• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Aaah, the Easter Cognitive Dissonance

 
 
 
Rhea said:
Lion IRC said:
You think Jesus is the only one who ever acted that way? The Op is suggesting that self-sacrificial saving of others by proxy - (here, take my life in lieu of theirs) - is a bizarre concept.
Click to expand...

No, the OP is suggesting nothing of the kind. You made that up.

This soldier was actually saving someone else because the rule (from physics) is not something the soldier has power to change, and he may have thjought he could help negotiate to stop physics (bullet from entering human body) from even happening.

It would be analogous to the OP, on the other hand, if we were saying that the god _is_ the terrorist, and he’s agreed to negotiate with himself to say he’s going to shoot himself in the toe in order to appease his terroristic plans so he can let the hostage go free and claim he was a Swell Fellow(tm)
Click to expand...


I still maintain that Jesus' self-sacrifice - to save us - was unselfish altruism.

But I understand your objection (because you don't understand the doctrine of Grace and/or the Trinity) that Jesus is somehow an accessory before the fact.

Might you be able to relate to an analogy of a husband and wife deciding on how to discipline their child and the husband says the child needs to be punished for disobedience yet the wife says give them forgiveness and one more chance?

Both the husband and wife love the child equally. They equally love each other as well. They are of one mind insofar as the fact that the child was disobedient and deserves punishment. But the husband agrees with the wife and they both take steps to show the child that if it wasn't for the mothers intervention, the child wouldn't have had a second chance and learn a valuable lesson.
 
Lion IRC said:
I still maintain that Jesus' self-sacrifice - to save us - was unselfish altruism.

But I understand your objection (because you don't understand the doctrine of Grace and/or the Trinity) that Jesus is somehow an accessory before the fact.

Might you be able to relate to an analogy of a husband and wife deciding on how to discipline their child and the husband says the child needs to be punished for disobedience yet the wife says give them forgiveness and one more chance?

Both the husband and wife love the child equally. They equally love each other as well. They are of one mind insofar as the fact that the child was disobedient and deserves punishment. But the husband agrees with the wife and they both take steps to show the child that if it wasn't for the mothers intervention, the child wouldn't have had a second chance and learn a valuable lesson.
Click to expand...


So you’re saying that the god is the brutal and barbaric monster dad who thinks punishment and pain for eternity is a suitable way to deal with misbehavior?

And that the mom, rather than just killing the monster and destroying the eternal pain and suffering “punishment” planned by the dad, is going to say, “well, child, if you tell everyone that _I’m_ the one who saved you, then I will excuse you, but if you do it wrong, I give you to your dad again and say I never knew you. Also your little brother is going to burn because he doesn’t believe I’ll save him, so I won’t”

Can I relate to that? No.

I don’t believe in punishment. I don’t believe that anyone ever “deserves” it. It doesn’t work and it makes the punisher into the worst kind of hypocrite: I’m going to hurt you because you hurt someone. We don’t hurt people! Now I’ll show you hurt!” Nope, no punishment from me. Rehab, yes. Education, yes. Separation if no rehab is possible. But not punishment, not ever.

Except Daddy god, in your story, punishes the child constantly forever and never gives an opportunity to turn to the mother if he didn’t do it right that first time. And before you try to say “separation is the punishment” remember that you’re sayying this about an omnipotent being who could have ended the life before anything bad was done but decided that eternal punishment was a better outcome.

No, I cannot relate.
 
Politesse said:
Rhea said:
Politesse said:
I am interested in this apparent expert knowledge of how crucifixions worked; as far as I know, this is still something of a mystery to archaeologists.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought they documented that pretty well. Except of course for the one for a person later named Jesus, who crucifiction darkened the sky,, trembled the ground and caused the dead to rise from their graves. That one does not seem to have any historical documentation, which is weird, since that wasn’t something that happened every day.
Click to expand...

Really, no. In fact, we have yet to identify a single crucifixion apparatus in the material record, and claims to have found forensic evidence of crucifixion victims have been both rare and extremely controversial. Because of the boatloads of historical evidence, no one doubts that crucifixions occurred, but they are seldom described in any detail, and the descriptions that do exist frequently contradict. This has fueled speculation that more than one method existed, and none are understood all that well. The Christian scriptures themselves are a major source of data on crucifixion (of both Jesus and many of his followers), as they are uniquely willing to discuss the normally socially taboo issue of what a crucifixion was like. But again, they often contradict each other or include details we don't quite understand in the present.

