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

[Tom Sawyer]

You'll not find one word against gay people from Jesus

What about when he said "Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"? Was that meant to be taken in a non-literal manner and the implicit message to be taken from the subtext of his statement was that the idea of gays being abominations who should be put to death is meant to disappear from the Law?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

There is sacrifice, like when a soldier dies in defense of something noble, hoping his death will preserve something cherished. It's a bit of a tradeoff but he didn't get a return on his actions.

There is no such thing as Christian sacrifice, just more Christian smack dealing. Christians believe they get the big payola after they perform one of their noble deeds. That's called a deal, those things happen on street corners. What kind of sacrifice have you made if in return you personally receive something far more valuable? Where's the sacrifice? I give the homeless person 50 bucks and my jacket because I know when I get home there will be a closet with a new wardrobe of jackets and my bank account will be in the millions.

Yeah, lets make a deal. Er...eh... I mean lets make a sacrifice.

 

[Lion IRC]

The intellectual dishonesty here is disgraceful.
It's the same old bait and switch over and over again.

Oh please Christians can you explain the doctrine of Jesus giving His life to save us from sin?

And then when sincere attempts to answer are offered, atheists revert back to;

...Jesus never suffered.
...Jesus didn't die.
...Jesus was faking it.
...There's no such thing as sin/evil
...Self-sacrifice is a passive aggressive mental illness
...I hate God. God isn't real.

It's not a case of atheists misunderstanding the doctrine. They simply disbelieve and dislike it. And then they mock it.

There is no greater love than laying down your own life as a sacrifice for those you love - and in Jesus' case that's all of us. The sad thing is when you see the self-sacrifice belittled and mocked by the very people who Jesus is trying to help.

Jesus is raised from the dead and the atheist (disingenuously) asks 'why would an all powerful Being do that?'

...um, hello. Because you asked for proof!

 

[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?

Yeah God.
Why do you even bother doing that?
"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The intellectual dishonesty here is disgraceful.
It's the same old bait and switch over and over again.

Oh please Christians can you explain the doctrine of Jesus giving His life to save us from sin?

And then when sincere attempts to answer are offered, atheists revert back to;

...Jesus never suffered.
...Jesus didn't die.
...Jesus was faking it.
...There's no such thing as sin/evil
...Self-sacrifice is a passive aggressive mental illness
...I hate God. God isn't real.

It's not a case of atheists misunderstanding the doctrine. They simply disbelieve and dislike it. And then they mock it.

Yes, because the story doesn't make sense for all the reasons mentioned. We understand what the doctrine is based on but the story which leads to the doctrine has a whole lot of flaws in it.

There is no greater love than laying down your own life as a sacrifice for those you love - and in Jesus' case that's all of us. The sad thing is when you see the self-sacrifice belittled and mocked by the very people who Jesus is trying to help.

Jesus is raised from the dead and the atheist (disingenuously) asks 'why would an all powerful Being do that?'

...um, hello. Because you asked for proof!

Laying down your life as a sacrifice only has meaning if you actually lay down your life. If I'm a Highlander and I take a bullet to the head for someone, the action only has a fraction of the meaning it would if I'm a regular mortal and take a bullet to the head for someone. In the latter case, my life ends and I have given everything I am in order to save another. In the former case, I'm slightly inconvenienced for a little bit in order to save another. It's still very nice of me and the guy owes me a beer, but it's not comparable to when a mortal does it.

Jesus is like a Highlander. His temporary death which he soon got over isn't comparable to somebody's permanent death. He didn't die for our sins, he got momentarily inconvenienced for our sins.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Jesus is raised from the dead and the atheist (disingenuously) asks 'why would an all powerful Being do that?'

Um, no.
The story is that an almighty being let himself be killed, then rose, whole and complete, having lost nothing.
The atheist then asks "why call that a sacrifice?"

Like when they shot Jeebs' head off in Men In Black. It stung, sure, but it didn't even make him late for any dinner plans he might have had...

Prometheus sacrificed more for mankind.

 

[funinspace]

Jesus is raised from the dead and the atheist (disingenuously) asks 'why would an all powerful Being do that?'

...um, hello. Because you asked for proof!

Proof...ROTFLMAO. For a purported omni-god, the human generated paper trail is pretty meager and chock full of made up stories, especially in the early chapters. I'd be impressed by a holy book that doesn't contradict real geology/archaeology or exist in a vacuum outside of said holy book (Deluge; Babel; Joshua and solar objects; the Exodus; et.al.). I'd be impressed by clear contemporary records of something about this purported Jesus guy that wasn't written by those smitten by the emergent faith. I guess your god couldn't convince the Romans to bother writing anything down and preserving it...

After all, it is your theology that claims that picking the right door is the key to avoiding your god's eternal Auschwitz. You'd think that this purported god would be interesting in snaring more than maybe 10-20% of humanity from his dastardly chambers.

 

[Kharakov]

You have the choice of:

a) rebuilding the whole Louvre from rubble
b) broadcasting the illusion that the Louvre was rubble to multiple minds and saying "look, I fixed it" when you stop broadcasting the illusion

Which is easier?

a) rekindling consciousness in a partially decayed brain and rebuilding the neural structures
b) using artifice/technology to create illusions in already existing brains that the other body-brain combo was dead for a bit and was resurrected

When you consider option "b", please don't think about Hollywood, magicians of any sort, or the fact that billions of people believe stuff they read in a book because the book says the book is true.

 

[bilby]

The intellectual dishonesty here is disgraceful.

And yet you don't stop.

It's the same old bait and switch over and over again.

Oh please Christians can you explain the doctrine of Jesus giving His life to save us from sin?

And then when sincere attempts to answer are offered, atheists revert back to;

...Jesus never suffered.

Which is a logical conclusion drawn from the information provided - if Jesus is God, and God is omnipotent, then Jesus never suffered (unless he wanted to, in which case it was entirely his choice)

...Jesus didn't die.

The defining characteristic of death is its permanence. If someone "dies" and then comes back to life, then it wasn't death at all - just a coma.

...Jesus was faking it.

Jesus is fiction - so it's all fake. But certainly someone is faking it, if an apparently dead person is subsequently seen alive and well.

...There's no such thing as sin/evil

This is true. They are fictional constructs that rely for their basis on a number of demonstrably untrue presumptions - not least of which is that morality can be derived from an authority.

...Self-sacrifice is a passive aggressive mental illness

I have never heard of an atheist making this claim. Self sacrifice can be very noble - but the story of the crucifixion is not a story of self sacrifice, and so doesn't qualify.

...I hate God. God isn't real.

God isn't real. Nobody who is aware of this hates God, any more than anyone hates Lord Voldemort or Lex Luthor.

It's not a case of atheists misunderstanding the doctrine.

Indeed it is not.

They simply disbelieve and dislike it.

Indeed - and with very good reason, as it is both untrue and harmful.

And then they mock it.

Yup.

There is no greater love than laying down your own life as a sacrifice for those you love

True

- and in Jesus' case that's all of us.

Except he didn't do it. Not even in the story. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the story is true, he didn't lay down his life - he laid down two or three days. Then he was up and about again, right as rain.

The sad thing is when you see the self-sacrifice belittled and mocked by the very people who Jesus is trying to help.

The sad thing is when you see the tale of trivial sacrifice inflated into something worthwhile, and then believed by people who have the intelligence to see through such a tall tale, but refuse to use it.

Jesus is raised from the dead and the atheist (disingenuously) asks 'why would an all powerful Being do that?'

Nothing disingenuous about it. And that's not the first or only question. The whole story reeks of not-thinking-it-through on the part of the authors. It's illogical nonsense.

...um, hello. Because you asked for proof!

Then show us some proof! Or even some evidence!

 

[Learner]

What about when he said "Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"? Was that meant to be taken in a non-literal manner and the implicit message to be taken from the subtext of his statement was that the idea of gays being abominations who should be put to death is meant to disappear from the Law?

Will have to look into that one more thoroughly as I do not recall anyone mentioned in the bible who was killed by this particular law mentioned by what is more likely the 'act' being the abomination relating to known sexual perversions as Sodom and Gamorra, rather than the person having genuine feelings for someone imho. Perhaps the difficulty of putting someone to death by the act was down to the lack of two witnesses which would probably have been neccessary with the law while the accused would be protected , hence not hearing about it , will look into it for further discussion - Besides Jesus loves all!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Will have to look into that one more thoroughly as I do not recall anyone mentioned in the bible who was killed by this particular law

I don't understand.
Are you saying it's not really a law if scripture never records someone being put to death for it?
Or what?

mentioned by what is more likely the 'act' being the abomination relating to known sexual perversions as Sodom and Gamorra, rather than the person having genuine feelings for someone imho.

