DERAIL: So the Crucifixion - What's up with that?

[Tom Sawyer]

There is no irony in internet discussions. Everything you say is meant literally and if there is confusion over what you meant and somebody misunderstood you, you have both a legal and moral obligation to defend the position they have mistakenly attributed to you instead of defending whatever position you might actually have.

I've also noted that you've made a few dozen posts here and, as far as I'm aware, you have not yet derailed a discussion by comparing someone to Hitler. Please rectify that as soon as possible.

 

[Sarpedon]

So Ruth, we've established that you believe many reasonable things. How do you square your belief with the more unreasonable beliefs of your churchmates? For example, you have faith, and that is enough for you, but they also have faith, in things that you think aren't true, and that is enough for them. Does that cause any dissonance for you? How is it that someone else's faith leads them to believe something untrue, while yours can be trusted entirely?

 

[Infinite Monkey]

Exactly right. And..... the answer is 42! I am a big Douglas Adams fan too. I celebrate Towel Day and even have a collectors edition of the Ultimate Hitchhikers Guide that my son bought me because he knew I would love it.

The smiley was simply there to indicate irony and apparently failed miserably.

Ruth

Between my snarky reply to an old post and the smiley comment, I think I was just being grouchy this morning. You're clearly a really hoopy frood.

 

[Ruth Harris]

There is no irony in internet discussions. Everything you say is meant literally and if there is confusion over what you meant and somebody misunderstood you, you have both a legal and moral obligation to defend the position they have mistakenly attributed to you instead of defending whatever position you might actually have.

I've also noted that you've made a few dozen posts here and, as far as I'm aware, you have not yet derailed a discussion by comparing someone to Hitler. Please rectify that as soon as possible.

Yeah yeah yeah. HITLER!

(Good enough for you?)

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

Exactly right. And..... the answer is 42! I am a big Douglas Adams fan too. I celebrate Towel Day and even have a collectors edition of the Ultimate Hitchhikers Guide that my son bought me because he knew I would love it.

The smiley was simply there to indicate irony and apparently failed miserably.

Ruth

Between my snarky reply to an old post and the smiley comment, I think I was just being grouchy this morning. You're clearly a really hoopy frood.

Second chances are my thing so no problem. Good to meet you. And you obviously know where your towel is too

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

So Ruth, we've established that you believe many reasonable things. How do you square your belief with the more unreasonable beliefs of your churchmates? For example, you have faith, and that is enough for you, but they also have faith, in things that you think aren't true, and that is enough for them. Does that cause any dissonance for you? How is it that someone else's faith leads them to believe something untrue, while yours can be trusted entirely?

Square my beliefs with theirs? I don't even try. Being a Baptist, my big thing is soul competency. And I don't argue with someone who will never change their mind as that is a lost cause from the start.

How is it that others can believe something I don't think is even close to the truth? The best answer I can give is one that I gave bigfield earlier in this thread. This is what I said:

As for my fellow mainstream believers, I have seen a few different types that could explain their deliberate blindness on certain subjects.

First, there are the ones I call "The True Believers". The capitalization is intentional on my part to display how they consider themselves. They have lived their entire life in their church which is typically one that considers the Bible inerrant and infallible on everything, including history and science. They will not listen to anyone or anything that disagrees with their worldview and deny that there are any contradictions in scripture. And they think their church's interpretation is the only infallible one. I try to avoid these people like the plague; they make me uneasy as they are just as likely to turn on me as they are to welcome me.

Second, there are the poor benighted souls who got caught in a church resembling the description I give above. They are terrified that if they don't accept everything they are taught as truth, they will go to hell when they die. I have nothing but pity for them since they don't have enough backbone to stand up for themselves. They may actually be very intelligent people but they have no internal fortitude.

And third, there are the lazy believers. You know the ones - they just go along with whatever is being taught in their church without ever trying to learn anything more on their own. In my opinion these people do not even deserve to be called Christian as they don't have a clue what real faith means - and they have no intention of spending any time or effort trying to find out.

