things that did not involve pain and suffering.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sacrifice and suffering are closely related.

Buddhism manages to place suffering front and center without all the bloody imagery.

Anyway, without suffering, there is no awareness and without awareness there is no questioning, without questioning there are no answers. Something like that.

It's not the suffering itself, but the attitude we have while facing suffering. One thief gets it, the other doesn't. Both are suffering, but they have different attitudes. In one case the ego takes over, in the other the ego is released and surrendered to "the will of god"...When this happens suffering stops and we become aware that we are one with all.

Exactly. Suffering doesn't stop, but it's transcended, it's not dominant.

But if the good thief hadn't been crucified, would he have had the change of heart?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sacrifice and suffering are closely related.

Buddhism manages to place suffering front and center without all the bloody imagery.

Anyway, without suffering, there is no awareness and without awareness there is no questioning, without questioning there are no answers. Something like that.

A child doesn't have to be in pain to ask "Why is the sky blue?" I agree that there are some questions that cannot be answered without the involvement of suffering but I'd be willing to wager that if there was no pain in the world it would still be possible to have intellectual advancement about things that did not involve pain and suffering.

Maybe, but that's relatively trivial. The most critical times of our lives involve suffering.

 

[Thomas II]

It's not the suffering itself, but the attitude we have while facing suffering. One thief gets it, the other doesn't. Both are suffering, but they have different attitudes. In one case the ego takes over, in the other the ego is released and surrendered to "the will of god"...When this happens suffering stops and we become aware that we are one with all.

Exactly. Suffering doesn't stop, but it's transcended, it's not dominant.

But if the good thief hadn't been crucified, would he have had the change of heart?

The "good thief" never had a change of heart. He came with a better attitude from the get go.

 

[Thomas II]

A child doesn't have to be in pain to ask "Why is the sky blue?" I agree that there are some questions that cannot be answered without the involvement of suffering but I'd be willing to wager that if there was no pain in the world it would still be possible to have intellectual advancement about things that did not involve pain and suffering.

Maybe, but that's relatively trivial. The most critical times of our lives involve suffering.

Involve letting go...The "ascension" is in the letting go...

 

[Horatio Parker]

Exactly. Suffering doesn't stop, but it's transcended, it's not dominant.

But if the good thief hadn't been crucified, would he have had the change of heart?

The "good thief" never had a change of heart. He came with a better attitude from the get go.

I'd guess that he changed after he committed the crimes he was executed for.

Or maybe he was a tv evangelist.

 

[Thomas II]

The "good thief" never had a change of heart. He came with a better attitude from the get go.

I'd guess that he changed after he committed the crimes he was executed for.

Or maybe he was a tv evangelist.

After he committed his crimes, but before meeting Jesus...

 

[credoconsolans]

What's evident about it?

The fact that immediately following a public-execution-by-torture of its leader the movement started to grow

,

Did it? The only writings we have come from 20-30 years after the so-called event. And we all know the Jewish Jesus cult was never popular or big and it soon died out.

and had overturned the bully-boys' religion entirely in less than four hundred years. Or perhaps the Roman Empire was a myth, like so many things on here.

It did that...with the help of the government and soldiers and the laws that closed down the STILL OPEN pagan academies and temples and the outlawing of pagan worship on pain of death. That kinda tells me it didn't really 'overturn' anything. It just outlawed any competition.

 

[Atheos]

A child doesn't have to be in pain to ask "Why is the sky blue?" I agree that there are some questions that cannot be answered without the involvement of suffering but I'd be willing to wager that if there was no pain in the world it would still be possible to have intellectual advancement about things that did not involve pain and suffering.

Maybe, but that's relatively trivial. The most critical times of our lives involve suffering.

I disagree. One doesn't have to be in pain to wonder what the stars are, or how far away the moon and planets are. It is not necessary to suffer to begin to question if there are ways one can get to them and learn more about them. One doesn't have to be in pain to study the effects of electromagnetic phenomena. Telegraph, radio, computer science, geology, architecture, anthropology and dozens of other beneficial scientific disciplines can all subsist and thrive without input from suffering. I used the one analogy where a virtual infinitude of other more incisive ones could have been used.

Your quote was:

...without suffering, there is no awareness and without awareness there is no questioning, without questioning there are no answers. Something like that.

Obviously you were possibly paraphrasing and perhaps you misrepresented the original doctrine. If so, fine. But this sentence as written is clearly wrong. The existence of even a single example involving awareness, questioning and the path towards an eventual answer demonstrates this.

Some investigative paths would never exist without suffering. But not all.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Some investigative paths would never exist without suffering. But not all.

Fine. It's somewhat academic, anyway. If we could construct a painless world, we could experiment...

The important point is that it's central to the symbolism of Jesus on the cross. It's also central to the four central truths of Buddhism, not exclusively a Christian obsession.

I like Greek philosophy, which is more involved in summing up the unity of reality and doesn't to my knowledge have much to say on the issue of suffering. I'd guess it assumes that the philosophically inclined know better than to be spiritually diverted because of worldly pain or discomfort.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Man! Why? Because god is an imaginary person!

Pick one.
Either we're arguing WITHIN the fic-ton or we're arguing from outside the fic-ton.

The OP was asking about the internal logic of the sacrifice, i thought. It's cheating to bring in Superman fandom, Star Trek fandom or, you know, reality.

 

[Atheos]

Some investigative paths would never exist without suffering. But not all.

Fine. It's somewhat academic, anyway. If we could construct a painless world, we could experiment...

The important point is that it's central to the symbolism of Jesus on the cross. It's also central to the four central truths of Buddhism, not exclusively a Christian obsession.

I like Greek philosophy, which is more involved in summing up the unity of reality and doesn't to my knowledge have much to say on the issue of suffering. I'd guess it assumes that the philosophically inclined know better than to be spiritually diverted because of worldly pain or discomfort.

I agree on all counts. I also believe there is some merit to the Buddhist tenet you raised even though I pressed the issue. My motivation is that I've become used to questioning absolute statements that come from authoritarian sources but do not seem to jive with reality.

The merit I see is that (I think) it can be demonstrated that many of the greatest achievements we (as a species) have accomplished have come at the expense of pain and suffering. We wouldn't have been nearly as eager to get to space if there wasn't the threat that the Russians would gain a tactical advantage by gaining a stronghold there first. War, pain and suffering compelled us to study geometry in order to be able to triangulate attacks on enemies at appreciable distances. It inspired us to invent new technologies if for no other reason than it was a matter of winning (or at least keeping pace with) the arms race or be vanquished. Medical achievements such as the X-ray machine, the (Nuclear) MRI, etc., would never have been invented. Agriculture, study of microbial life, sequencing the genetic code and many other technical marvels would not exist if it weren't for the potential each one has for alleviating pain and suffering.

And of course the coupe de grande, the boner pill. For those who suffer from ED.

Having said all that, there is a major contradiction in the Christian theodicy in this area. According to (most) Christians god knows everything that can be known and has always possessed that knowledge, never having to suffer in order to obtain it. If their god created people who must suffer in order to learn then one of the following has to be true: (1) he wasn't powerful enough to create people who (like him) could attain knowledge without suffering; (2) lacked the intelligence to create such people; or (3) just enjoys seeing people suffer. It's sort of a twist on the logical problem of evil.

 

[Thomas II]

Man! Why? Because god is an imaginary person!

Pick one.
Either we're arguing WITHIN the fic-ton or we're arguing from outside the fic-ton.

The OP was asking about the internal logic of the sacrifice, i thought. It's cheating to bring in Superman fandom, Star Trek fandom or, you know, reality.

Take your pick.

BTW, the way I saw the OP, Dr.Zoidberg questions the validity of Jesus' sacrifice if he didn't really die...

 

[iolo]

The fact that immediately following a public-execution-by-torture of its leader the movement started to grow

,

Did it? The only writings we have come from 20-30 years after the so-called event. And we all know the Jewish Jesus cult was never popular or big and it soon died out.

and had overturned the bully-boys' religion entirely in less than four hundred years. Or perhaps the Roman Empire was a myth, like so many things on here.

It did that...with the help of the government and soldiers and the laws that closed down the STILL OPEN pagan academies and temples and the outlawing of pagan worship on pain of death. That kinda tells me it didn't really 'overturn' anything. It just outlawed any competition.

Paul had the brilliant idea of developing a universalist idea of the tribal religion, which appealed first to many Jews and then to masses of others. What other records would you expect, for goodness sake? Try using Roman records to find out anything about Britannia. And how, please, did the movement get to the point of being able to ban Roman paganism - flying saucers, doubtless, backed by the freemasons!

 

[Keith&Co.]

BTW, the way I saw the OP, Dr.Zoidberg questions the validity of Jesus' sacrifice if he didn't really die...

Yes. But 'didn't die because he didn't exist' outside the story is discrete from 'didn't really die because he got back up again' within the story.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Having said all that, there is a major contradiction in the Christian theodicy in this area. According to (most) Christians god knows everything that can be known and has always possessed that knowledge, never having to suffer in order to obtain it. If their god created people who must suffer in order to learn then one of the following has to be true: (1) he wasn't powerful enough to create people who (like him) could attain knowledge without suffering; (2) lacked the intelligence to create such people; or (3) just enjoys seeing people suffer. It's sort of a twist on the logical problem of evil.

Supernatural gobbedlygook leaves me cold. I think that the church exploits these things to manipulate it's devotees to defend the institution rather than focus on themselves. A diversion away from spirituality. We can talk all day about what tea time on Mars is like, but all we'll learn are things about ourselves and others.

God is an idea, anything beyond that I don't find useful (I'm willing to admit ideas as real). Speculating on God as an entity to me smacks too much of projection. Force, principle, stuff like that makes more sense to me.

 

[Thomas II]

BTW, the way I saw the OP, Dr.Zoidberg questions the validity of Jesus' sacrifice if he didn't really die...

Yes. But 'didn't die because he didn't exist' outside the story is discrete from 'didn't really die because he got back up again' within the story.

Two issues: Jesus man, or Jesus God? Could we eliminate the image "King of Kings in a throne to the right of God Father", etc...?
I mean...Do you believe in that stuff?

 

[credoconsolans]

,

Did it? The only writings we have come from 20-30 years after the so-called event. And we all know the Jewish Jesus cult was never popular or big and it soon died out.

and had overturned the bully-boys' religion entirely in less than four hundred years. Or perhaps the Roman Empire was a myth, like so many things on here.

It did that...with the help of the government and soldiers and the laws that closed down the STILL OPEN pagan academies and temples and the outlawing of pagan worship on pain of death. That kinda tells me it didn't really 'overturn' anything. It just outlawed any competition.

Paul had the brilliant idea of developing a universalist idea of the tribal religion, which appealed first to many Jews and then to masses of others.

Well, sort of. He had to write several letters correcting the practices of people he considered part of his movement. Obviously not all of them were going along with exactly what he taught.

What other records would you expect, for goodness sake? Try using Roman records to find out anything about Britannia.

We do have records.

And how, please, did the movement get to the point of being able to ban Roman paganism

By the political decision of those in power. Makes you wonder why there was any conflict that he needed to unite them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Pick one.
Either we're arguing WITHIN the fic-ton or we're arguing from outside the fic-ton.

The OP was asking about the internal logic of the sacrifice, i thought. It's cheating to bring in Superman fandom, Star Trek fandom or, you know, reality.

Take your pick.

BTW, the way I saw the OP, Dr.Zoidberg questions the validity of Jesus' sacrifice if he didn't really die...

Right. The gospel protagonist didn't give up anything. At best he extended a loan. To sacrifice is to give something up, which he didn't do.

Believers today talk about sacrifice when in reality they're just making a deal. They're actually much better off in the end according to their beliefs so where's the sacrifice?

And I'm fuzzy on the whole sin thing.

 

[Atheos]

Having said all that, there is a major contradiction in the Christian theodicy in this area. According to (most) Christians god knows everything that can be known and has always possessed that knowledge, never having to suffer in order to obtain it. If their god created people who must suffer in order to learn then one of the following has to be true: (1) he wasn't powerful enough to create people who (like him) could attain knowledge without suffering; (2) lacked the intelligence to create such people; or (3) just enjoys seeing people suffer. It's sort of a twist on the logical problem of evil.

Supernatural gobbedlygook leaves me cold. I think that the church exploits these things to manipulate it's devotees to defend the institution rather than focus on themselves. A diversion away from spirituality. We can talk all day about what tea time on Mars is like, but all we'll learn are things about ourselves and others.

God is an idea, anything beyond that I don't find useful (I'm willing to admit ideas as real). Speculating on God as an entity to me smacks too much of projection. Force, principle, stuff like that makes more sense to me.

Meh. Different strokes I suppose. I enjoy the philosophical aspect of discussion, and I especially enjoy exposing the absurdity of many deeply-held sacred beliefs. I probably wouldn't enjoy it as much if christian assholes didn't use their numbers to enact legislation that subverts the principles of separation of church and state, but that's a whole different ball of wax altogether.

But this thread topic is purely speculative about spiritual gobbledygook. We're wrestling with the absurdity of a story about a neurotic god who was so codependent over how we behave that he had to play-act that he was one of us just so he could use his omniscient knowledge of exactly whose buttons to push to manipulate some people into killing his avatar. He then respawned his avatar after 36 hours and levitated it off into the sky (evidently for visual effect) and then ... who knows. Somehow this satisfied his codependency issues so that he could let some of us in to his country club. It's a ridiculous set of beliefs and no amount of ceremonial headgear, ritual hand gestures or mystical incantations will change that.