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

[abaddon]

When you strip out the context of the story to the extent that you did with your example, you make the details of the crucifixion irrelevant.

Yes. The metaphor is disposable if you stray too far from the imagery of it, to turn it from an image of death to an image of life.

The crucifixion speaks volumes about Christianity’s basic attitude: Life sucks and you should want something else than it. There’s a promise of something else, your life's a trial to endure in preparation for the something else, so endure the horribleness of life and strive to deserve that something else.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Some years ago I decided to have someone beaten to death because I knew that that would solve my problems and everyone else's.

Now everything is better.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Assuming the crucifixation as factual history is the problem.

Instead, view it as a constantly occurring event in all of our lives. Which is that we all suffer, and suffering provides the opportunity to review actions and decisions, some which will be found to be in error. This capacity to view, judge, and make determinations is a rather important part of our makeup. The values we distill through our experiences are more important than the experiences themselves, and persist as experiences fade. The resurrection demonstrates that.

Dying is not apt metaphor for health.

The metaphors of Christianity are hateful to the body. The "flesh” hinders your spiritual growth and you’re to “die” to it and become inhumanly spiritual until you rise above it all.

It's ascetic beat-yourself-up self-denial to the core.

A life-affirming project would go the other way around: Drop the schizotypal sense of separation that comes from the ancient soul/body dichotomy. "Sin" tends to foster that dichotomy. And sin as "separation from God" is a separation from an introjected father figure and what "he" wants for you; which is immaturity.

Life-affirmation would include shamelessly being who you are as an earth-animal. Throw off burdening crosses and inflated ideals that’d make you disappointed with yourself, your life, the world.

You can learn and grow without crucifying yourself. And life's not that much suffering. I have doubts about the whole "suffer to learn" and "life is a struggle" stuff. A lot of learning is from curiosity, not from shoving your way through hardships.

Christianity as an ugly metaphor for good things is quite a stretch.

I don't disagree, but I think your post depends on the traditional interpretation.

 

[Horatio Parker]

To my mind, your examples, sarcasm aside, are more significant than vague and generic bullet points.

But no, no power there only because we didn't say "Jesus was real"?

I guess it has to be magical?

My point was that your example was basically "If you persevere through suffering, you'll end up better off". That's about as vague and generic a moral lesson as you can get and you can just plug any one of a billion different scenarios into that lesson and it makes the crucifixion itself completely pointless. I doubt you'd get many Christians who'd agree with the statement that the tale of Christ dying for our sins is the equivalent of a story about a squirrel needing to deal with a rainstorm in order to get some acorns for its kids to eat and they'd tell you there's actually more to it than that.

When you strip out the context of the story to the extent that you did with your example, you make the details of the crucifixion irrelevant. The general attitude with which Christians talk about the event implies that they see it as being relevant and not just some generic Aesop's Fable that was plugged into the story to pad the run time.

I'm not interested in Christians general attitude. I'd think that'd be clear.

And, not to knock your storytelling, I think the passion does a better job than your squirrel story. But keep at it.

 

[abaddon]

I don't disagree, but I think your post depends on the traditional interpretation.

Is dying to the old self as part of the growing process of becoming less self-centered, less toddler-like, more expansive and capable and aware, a good thing? I would say so! But there’s so much ugly baggage in Christianity that you’ll never overcome. You can't save Christianity from Christians.

There are more apt images. Looking at nature (visible nature, not the bizarre phantasms of the dreaming mind or ancient myths) turns up plenty.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't disagree, but I think your post depends on the traditional interpretation.

Is dying to the old self as part of the growing process of becoming less self-centered, less toddler-like, a good thing? I would say so! But there’s so much ugly baggage in Christianity that you’ll never overcome. You can't save Christianity from Christians.

I think it's an illustration of material vs intelligible. Material things pass, ideas don't. (or at least not in the same way)

There are more apt images. Looking at nature (visible nature, not the bizarre phantasms of the dreaming mind) turns up plenty.

Don't disagree, but "more apt" is in the eye of the beholder. It's whatever gets your juices going.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My point was that your example was basically "If you persevere through suffering, you'll end up better off". That's about as vague and generic a moral lesson as you can get and you can just plug any one of a billion different scenarios into that lesson and it makes the crucifixion itself completely pointless. I doubt you'd get many Christians who'd agree with the statement that the tale of Christ dying for our sins is the equivalent of a story about a squirrel needing to deal with a rainstorm in order to get some acorns for its kids to eat and they'd tell you there's actually more to it than that.

When you strip out the context of the story to the extent that you did with your example, you make the details of the crucifixion irrelevant. The general attitude with which Christians talk about the event implies that they see it as being relevant and not just some generic Aesop's Fable that was plugged into the story to pad the run time.

I'm not interested in Christians general attitude. I'd think that'd be clear.

And, not to knock your storytelling, I think the passion does a better job than your squirrel story. But keep at it.

But it was the Christian's interpretation of the crucifixion that I'm asking about with this thread. They say that it's some kind of meaningful event and everyone should be really impressed with and thankful towards Jesus for doing it. I've never heard a decent reason as to why.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a story about a trick performed by a magical being.

See, that makes sense. It also helps explain the whole "I shall return" bit that Jesus said. It was probably just a misquote of when he ended his set with "Thank you! I'll be back through town next month. Remember to tip your waitresses".

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm not interested in Christians general attitude. I'd think that'd be clear.

And, not to knock your storytelling, I think the passion does a better job than your squirrel story. But keep at it.

But it was the Christian's interpretation of the crucifixion that I'm asking about with this thread. They say that it's some kind of meaningful event and everyone should be really impressed with and thankful towards Jesus for doing it. I've never heard a decent reason as to why.

And I gave you one.

There are Christians with that understanding. Not many, I don't call myself one, tho I am in the sense that that was the tradition I was raised in. But I prefer the Greeks.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is dying to the old self as part of the growing process of becoming less self-centered, less toddler-like, a good thing? I would say so! But there’s so much ugly baggage in Christianity that you’ll never overcome. You can't save Christianity from Christians.

I think it's an illustration of material vs intelligible. Material things pass, ideas don't. (or at least not in the same way)

There are more apt images. Looking at nature (visible nature, not the bizarre phantasms of the dreaming mind) turns up plenty.

Don't disagree, but "more apt" is in the eye of the beholder. It's whatever gets your juices going.

It's also about getting the most bang for the buck. Christianity is easy. Just say, "I'm Christian."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But it was the Christian's interpretation of the crucifixion that I'm asking about with this thread. They say that it's some kind of meaningful event and everyone should be really impressed with and thankful towards Jesus for doing it. I've never heard a decent reason as to why.

And I gave you one.

There are Christians with that understanding. Not many, I don't call myself one, tho I am in the sense that that was the tradition I was raised in. But I prefer the Greeks.

Even if so, it still doesn't deal with the original problem that the suffering was completely irrelevant. The suffering did not allow Jesus to accomplish anything which he could not have accomplished without the suffering and it didn't give him any insight, perspective or knowledge which he did not have before he pretended to let people hurt him. It's one thing to endure suffering as a necessary part of the path towards achieving a worthy goal but it's another thing to fake an injury for no damn reason whatsoever and then ask for applause for overcoming that injury which you never actually had.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Are you serious? You don't sound it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are you serious? You don't sound it.

I'm not following you.

There are two main questions which I have about the crucifixion.

1) What did the suffering accomplish which could not have been accomplished equally well without any suffering whatsoever?
2) What did Jesus learn as a result of this suffering which he did not already know?

For #1, the whole point of the crucifixion was (as I understand the general rationale) to get God to forgive man's sins. But then God took on human form to become Jesus, so he himself is the one who did everything to get himself to forgive the sin. That makes the whole middle part irrelevant and he could have just led off with forgiving man's sins and forgotten about the whole dog-and-pony show of pretending there was some sort of necessary lead up to that.

For #2,the man is omniscient. He has perfect knowledge, insight and perspective of everything, so it's not like going through something gains him anything along those lines which he did not already have previous to doing it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Animal rights advocates have it all wrong. If they really want to help dogs everywhere they first need to find one that wouldn't hurt a cricket.

This is your chosen dog, maybe it's the one that sleeps with you.

Now yell at it. Then start to hit it with sticks, then have others start hitting it with sticks.

Then have other dogs start biting it. Make it bleed really good but don't kill it. And when' it's just about spent drive some nails through its limbs and stick it in your back yard for all the other dogs to come along and piss on.

Then all dogs everywhere will have been made better by its ordeal, and you will know you've done something truly great.

 

[James Brown]

Christianity descended from the old pagan religions that held that if you want a god to do something for you (grow crops, make you pregnant, keep invaders away, etc.) you had to give up something in exchange. The more you give up, the more sincere your desire. For ancient cultures, that typically meant animal sacrifices or, in extreme cases, human sacrifices, up to and including the death of one's own child. Just asking god politely might be more humane, but it's hard to prove your sincerity

Bottom line, blood must be spilled. By the time of the crucifixion, everyone knew that it takes bloody death to appease God. Ergo, Jesus couldn't just die of lethal injection for our sins, or die of a brain aneurysm in his sleep to redeem mankind.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Christianity descended from the old pagan religions that held that if you want a god to do something for you (grow crops, make you pregnant, keep invaders away, etc.) you had to give up something in exchange. The more you give up, the more sincere your desire. For ancient cultures, that typically meant animal sacrifices or, in extreme cases, human sacrifices, up to and including the death of one's own child. Just asking god politely might be more humane, but it's hard to prove your sincerity

Bottom line, blood must be spilled. By the time of the crucifixion, everyone knew that it takes bloody death to appease God. Ergo, Jesus couldn't just die of lethal injection for our sins, or die of a brain aneurysm in his sleep to redeem mankind.