Ruth

 

[Sarpedon]

That wasn't quite what I was asking. Let me try to better explain: I don't expect that christians should agree, (though, if god were real and really told people things, they ought to). What I am exploring is the nature of faith and what you think about it. I'm asking why you think faith is sufficient, when obviously people have faith in things that can't be true?

That thing you posted appears to criticize your fellow christians: saying that their faith is somehow not real. They are just being mindless, and blindly accepting what they are told, and you are somehow better. Is that so? Are you really putting yourself above your fellow christians?

I was a christian once. I really believed, and now that I don't, I still don't feel comfortable insulting the faith of believers, because I know what it is like. I know there are some christians who don't believe, I know because I've met them and they told me so. I have frequently made remarks as to the specific 'beliefs' of christians, in that I don't think that adherence to specific doctrines is common or necessary to the religious life. But I don't question that believers believe in something, sincerely. Whether it is in the actual scriptures as people say or just the group, which is what I think is more likely, I don't doubt their sincerity.

It seems that in order to build a wall between you and the less reasonable christians, you have to doubt them, and the sincerity of their faith. Is this so?

 

[Ruth Harris]

That wasn't quite what I was asking. Let me try to better explain: I don't expect that christians should agree, (though, if god were real and really told people things, they ought to). What I am exploring is the nature of faith and what you think about it. I'm asking why you think faith is sufficient, when obviously people have faith in things that can't be true?

That thing you posted appears to criticize your fellow christians: saying that their faith is somehow not real. They are just being mindless, and blindly accepting what they are told, and you are somehow better. Is that so? Are you really putting yourself above your fellow christians?

I was a christian once. I really believed, and now that I don't, I still don't feel comfortable insulting the faith of believers, because I know what it is like. I know there are some christians who don't believe, I know because I've met them and they told me so. I have frequently made remarks as to the specific 'beliefs' of christians, in that I don't think that adherence to specific doctrines is common or necessary to the religious life. But I don't question that believers believe in something, sincerely. Whether it is in the actual scriptures as people say or just the group, which is what I think is more likely, I don't doubt their sincerity.

It seems that in order to build a wall between you and the less reasonable christians, you have to doubt them, and the sincerity of their faith. Is this so?

Ah, I see what you are saying now. Let me clarify.

No, I am not saying their faith is not real. To them it is very real just the same as mine is to me. But I am also a very strong believer in soul competency and the priesthood of the believer - which means that I have no right to tell others what or how they should believe just as they can't tell me. I am not insulting their faith nor do I think I am a "better Christian" than they are. What annoys me is their attitude toward other believers; they seem to feel that they have the right to determine what everyone should believe.

As you well know, the Bible is subject to wide interpretation. I object strongly to anyone with the attitude that they have the only correct interpretation and if you don't believe the same things they do, you are not saved. I would never try to question someone's salvation simply due to the fact that their interpretation disagrees with mine - but there have sure been times mine was questioned simply because of my views. This is very wrong in my opinion.

I have no doubt that when my life is over I will be surprised at how wrong I was about certain things, and I am sure that other Christians will be too. But I have no doubt that we will see each other in heaven and will all learn the truth together.

Remember that old joke about St. Peter asking people to be quiet as they passed a particular point in Heaven because the Baptists thought they were the only ones there? That is indicative of the attitude that I find really distasteful but under no circumstances would I ever doubt their faith.

Ruth

 

[Kharakov]

As you well know, the Bible is subject to wide interpretation.

Luckily reality isn't. Could you imagine if people thought encouraging their children to get painfully executed was the right thing to do?

 

[Lion IRC]

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

 

[bigfield]

As you well know, the Bible is subject to wide interpretation.

Luckily reality isn't. Could you imagine if people thought encouraging their children to get painfully executed was the right thing to do?

Apparently that was quite popular in the first few centuries of Christianity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

This is one of the worst aspect of Christianity IMHO. Pet peeve. The focus on self sacrifice. It's passive aggressive and a dick move. No, it's not love. You can't love another if you don't love yourself. And if you sacrifice yourself for others then you clearly don't love yourself.

