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

[Horatio Parker]

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.

You don't appear to have much of a notion of what a myth is. The idea is to identify with Jesus.

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.

It's not silly if you're conversant with ancient thought. I didn't come up with this stuff.

If it's too far out for you, fine, stick with your Bart Simpson mud pies.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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?

Probably the motive would be to prove that death was not the end and that a higher power really exists and, by the way, here's what he wants from you. Sort of the entire thrust of the message that Jesus was going for.

My primary question has to do with why suffering was somehow a necessary part of that message as opposed to a part which could have been left out without affecting that message. Say that instead of getting crucified, Jesus got whacked on the back of the head and then died of a cerebral hemorrhage while unconscious so that he didn't feel anything. Then he came back to prove that death wasn't the end et al. After that, he got drunk and had the disciples throw him off a cliff while he was passed out. After that, he had a heart attack while taking a nap. How would these change this message to something different than the one which involved suffering?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You don't appear to have much of a notion of what a myth is. The idea is to identify with Jesus.

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.

It's not silly if you're conversant with ancient thought. I didn't come up with this stuff.

If it's too far out for you, fine, stick with your Bart Simpson mud pies.

Yes, but I'm directing my question to those who don't think Jesus is a myth. You're fine to start a thread about mythical Jesuses and whatever you want to discuss along those lines. The site comes equipped with a button that lets you do that and everything. It's not as difficult as you may think and you should give it a try and you might surprise yourself at the results.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yes, but I'm directing my question to those who don't think Jesus is a myth. You're fine to start a thread about mythical Jesuses and whatever you want to discuss along those lines. The site comes equipped with a button that lets you do that and everything. It's not as difficult as you may think and you should give it a try and you might surprise yourself at the results.

Fine, but there's nothing in the OP about that distinction. You responded to my post. If you don't want a response from me, don't address my posts.

 

[blastula]

I figure both of you. And nobody even had to die.

You're welcome!

 

[James Brown]

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?

Well, he's supposed to be the final authority on everything. It would be nice to know that he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well the problem - for you - is that you have no way of knowing whether God knows everything.

 

[Ruth Harris]

One thing I am curious about, however, is when you talked in your OP about "Christ died on the cross to pay for those sins". I've never really gotten the point of that. Jesus was God, so why go through the dog-and-pony show of putting on a human meatsuit and pretending to die in order to forgive us for our sins instead of just forgiving us for our sins without all the drama? It seems like an inefficient waste of his time and I don't get why we should be impressed by it.

I know I am going to regret doing this - but there are really simple answers that no one here has even touched that are widely accepted among mainstream Christian denominations and provides as much of an explanation for the incarnation and crucifixion as you are going to find.

1. The incarnation was necessary to allow Jesus to live a perfect sinless life as an example to mankind, an atonement for Adam's original fall from grace, and to provide the perfect sacrifice for all of mankind as a one time permanent replacement for the currently used (at that time) annual Passover lamb sacrifices. All three of these things are not accepted by all denominations but at least two of the three are widely believed. Some Christians do not accept the atonement for Adam as part of the reason.

2. The crucifixion was necessary to fulfill Jewish prophecy in the Tanakh (Psalm 22, to be precise) on the manner of death the Messiah would have. More detail can also be found in Isaiah 52 & 53 on his life and death.

And that is really all I have to say on this subject. Just couldn't stand reading all of these pages and not seeing the actual accepted reasoning for the incarnation and crucifixion.

Ruth

 

[abaddon]

1. The incarnation was necessary to allow Jesus to live a perfect sinless life as an example to mankind, an atonement for Adam's original fall from grace, and to provide the perfect sacrifice for all of mankind as a one time permanent replacement for the currently used (at that time) annual Passover lamb sacrifices.

If you'll clarify a bit further... What do Christians think the state of grace was that humans fell from? I know about the disobedience to God bit, but what does life in the Garden represent?

My interest is in the meaning, not whether it's historical or logical. So, just curious, what's the grace that humans fell from?

Thanks.

 

[Ruth Harris]

1. The incarnation was necessary to allow Jesus to live a perfect sinless life as an example to mankind, an atonement for Adam's original fall from grace, and to provide the perfect sacrifice for all of mankind as a one time permanent replacement for the currently used (at that time) annual Passover lamb sacrifices.

If you'll clarify a bit further... What do Christians think the state of grace was that humans fell from? I know about the disobedience to God bit, but what does life in the Garden represent?

My interest is in the meaning, not whether it's historical or logical. So, just curious, what's the grace that humans fell from?

Thanks.

The grace that was lost by Adam was eternal physical life in a sinless state of perfection, living in a perfect ecosystem with no death for anything living at that time, and co-existing physically with God visibly present. Basically it is what Christians now expect in the afterlife with one slight difference; we will not be in the same physical body. Some take this to mean that we will not have a physical body, some take it to mean that we will have a new, perfect body like Adam's was at creation.

 

[bigfield]

The grace that was lost by Adam was eternal physical life in a sinless state of perfection, living in a perfect ecosystem with no death for anything living at that time, and co-existing physically with God visibly present.