What does that even mean? There's a loophole in the Bible, where men sleeping with men is offensive to God unless their love for the guy was real?
Sounds like the message is so simple you can add just about anything you have to to it.

Perhaps the difficulty of putting someone to death by the act was down to the lack of two witnesses which would probably have been neccessary with the law while the accused would be protected , hence not hearing about it , yes something to look into but Jesus loves all!

Jesus loves all, but Jesus is still God, right? Still the guy that has a long list of people who are definitely going to Hell? The lists which Jesus did say still apply, because all Scripture still applies? Including:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Learner]

I don't understand.
Are you saying it's not really a law if scripture never records someone being put to death for it?
Or what?

A law is a law ...I just haven't seen much on this particular one carried out in the bible.

What does that even mean? There's a loophole in the Bible, where men sleeping with men is offensive to God unless their love for the guy was real? Sounds like the message is so simple you can add just about anything you have to to it.

Just a plain and simple meaning - taboo for people sleeping with the same sex according to that law. Nothing else to add.

Jesus loves all, but Jesus is still God, right? Still the guy that has a long list of people who are definitely going to Hell? The lists which Jesus did say still apply, because all Scripture still applies? Including:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So what do you agree with that you would do yourself in the list ?

 

[Keith&Co.]

A law is a law ...I just haven't seen much on this particular one carried out in the bible.

I am not understanding why that's an important point, then.

Just a plain and simple meaning - taboo for people sleeping with the same sex according to that law. Nothing else to add.

But you added something about true feelings as opposed to sexual perversion. Why did you add that?

So what do you agree with that you would do yourself in the list ?

Um, Learner, i don't send people to Hell. I don't pick people for the Kingdom of God, either. I don't believe any of it's real.
But within the ficton (a Heinlein term), you have to ignore some of scripture to hold your 'simple' interpretation of an all-loving god.

 

[Learner]

I am not understanding why that's an important point, then.

It just interestingly occurred to me at the time of writing.

But you added something about true feelings as opposed to sexual perversion. Why did you add that?

This was regarding the act itself being the abomination not people being abominations just by their feelings.

Um, Learner, i don't send people to Hell. I don't pick people for the Kingdom of God, either. I don't believe any of it's real.
But within the ficton (a Heinlein term), you have to ignore some of scripture to hold your 'simple' interpretation of an all-loving god.

I trust you wouldn't do any of the things in the list, is more or less what I mean't.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The intellectual dishonesty here is disgraceful.
It's the same old bait and switch over and over again.

Oh please Christians can you explain the doctrine of Jesus giving His life to save us from sin?

And then when sincere attempts to answer are offered, atheists revert back to;

...Jesus never suffered.
...Jesus didn't die.
...Jesus was faking it.
...There's no such thing as sin/evil
...Self-sacrifice is a passive aggressive mental illness
...I hate God. God isn't real.

It's not a case of atheists misunderstanding the doctrine. They simply disbelieve and dislike it. And then they mock it.

There is no greater love than laying down your own life as a sacrifice for those you love - and in Jesus' case that's all of us. The sad thing is when you see the self-sacrifice belittled and mocked by the very people who Jesus is trying to help.

Jesus is raised from the dead and the atheist (disingenuously) asks 'why would an all powerful Being do that?'

...um, hello. Because you asked for proof!

What a bunch of dopey, pathetic, desperate, religious baloney.

This crucifiction thing, if it wasn't just a pony show, was supposed to make things all like Eden again. I mean that's why the spaceman got whacked in the first place, because of what happened in the magic garden.

Well, it still isn't like Eden so what the fuck is the point? Why didn't suffering go away? Why weren't we all restored to our original glory like in the magic garden? If that didn't happen, which it didn't, then the dead spaceman hanging on boards didn't amount to a spit in the ocean. The dude didn't even have to come back to life, just remake us all in the image of Eden again.

Pa-thetic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I trust you wouldn't do any of the things in the list, is more or less what I mean't.