Ya, I get it from the point of view of some dude trying to convince God to do something. That's not Christianity, though. They're very specific about the fact that Jesus is God incarnated in human flesh. It's like how I'm a computer programmer and people need to pay me money in order to write a computer program for them. If I want to write one for myself, however, I don't write myself a cheque and wait until it's I've deposited it in my account before I let myself use that program.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well, why not just say "I'm fucking omniscient, you moron. I understand everything with no further effort on my part". Anything else just seems like unnecessary dithering on his part.

I wonder how God learned that he is omniscient? Was there an online quiz that he nailed a perfect score? Did someone give him a really hard Standardized Test and he breezed through it?

It's a standard trope that the more someone learns, the more she realizes that she doesn't know. Find the answer to one question, and at the same time discover two more questions that need answering.

So if God knows more than any of us, then wouldn't that mean he also knows about far more things that he doesn't know?

But once God is convinced that he's got nothing left to learn, that he knows everything there is to know, how does he convince someone else of that? Just by saying so? How would a freethinker and a skeptic verify that claim?

Perhaps God has never tested His own omniscience.
Why would He need to?

 

[Horatio Parker]

There are two main questions which I have about the crucifixion.

1) What did the suffering accomplish which could not have been accomplished equally well without any suffering whatsoever?
2) What did Jesus learn as a result of this suffering which he did not already know?

Suffering is inevitable, not desirable.

It's not about Jesus learning. It's about what anyone learns from a similar experience.

For #1, the whole point of the crucifixion was (as I understand the general rationale) to get God to forgive man's sins. But then God took on human form to become Jesus, so he himself is the one who did everything to get himself to forgive the sin. That makes the whole middle part irrelevant and he could have just led off with forgiving man's sins and forgotten about the whole dog-and-pony show of pretending there was some sort of necessary lead up to that.

I think the symbolism of the story showed the increasing awareness that god is within. The power to reflect and make choices, to envision, create and judge are divine gifts. Gift implies that the giver made a sacrifice in giving. Without these abilities, no one would know if their choices were correct or not. Ergo, God died, a bit anyway, to save people from sin IOW gave them the godlike qualities to recognize the difference.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Suffering is inevitable, not desirable.

It's not about Jesus learning. It's about what anyone learns from a similar experience.

Well ... no. The whole thing about the crucifixion is what Jesus did and, oh my, aren't we so impressed with him because of that. It was about his actions, not what other people took from his actions.

For #1, the whole point of the crucifixion was (as I understand the general rationale) to get God to forgive man's sins. But then God took on human form to become Jesus, so he himself is the one who did everything to get himself to forgive the sin. That makes the whole middle part irrelevant and he could have just led off with forgiving man's sins and forgotten about the whole dog-and-pony show of pretending there was some sort of necessary lead up to that.

I think the symbolism of the story showed the increasing awareness that god is within. The power to reflect and make choices, to envision, create and judge are divine gifts. Gift implies that the giver made a sacrifice in giving. Without these abilities, no one would know if their choices were correct or not. Ergo, God died, a bit anyway, to save people from sin IOW gave them the godlike qualities to recognize the difference.

Ya, I'd need to see some kind of evidence that this point of view is some kind of mainstream Christian thinking. While I understand that if you asked 100 Christians to define Christianity, you'd get 120 different responses, that sounds way too much like something you just pulled out of your ass five minutes ago than it does an actual theological position (and yes, I am aware that a good definition of a theological position is "thing that someone pulled out of their ass", this one just seems too out there). Basically, the whole "crucifixion as Aesopian symbolism" thing is just too silly and out of left field for me to want to discuss further. If someone else wants to discuss it with you, that's fine, but I'll decline to respond on that aspect of the topic.

The thrust of my question was directed towards people who think that the crucifixion actually happened and there was an actual point to it. What was Jesus going for and why was this somehow a necessary way to go about it?

 

[Lion IRC]

If Someone proved to you that death was not the end and that a Higher Power really exists, what do you think their motive would be? Why would they bother making the effort to do that?

 

[Lion IRC]

"A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a wine vat, and built a watchtower. Then he rented it out to some tenants and went away on a journey.

At harvest time, he sent a servant to the tenants to collect his share of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized the servant, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed.

Then he sent them another servant, and they struck him over the head and treated him shamefully.

He sent still another, and this one they killed.

He sent many others; some they beat and others they killed.

Finally, having one beloved son, he sent him to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said."