Why does a perfect ecosystem entail no death for anything living?

 

[Ruth Harris]

The grace that was lost by Adam was eternal physical life in a sinless state of perfection, living in a perfect ecosystem with no death for anything living at that time, and co-existing physically with God visibly present.

Why does a perfect ecosystem entail no death for anything living?

It doesn't. I got in a hurry typing this so I should clarify what I actually meant. That phrase should read "living in a perfect ecosystem, with no death for any living creature at that time". I forgot the comma plus I should have clarified that no death was limited to the animal kingdom as plants were used as a food supply and all animals/birds/fish etc. were exclusively vegetarian. But if the plants were not consumed, they did not die either.

That is what I get for trying to do more than one thing at a time. Sorry about that.

Ruth

 

[Angry Floof]

The grace that was lost by Adam was eternal physical life in a sinless state of perfection, living in a perfect ecosystem with no death for anything living at that time, and co-existing physically with God visibly present.

Why does a perfect ecosystem entail no death for anything living?

And why is it desirable to exist in an unchanging environment anyway? And never dying? Is that really a meaningful meta-story about human existence? That it's all ok because we will ultimately get the comforts our inner child has been crying for? I know this is common for humans to wish for, but the more I question such a "heaven," the less I see a realistic need or use for it. It starts looking like an empty promise that placates our deepest existential fears and egotistical insecurities.

More importantly, it stops any conversation or curiosity about what else could be true. One of our greatest assets is our curiosity. The biggest crime against humanity exacted by religion may be the encumbering of whole societies of people with beliefs that stifle and punish the most important questions a human can ponder. If someone doesn't want to ponder them, fine. But religious societies install thought police in their own and their children's heads.

It's not an uncommon thing for kids to be wildly interested in something scientific or "worldly" and then abruptly change life plans when the studies start to conflict with the religious stories. Honest examination of those psychological and spiritual stoppers often comes with a price, and it's a personal choice to pay it or not. A lot of people have little or nothing in their day to day life to inspire them to even entertain the idea, much less push against the grain and question deeply ingrained beliefs.

I think adapting to our inevitable world culture will require less cultural myopia and ideological identity, and more free, unafraid curiosity for all of us to have a chance to thrive peacefully around the globe. Religion has proved a cement block on the feet of humanity in this regard. Everything good in human experience or behavior can be had without supernatural beliefs or religious explanations of life and history. There's nothing missing or wrong in non-believers due to not believing. Nothing. Magical stories don't count as human goodness.

 

[bigfield]

Why does a perfect ecosystem entail no death for anything living?

It doesn't. I got in a hurry typing this so I should clarify what I actually meant. That phrase should read "living in a perfect ecosystem, with no death for any living creature at that time". I forgot the comma plus I should have clarified that no death was limited to the animal kingdom as plants were used as a food supply and all animals/birds/fish etc. were exclusively vegetarian. But if the plants were not consumed, they did not die either.

That is what I get for trying to do more than one thing at a time. Sorry about that.

Ruth

Animals include a lot more organisms than you may think, including microscopic organisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

Vegetarians do not refrain from consuming animals; they simply refrain from consuming a small subset of animals, namely large vertebrates that are farmed as livestock or hunted. There are small animals that live in or on plants that are consumed by vegetarians.

The idea that all animals, or even all vertebrates, could be vegetarians is dubious to say the least, as many carnivores simply cannot survive as vegetarians as they have evolved anatomies specifically to consume animals, and a vegetarian diet would be impossible for anatomical and nutritional reasons.

There are also carnivorous species outside of the animal kingdom. How did these species survive without eating animals?

It also occurs to me that Jehovah must have constantly intervened to ensure that no insect was stepped on.

Why is no death a good thing? Humans are the only species that know they are going to die, and therefore desire immortality. For every other species, death is a necessary part of their life cycle, not to mention their ecosystem, and is not a bad thing.

Why did plants, prokaryotes, fungi etc. still die? If Jehovah could make it so animals didn't die and no organism needed to eat animals then why not do the same for the other kingdoms?

I realise that these are may not be objections you want to, or have time to, answer but at least consider them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It doesn't. I got in a hurry typing this so I should clarify what I actually meant. That phrase should read "living in a perfect ecosystem, with no death for any living creature at that time". I forgot the comma plus I should have clarified that no death was limited to the animal kingdom as plants were used as a food supply and all animals/birds/fish etc. were exclusively vegetarian. But if the plants were not consumed, they did not die either.

That is what I get for trying to do more than one thing at a time. Sorry about that.

Ruth

Animals include a lot more organisms than you may think, including microscopic organisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

Vegetarians do not refrain from consuming animals; they simply refrain from consuming a small subset of animals, namely large vertebrates that are farmed as livestock or hunted. There are small animals that live in or on plants that are consumed by vegetarians.

The idea that all animals, or even all vertebrates, could be vegetarians is dubious to say the least, as many carnivores simply cannot survive as vegetarians as they have evolved anatomies specifically to consume animals, and a vegetarian diet would be impossible for anatomical and nutritional reasons.

There are also carnivorous species outside of the animal kingdom. How did these species survive without eating animals?

It also occurs to me that Jehovah must have constantly intervened to ensure that no insect was stepped on.

Why is no death a good thing? Humans are the only species that know they are going to die, and therefore desire immortality. For every other species, death is a necessary part of their life cycle, not to mention their ecosystem, and is not a bad thing.

Why did plants, prokaryotes, fungi etc. still die? If Jehovah could make it so animals didn't die and no organism needed to eat animals then why not do the same for the other kingdoms?

I realise that these are may not be objections you want to, or have time to, answer but at least consider them.

It was a magic garden. All that icky stuff you're talking about only happened after the devil talked to Eve and she and Adam escaped. Before that everything was different.

Why would anyone have to eat anyway? And wouldn't you be stepping in poop occasionally? Maybe people didn't have stinky poops before Eve met the devil. Anything is possible in a magic garden, even poopless inhabitants that never had to wipe, solving two problems at one time.

I like magic gardens.

 

[bigfield]

Animals include a lot more organisms than you may think, including microscopic organisms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

Vegetarians do not refrain from consuming animals; they simply refrain from consuming a small subset of animals, namely large vertebrates that are farmed as livestock or hunted. There are small animals that live in or on plants that are consumed by vegetarians.

The idea that all animals, or even all vertebrates, could be vegetarians is dubious to say the least, as many carnivores simply cannot survive as vegetarians as they have evolved anatomies specifically to consume animals, and a vegetarian diet would be impossible for anatomical and nutritional reasons.

There are also carnivorous species outside of the animal kingdom. How did these species survive without eating animals?

It also occurs to me that Jehovah must have constantly intervened to ensure that no insect was stepped on.

Why is no death a good thing? Humans are the only species that know they are going to die, and therefore desire immortality. For every other species, death is a necessary part of their life cycle, not to mention their ecosystem, and is not a bad thing.

Why did plants, prokaryotes, fungi etc. still die? If Jehovah could make it so animals didn't die and no organism needed to eat animals then why not do the same for the other kingdoms?

I realise that these are may not be objections you want to, or have time to, answer but at least consider them.

It was a magic garden. All that icky stuff you're talking about only happened after the devil talked to Eve and she and Adam escaped. Before that everything was different.

Why would anyone have to eat anyway? And wouldn't you be stepping in poop occasionally? Maybe people didn't have stinky poops before Eve met the devil. Anything is possible in a magic garden, even poopless inhabitants that never had to wipe, solving two problems at one time.

I like magic gardens.

A lot of plants and animals depend on the excrement of other creatures for sustenance. "Eat shit or die", you might say.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It was a magic garden. All that icky stuff you're talking about only happened after the devil talked to Eve and she and Adam escaped. Before that everything was different.

Why would anyone have to eat anyway? And wouldn't you be stepping in poop occasionally? Maybe people didn't have stinky poops before Eve met the devil. Anything is possible in a magic garden, even poopless inhabitants that never had to wipe, solving two problems at one time.

I like magic gardens.

A lot of plants and animals depend on the excrement of other creatures for sustenance. "Eat shit or die", you might say.

It was a real magic garden. None of this icky stuff happened. Your concerns are meaningless.

You've got to remember we're talking the ultimate mindless hedonism here. Responsibility and problem solving hadn't even been invented yet. Did Eve and Adam even have to squat to defecate? Did they even have to defecate or think about defecation? NO! Any questions you have about Eden are irrelevant. Did bird poop get on their fruit? NO! It was not possible for birds to poop on ripe edible fruit before they escaped the garden. All those troubling things happened later.

Everything there was magically and mindlessly effortless. Get with the program.

 

[bigfield]

A lot of plants and animals depend on the excrement of other creatures for sustenance. "Eat shit or die", you might say.

It was a real magic garden. None of this icky stuff happened. Your concerns are meaningless.

You've got to remember we're talking the ultimate mindless hedonism here. Responsibility and problem solving hadn't even been invented yet. Did Eve and Adam even have to squat to defecate? Did they even have to defecate or think about defecation? NO! Any questions you have about Eden are irrelevant. Did bird poop get on their fruit? NO! It was not possible for birds to poop on ripe edible fruit before they escaped the garden. All those troubling things happened later.

Everything there was magically and mindlessly effortless. Get with the program.

Mindless hedonism without a big, juicy ribeye steak just isn't mindless hedonism.

 

[James Brown]

Well the problem - for you - is that you have no way of knowing whether God knows everything.

Well, that's very true. People tell me that God is omniscient, but I suppose they could be either lying or merely passing on lies that others told them.

"Doesn't know what he's doing" would certainly explain many of God's actions in the Bible.

 

[iolo]

The ultimate Roman colonialist punishment was to torture people to death in public. There seems to be no doubt that the early Christians believed that, incredibly, their man just got up and walked away, so they could tell Caesar to go fuck himself, though using different words. The question is why they believed that, to which I can only suppose the Muslims are right and he wasn't dead. A huge 'religious' superstructure doesn't help in any way - you have either to believe the 'religious guff, imagine a huge, complicated plot, organised, presumably, by Martians, deny history or come to such conclusions as mine. Up to you.