That depends on who you ask..

neither the sexually immoral

I have had non-procreative sex, which some people tell me is immoral.
I have had premarital sex, which some people tell me is immoral.
I have had interracial sex, WSPTMII.
I have masturbated, WSPTMII.
I don't think any of it will send me to Hell. But in each case, I've been told at least once that I'm hell-bent for that.

nor idolaters,

I have, of course, been accused of idolatry for saluting the flag, for pledging allegiance, for accepting evolution...

nor adulterers,

I read Playboy. I even subscribed until recently. According to some, that's adultery.

nor men who practice homosexuality,

Well, I'm not gay, but 20 bucks is 20 bucks...

nor thieves

There was a bank error in my favor once that i did not report.

nor the greedy

not really

nor drunkards,

Never.

nor revilers

wilson seems to think i've reviled him. But wilson's relationship with objective truth seems subordinate to his agenda.

But whether i do some or all of the things on the list, I can't see how you can justify a claim that Jesus loves everyone if these people are going to be punished for all eternity for a finite amount of sin.

 

[Lion IRC]

Jesus is raised from the dead and the atheist (disingenuously) asks 'why would an all powerful Being do that?'

...um, hello. Because you asked for proof!

Proof...ROTFLMAO. For a purported omni-god, the human generated paper trail is pretty meager and chock full of made up stories, especially in the early chapters. I'd be impressed by a holy book that doesn't contradict real geology/archaeology or exist in a vacuum outside of said holy book (Deluge; Babel; Joshua and solar objects; the Exodus; et.al.). I'd be impressed by clear contemporary records of something about this purported Jesus guy that wasn't written by those smitten by the emergent faith. I guess your god couldn't convince the Romans to bother writing anything down and preserving it...

After all, it is your theology that claims that picking the right door is the key to avoiding your god's eternal Auschwitz. You'd think that this purported god would be interesting in snaring more than maybe 10-20% of humanity from his dastardly chambers.

I recommend that you trust the motives of people who are trying to warn you about that 'wrong door'

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

We'll never know what Jesus said or didn't say. But we do know what is attributed to him in the Bible. He can't shut up about how wrong homosexuality is. He just goes on and on. Here's the complete list from both testaments.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

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)

So then why are Christian denominations so different? Jesus was highly sceptical about rich people. He assumed they all got rich by doing evil. So explain how somebody like Donald Trump can get elected with Christian support? If all Christians but you follow false teachings, its' not particularly impressive.

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.

You're dodging the question. When you evaluate whether another Christian is following a false teaching, how do you go about it?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The intellectual dishonesty here is disgraceful.
It's the same old bait and switch over and over again.

Oh please Christians can you explain the doctrine of Jesus giving His life to save us from sin?

And then when sincere attempts to answer are offered, atheists revert back to;

...Jesus never suffered.
...Jesus didn't die.
...Jesus was faking it.
...There's no such thing as sin/evil
...Self-sacrifice is a passive aggressive mental illness
...I hate God. God isn't real.

It's not a case of atheists misunderstanding the doctrine. They simply disbelieve and dislike it. And then they mock it.

There is no greater love than laying down your own life as a sacrifice for those you love - and in Jesus' case that's all of us. The sad thing is when you see the self-sacrifice belittled and mocked by the very people who Jesus is trying to help.

Jesus is raised from the dead and the atheist (disingenuously) asks 'why would an all powerful Being do that?'

...um, hello. Because you asked for proof!

Well, I believe it's a sin not to make fun of somebody who makes a stupid statement while also claiming they know what they're talking about. Respecting it just leads to stupid ideas to keep being circulated. And that's no help to anyone.

The respect our society awards to religious beliefs is absurd IMHO. We really need to stop. I don't understand why we don't treat religious ideas and beliefs just like any beliefs and ideas? And evaluate them just like we would any claims.

I think letting this nonsense slide for 2000 years is more than enough respect granted. Time to pull the plug on it.

 

[DBT]

It's not a case of atheists misunderstanding the doctrine. They simply disbelieve and dislike it. And then they mock it.

It's not that. It just doesn't sense that a Mind capable of Creating a Universe requires a blood sacrifice, a Sacrificial Lamb (an ancient tribal practice), in order to atone for a set of arbitrary conditions.

It doesn't make sense from the first page in Genesis to the last page of the NT. The garden of Eden narrative doesn't make sense because a Omniscient/Omnipotent Being should logically do better than set up a pair of naive innocents to fail, given the conditions, given the presence of the most subtle/cunning of beasts in the garden...and on and on it goes.