It's one thing to take risks in order to establish a great goal, like joining up in an army to fight some good cause. Or donate your spare kidney to somebody who might benefit. But if you join in up the hope to die, or want to die in the operation then you're not sacrificing yourself. Then it's just suicide. Which I don't think is a mortal sin. But it is a mental condition that we should treat. Not encourage. It's immoral to encourage such behaviour and uphold it as a virtue. A suicide death is always a tragedy. Christianity = bad.

Parents sacrificing their lives for their children is different. It's instinct and arguably not a sacrifice at all. Biologically it can be self love since the genes are shared.

 

[Learner]

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

This is one of the worst aspect of Christianity IMHO. Pet peeve. The focus on self sacrifice. It's passive aggressive and a dick move. No, it's not love. You can't love another if you don't love yourself. And if you sacrifice yourself for others then you clearly don't love yourself.

Higlhlighted above may not conflict with the phrase from Jesus " Love your neihbours as you love yourself" depending on the intended expression one would mean. Being forced to sacrifice for others is the difference in this regard.

It's one thing to take risks in order to establish a great goal, like joining up in an army to fight some good cause. Or donate your spare kidney to somebody who might benefit. But if you join in up the hope to die, or want to die in the operation then you're not sacrificing yourself. Then it's just suicide. Which I don't think is a mortal sin. But it is a mental condition that we should treat. Not encourage. It's immoral to encourage such behaviour and uphold it as a virtue. A suicide death is always a tragedy. Christianity = bad.

Early Christians who converted to Christianity in the army became' conscientious objectors' and refused to kill other men regardless of who they were (we've sort of touched on this on another thread) . These were the original Hacksaw Ridgers (can't wait to see the movie). Suicide is against Christian theology.

Parents sacrificing their lives for their children is different. It's instinct and arguably not a sacrifice at all. Biologically it can be self love since the genes are shared.

Strangers sacrifice for other strangers similarly when they would rather not die - sharing the same genes - all originating from the same source. Sacrificing ones self as mentioned is when one is being forced under very limited options.

 

[bilby]

"Greater love has no one than this, that one spend a weekend in some discomfort lay down his life for his friends."

FTFY.

Jesus, if he was god, knew that his death was temporary.

I know of many real people who have made far more significant sacrifices than those attributed to Jesus. And, if you are honest, so do you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is one of the worst aspect of Christianity IMHO. Pet peeve. The focus on self sacrifice. It's passive aggressive and a dick move. No, it's not love. You can't love another if you don't love yourself. And if you sacrifice yourself for others then you clearly don't love yourself.

Higlhlighted above may not conflict with the phrase from Jesus " Love your neihbours as you love yourself" depending on the intended expression one would mean. Being forced to sacrifice for others is the difference in this regard.

I strongly doubt Jesus nailed all his neighbours to crosses. If he did I must have missed that part last time I read the Bible.

It's one thing to take risks in order to establish a great goal, like joining up in an army to fight some good cause. Or donate your spare kidney to somebody who might benefit. But if you join in up the hope to die, or want to die in the operation then you're not sacrificing yourself. Then it's just suicide. Which I don't think is a mortal sin. But it is a mental condition that we should treat. Not encourage. It's immoral to encourage such behaviour and uphold it as a virtue. A suicide death is always a tragedy. Christianity = bad.

Early Christians who converted to Christianity in the army became' conscientious objectors' and refused to kill other men regardless of who they were (we've sort of touched on this on another thread) . These were the original Hacksaw Ridgers (can't wait to see the movie). Suicide is against Christian theology.

Because they thought Armageddon would come in their own lifetimes. Because Jesus said it would. So what would the point be? That's why they were taught to reject their families and abstain from sex. What would the point of having babies be if the world is about to end. Where's the sacrifice? And then about 100 AD Christianity fractured into a whole bunch of variants. And at this point it's hard to say exactly what Christianity is. It got really weird for a while. And then Constantin storted it in 330 AD.

I think it's best to divide up early Christianity into many completely different religions. I mean, apart from calling themselves Christian they had very little in common. Their Bibles were different. Their Jesuses were wildly different. And loads and loads of Paganism lingered. Well... it still does. But Christianity didn't really start to Chrystalise into distinct forms until well into 500 AD. And even then there were a whole bunch of different ones. Nestorian Christianity was huge back then. Dead now.

And then we haven't even touched on the Christianities that emerged after the reformation and then later in the evangelical awakening. These types of Christianities were completely new and had nothing to do with any Christianity that had come before it. Even if they said they did.

Anyhoo.. a bit of a tangent there.

Parents sacrificing their lives for their children is different. It's instinct and arguably not a sacrifice at all. Biologically it can be self love since the genes are shared.

Strangers sacrifice for other strangers similarly when they would rather not die - sharing the same genes - all originating from the same source. Sacrificing ones self as mentioned is when one is being forced under very limited options.

Ok, then... but still not sacrifice.

 

[Learner]

I strongly doubt Jesus nailed all his neighbours to crosses. If he did I must have missed that part last time I read the Bible.

Indeed I would doubt Jesus would have wanted to nail his neihbours to crosses.

Because they thought Armageddon would come in their own lifetimes. Because Jesus said it would. So what would the point be? That's why they were taught to reject their families and abstain from sex. What would the point of having babies be if the world is about to end. Where's the sacrifice? And then about 100 AD Christianity fractured into a whole bunch of variants. And at this point it's hard to say exactly what Christianity is. It got really weird for a while. And then Constantin storted it in 330 AD.

Christian teachings were not that wide spread globally and there would not be so soon the variants meaning everyone would have had the same understanding , even so later by the 3rd century and even today , the teachings of Jesus 'being the most important'.. is the core. The beauty of this is; Jesus's message can't be corrupted because its SIMPLE and easy to remember and to recite and pass on orally (God is clever) thats why the core has never changed - too noticeable to the great mass of followers.

Sure we can have different methods of worship (denominations) where as people can of course be mislead by false or incorrect preaching which happens when ordinary people are 'lead away from concentrating what Jesus says ' by the enormity of all other aspects of scripture. IMO the Didache is an example of how preachers should preach.

I think it's best to divide up early Christianity into many completely different religions. I mean, apart from calling themselves Christian they had very little in common. Their Bibles were different. Their Jesuses were wildly different. And loads and loads of Paganism lingered. Well... it still does. But Christianity didn't really start to Chrystalise into distinct forms until well into 500 AD. And even then there were a whole bunch of different ones. Nestorian Christianity was huge back then. Dead now.

The denominations and variants became more evident around then in 500 AD where as the early Christians not having bibles before then had oral traditions. Easy to recite and all teachings was by the examples of the Didache as mentioned.

And then we haven't even touched on the Christianities that emerged after the reformation and then later in the evangelical awakening. These types of Christianities were completely new and had nothing to do with any Christianity that had come before it. Even if they said they did.

Anyhoo.. a bit of a tangent there.

As Jesus says himself many will come in his name ..some genuine some not so. Corruption of gospels misleading the flock has always been expected. God and Jesus has always had enemies.

Ok, then... but still not sacrifice.

I respect your opinion. My opinion; it is certainly not suicide.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Christian teachings were not that wide spread globally and there would not be so soon the variants meaning everyone would have had the same understanding , even so later by the 3rd century and even today , the teachings of Jesus 'being the most important'.. is the core. The beauty of this is; Jesus's message can't be corrupted because its SIMPLE and easy to remember and to recite and pass on orally (God is clever) thats why the core has never changed - too noticeable to the great mass of followers.

If it's so simple and easy to remember what was all the fuss about gay marriage? Not to mention women priests? For a creed being so simple it seems damn hard for Christians to agree on much.

Sure we can have different methods of worship (denominations) where as people can of course be mislead by false or incorrect preaching which happens when ordinary people are 'lead away from concentrating what Jesus says ' by the enormity of all other aspects of scripture. IMO the Didache is an example of how preachers should preach.

Ehe... you're talking about the Jesus in the Bible. Who the hell knows what Jesus really said? How could you possibly know if your version of Christianity is a false teaching?

There's loads of stuff in the Bible that is vague or contradictory. So I'm not sure if we've read the same Bible?

As Jesus says himself many will come in his name ..some genuine some not so. Corruption of gospels misleading the flock has always been expected. God and Jesus has always had enemies.

Ok... but how you can tell the real from the fake?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

"Greater love has no one than this, that one spend a weekend in some discomfort lay down his life for his friends."

FTFY.

Jesus, if he was god, knew that his death was temporary.

I know of many real people who have made far more significant sacrifices than those attributed to Jesus. And, if you are honest, so do you.

Ya, Jesus never actually laid down his life for anybody. He got temporarily inconvenienced for people. If I take a bullet for someone and die, that's a major sacrifice on my part because I've given everything I have to save him. If a Highlander takes a bullet for someone and dies, however, he pretty much just sacrificed his shirt and he'd have needed to buy a new one in a couple decades anyways, so it's not like that really even puts him out. IIRC, they took Jesus's shirt off before they started whipping him, so it's not even like he was out an article of clothing from the incident.

Also, the only reason that the whole pretending to die thing was necessary was because God was bound by bureaucratic regulations which he himself created as part of the atonement process. That's like praising the sacrifice of a bank manager for cutting off his own hand in order to get you approved for a mortgage because he wrote a rule that somebody needs to give their hand in order to be approved when he could have just written the rule that there's a $100 processing fee and paid that for you instead.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ya, Jesus never actually laid down his life for anybody. He got temporarily inconvenienced for people.

He wasn't temporarily inconvenienced. That's not how omnipotence works. Anything is as easy to do for an omnipotent agent as nothing.

No matter what God does it's zero cost to him. So God can't sacrifice himself. He can't inconvenience himself. He doesn't have to prioritise between who to help. And no matter what won't break a sweat. He never has to fear anything. He will never experience pain he can't with ease endure. Getting nailed to a cross is not a big deal if you're omnipotent.

That's why, even if God exists, creating the world is so unimpressive. Any mistake, no matter how minor, would be incredibly embarrassing. An omnipotent God just isn't worthy of worship. Worship needs to be earned IMHO. God just isn't that. And then add to that the problem of evil and God comes across as a bit of an ass. Why Christians continue to insist that this fuck up of a diety is omnipotent beats me. But as long as they do we can call them on it every time.

 

[Learner]

If it's so simple and easy to remember what was all the fuss about gay marriage? Not to mention women priests? For a creed being so simple it seems damn hard for Christians to agree on much.

I guess its easy to be distracted from something so seemingly simple by things seemingly more complex when thought up by individuals. But you're right many of Christians disagree. You'll not find one word against gay people from Jesus, he was ok being amongst eunucs although granted they may not neccessarily have been gay .

I don't know everything in this regard except as a layman and noobie , just knowing Jesus as with the early Christians. They would be the very last one(s) to condone 'persecution' of any kind - period.

Ehe... you're talking about the Jesus in the Bible. Who the hell knows what Jesus really said? How could you possibly know if your version of Christianity is a false teaching?

There's loads of stuff in the Bible that is vague or contradictory. So I'm not sure if we've read the same Bible?

There is only one version of Jesus's teachings amongst the majority (if not all) denominations if I'm correct..the beauty of simple. So obviously this will depend on how much there is in preaching the core of Christianity 'according to Jesus' other than just the extra outer layers of biblical extensions surrounding it. (Or now appearing stuff that shouldn't be there i.e. newage philosophies etc)

Ok... but how you can tell the real from the fake?

You'll agree with me at least with the 'preaching for profit' - also mentioned in the how to Didache and some of the previous above.