For an interesting scientific exploration of the medical controversies involved, check out this relatively recent study that attempts to make sense of the various explanations for the mortality of the crucifixion. Some of these theories would actually tend to support Koy's just so story about an accidental false zombification, but only if proven valid. Personally I don't see how it matters all that much, considering the fact that Jesus did, eventually, die, whether by traumatic legal injury in Judea or from choking on an olive after escaping and retiring to Malta.
Click to expand...

Even more recent seems like it might be of interest: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-016-9758-0

Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology
June 2016, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 206–208
"Forensic and historical aspects of crucifixion"

I haven't seen it myself, but it comes up topside in my searches.

I should be able to get hold of it in a couple of days. It would be in print form that I could not post except to cite.

Oh...and...Malta? That's a new one on me.
 
From  Christian symbolism- "The shape of the cross, as represented by the letter T, came to be used as a "seal" or symbol of Early Christianity by the 2nd century.[3] At the end of the 2nd century, it is mentioned in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, rejecting the claim by detractors that Christians worship the cross.[4] The cross (crucifix, Greek stauros) in this period was represented by the letter T."

Many years back I recall reading an article stating that many Roman crucifixions involved a single upright pole with a small footrest, and the arms stretched over the head and the wrists nailed to the post. The footrest prolonged the torture, since without one the weight of the body on the arms rapidly exhausts the breathing muscles and death is far quicker.
 
Lion IRC said:
I still maintain that Jesus' self-sacrifice
Click to expand...

Once again, according to the only source on the matter, Jesus did not act in a self-sacrificial way at all. He threw himself to the ground and begged his “father” to stop his death three times, clearly delineating that his death was not his own will, but God’s will.

Plus, as I also pointed out previously, for sacrificial/substitutionary atonement to have any meaning whatsoever, it has to be a voluntary ritual conducted by others for the express purpose of offering up a sacrifice of their own livestock or best grain; something of value to them that if they lost it would cause them direct material suffering. Iow, they had to give up something they needed—willingly—as an offering to God to prove their love and devotion and worship in order to garner God’s favor (i.e., to bless them and their family and their lives and whatever).

Either way you look at GMark, it is the Romans that actually kill Jesus. Were they doing so to willingly initiate a sacrificial ritual for the express purpose of sacrificing something they needed in order to garner favor from the Jewish god? No.

Is is also asserted in GMark that the crowd of Jews—at the miraculous Jew-whispering powers of the San Hedrin—demand that Pilate kill Jesus, but was that likewise initiated as a loving ritual offering by the Jews to garner favor from their god? If so, then there are a LOT of Sunday school teachers that owe the Jewish community their sincere apologies and we’d better just chuck everything Paul ever wrote out the window and celebrate the San Hedrin for being such compassionate and devoted Christian church elders to have bent down before Jehovah to sincerely offer him Jesus for our sins (and for having been able to convince Pilate to be the honored Kohanim).

So, the Romans made no such offering. The Jews made no such offering. Jesus begged three times and concluded that it was not his will, but God’s will. So who was doing the sacrificial offering to God? “For God loved us sooooo much...”

And, again, once you throw in the trinity bullshit, then we have God requiring that he kill himself as a necessary offering to himself in order to grant us salvation from his own wrath.
 
My favorite part of the story is the zombie horde wandering Jerusalem, which somehow was never mentioned by any non-biblical source. Heck, even the other resurrection accounts in the New Testament don't mention it.

Ditto for the earthquake. It's funny that something as significant as an earthquake was not mentioned by any extra-biblical source, or even mentioned by the other resurrection accounts in the New Testament.

This is much like Mohammed splitting the moon in two, yet somehow not one Chinese astronomer active at the time noticed there moon splitting in two.
 
Koyaanisqatsi said:
...then we have God requiring that he kill himself as a necessary offering to himself in order to grant us salvation from his own wrath.
Click to expand...
And herein is the most basic issue with the crucifixion... the need for it. It is silly enough, the idea of God sacrificing himself in the first place, but the word on the street is that man's salvation is tied to the crucifixion... which makes absolutely no sense, as it implies that God must go through this in order to give man salvation, indicating limitation on God.

Salvation is a stupid explanation as to why Jesus A) Died and B) Never came back. So salvation was invented as a cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom