How did Jesus die for our sins?

[Horatio Parker]

Supernatural gobbedlygook leaves me cold. I think that the church exploits these things to manipulate it's devotees to defend the institution rather than focus on themselves. A diversion away from spirituality. We can talk all day about what tea time on Mars is like, but all we'll learn are things about ourselves and others.

God is an idea, anything beyond that I don't find useful (I'm willing to admit ideas as real). Speculating on God as an entity to me smacks too much of projection. Force, principle, stuff like that makes more sense to me.

Meh. Different strokes I suppose. I enjoy the philosophical aspect of discussion, and I especially enjoy exposing the absurdity of many deeply-held sacred beliefs. I probably wouldn't enjoy it as much if christian assholes didn't use their numbers to enact legislation that subverts the principles of separation of church and state, but that's a whole different ball of wax altogether.

But this thread topic is purely speculative about spiritual gobbledygook. We're wrestling with the absurdity of a story about a neurotic god who was so codependent over how we behave that he had to play-act that he was one of us just so he could use his omniscient knowledge of exactly whose buttons to push to manipulate some people into killing his avatar. He then respawned his avatar after 36 hours and levitated it off into the sky (evidently for visual effect) and then ... who knows. Somehow this satisfied his codependency issues so that he could let some of us in to his country club. It's a ridiculous set of beliefs and no amount of ceremonial headgear, ritual hand gestures or mystical incantations will change that.

This is a good example of how a historical materialist perspective takes the spirituality out of the discussion. If you want to mock people, fine. It's the same avoidance from the other side.

I think that people are drawn to Christianity, or any religion, for reasons other than a fear of death or authority, and I've tried to show what some of those qualities may be. The surreality of the stories resembles the surreality of dreams. That they never happened is less important than that they are always happening, in a mythic sense, even if most of the participants don't have that understanding.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's a ridiculous set of beliefs and no amount of ceremonial headgear, ritual hand gestures or mystical incantations will change that.

People like it because it's easy, and 99% of those people don't know anything about other religions, not to mention very little about their own. They're just in it for the deal.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Meh. Different strokes I suppose. I enjoy the philosophical aspect of discussion, and I especially enjoy exposing the absurdity of many deeply-held sacred beliefs. I probably wouldn't enjoy it as much if christian assholes didn't use their numbers to enact legislation that subverts the principles of separation of church and state, but that's a whole different ball of wax altogether.

But this thread topic is purely speculative about spiritual gobbledygook. We're wrestling with the absurdity of a story about a neurotic god who was so codependent over how we behave that he had to play-act that he was one of us just so he could use his omniscient knowledge of exactly whose buttons to push to manipulate some people into killing his avatar. He then respawned his avatar after 36 hours and levitated it off into the sky (evidently for visual effect) and then ... who knows. Somehow this satisfied his codependency issues so that he could let some of us in to his country club. It's a ridiculous set of beliefs and no amount of ceremonial headgear, ritual hand gestures or mystical incantations will change that.

This is a good example of how a historical materialist perspective takes the spirituality out of the discussion. If you want to mock people, fine. It's the same avoidance from the other side.

I think that people are drawn to Christianity, or any religion, for reasons other than a fear of death or authority, and I've tried to show what some of those qualities may be. The surreality of the stories resembles the surreality of dreams. That they never happened is less important than that they are always happening, in a mythic sense, even if most of the participants don't have that understanding.

These discussions rely on objectifying sounds and words humans make when they communicate and then talking about it more, words like god, sin, spirituality, redemption, soul, and on and on. None of that crap is real. Religion is the same as magic. It's fun to pretend and to be entertained is all. I can remember when I thought the Harlem Globetrotters were a real basketball team, and not talented actors.

Religious thought and discussion is mental exercise, helps the brain develop. It's good to think about things really hard and try to figure things out. Muscles are like that too, healthier and stronger if you get them to expend effort.

 

[Horatio Parker]

These discussions rely on objectifying sounds and words humans make when they communicate and then talking about it more, words like god, sin, spirituality, redemption, soul, and on and on. None of that crap is real. Religion is the same as magic. It's fun to pretend and to be entertained is all. I can remember when I thought the Harlem Globetrotters were a real basketball team, and not talented actors.

How is anything you've just said any more real?

 

[braces_for_impact]

A critical detail in death is the lack of life. Anybody dead for a while and then alive again is not dead.

Am I the only person who doesn't get it?

i guess jesus had near death experience for our sin

Hey, hey, HEY! People that believe in heavenly ascension via winged horse need not reply, lest they look foolish for not applying their critical thinking to their own religion while vilifying another.

 

[iolo]

,

Did it? The only writings we have come from 20-30 years after the so-called event. And we all know the Jewish Jesus cult was never popular or big and it soon died out.

and had overturned the bully-boys' religion entirely in less than four hundred years. Or perhaps the Roman Empire was a myth, like so many things on here.

It did that...with the help of the government and soldiers and the laws that closed down the STILL OPEN pagan academies and temples and the outlawing of pagan worship on pain of death. That kinda tells me it didn't really 'overturn' anything. It just outlawed any competition.

Paul had the brilliant idea of developing a universalist idea of the tribal religion, which appealed first to many Jews and then to masses of others.

Well, sort of. He had to write several letters correcting the practices of people he considered part of his movement. Obviously not all of them were going along with exactly what he taught.

What other records would you expect, for goodness sake? Try using Roman records to find out anything about Britannia.

We do have records.

And how, please, did the movement get to the point of being able to ban Roman paganism

By the political decision of those in power. Makes you wonder why there was any conflict that he needed to unite them.

You really think that those in power wanted a religion of slaves and women to take over from their bullying boot boys? Come ON - it was a desperate throw by Constantine to give the dying dictatorship another few gasps of life. Obviously Paul's ideas took time to win out - why did you suppose otherwise? And Roman records are about Romans, not a lot of bloody colonials, as you'd know if you tried to find out anything about such people.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

These discussions rely on objectifying sounds and words humans make when they communicate and then talking about it more, words like god, sin, spirituality, redemption, soul, and on and on. None of that crap is real. Religion is the same as magic. It's fun to pretend and to be entertained is all. I can remember when I thought the Harlem Globetrotters were a real basketball team, and not talented actors.

How is anything you've just said any more real?

You don't think communication between people is real? That's what we're doing. That doesn't make all the things we talk about real.

 

[Horatio Parker]

How is anything you've just said any more real?

You don't think communication between people is real? That's what we're doing. That doesn't make all the things we talk about real.

It depends on what you call real. If ideas are real, if human abstractions such as money are real, why are not these ideas real?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You don't think communication between people is real? That's what we're doing. That doesn't make all the things we talk about real.

It depends on what you call real. If ideas are real, if human abstractions such as money are real, why are not these ideas real?

If I have the idea that I'm a billionaire I'm not a real billionaire. My brain is merely acting until such time as I can find my billion dollars. But it is still pleasant and quite restorative to pretend, ergo religion. And if I don't know my brain is in thespian mode I may be in deep shit, depending on the environment.

Conversely, sometimes life is best faced in thespian mode, the advantage going to the brain that can adapt.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It depends on what you call real. If ideas are real, if human abstractions such as money are real, why are not these ideas real?

If I have the idea that I'm a billionaire I'm not a real billionaire. My brain is merely acting until such time as I can find my billion dollars.

IOW if enough people agree, particularly people with authority, you have a billion dollars, then you do. And that's more real, how? Seems to me the only difference is the number of people who agree that you're a billionaire. So reality is a consensus, a social contract?

All I'm trying to do is get a little consistency from you on what ideas are real and what aren't. Spirituality cannot be real, but money must be real. That doesn't make sense(no pun intended).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If I have the idea that I'm a billionaire I'm not a real billionaire. My brain is merely acting until such time as I can find my billion dollars.

IOW if enough people agree, particularly people with authority, you have a billion dollars, then you do. And that's more real, how? Seems to me the only difference is the number of people who agree that you're a billionaire. So reality is a consensus, a social contract?

All I'm trying to do is get a little consistency from you on what ideas are real and what aren't. Spirituality cannot be real, but money must be real. That doesn't make sense(no pun intended).

So if everybody thought that everybody had a billion dollars then we're all billionaires. Is that you're argument? All those thoughts would be real, but we would still not be billionaires.

 

[Horatio Parker]

IOW if enough people agree, particularly people with authority, you have a billion dollars, then you do. And that's more real, how? Seems to me the only difference is the number of people who agree that you're a billionaire. So reality is a consensus, a social contract?

All I'm trying to do is get a little consistency from you on what ideas are real and what aren't. Spirituality cannot be real, but money must be real. That doesn't make sense(no pun intended).

So if everybody thought that everybody had a billion dollars then we're all billionaires. Is that you're argument? All those thoughts would be real, but we would still not be billionaires.

I am assuming that if everyone had a billion dollars there would be records and ledgers to that effect. The agreement among everyone that we all have a billion dollars would be recorded. The records are secondary, unless you believe once something is written down, it becomes real. Seems to me it's only the authority of those allowing the entries that makes it "real". We all believe in the bank, the note, or the check, and so everyone honors it. But it's still all just a product of the mind.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So if everybody thought that everybody had a billion dollars then we're all billionaires. Is that you're argument? All those thoughts would be real, but we would still not be billionaires.

I am assuming that if everyone had a billion dollars there would be records and ledgers to that effect. The agreement among everyone that we all have a billion dollars would be recorded. The records are secondary, unless you believe once something is written down, it becomes real. Seems to me it's only the authority of those allowing the entries that makes it "real". We all believe in the bank, the note, or the check, and so everyone honors it. But it's still all just a product of the mind.

I would not assume that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I am assuming that if everyone had a billion dollars there would be records and ledgers to that effect. The agreement among everyone that we all have a billion dollars would be recorded. The records are secondary, unless you believe once something is written down, it becomes real. Seems to me it's only the authority of those allowing the entries that makes it "real". We all believe in the bank, the note, or the check, and so everyone honors it. But it's still all just a product of the mind.

I would not assume that.

Not much of a response. I think we're done.

 

[Atheos]

Meh. Different strokes I suppose. I enjoy the philosophical aspect of discussion, and I especially enjoy exposing the absurdity of many deeply-held sacred beliefs. I probably wouldn't enjoy it as much if christian assholes didn't use their numbers to enact legislation that subverts the principles of separation of church and state, but that's a whole different ball of wax altogether.

But this thread topic is purely speculative about spiritual gobbledygook. We're wrestling with the absurdity of a story about a neurotic god who was so codependent over how we behave that he had to play-act that he was one of us just so he could use his omniscient knowledge of exactly whose buttons to push to manipulate some people into killing his avatar. He then respawned his avatar after 36 hours and levitated it off into the sky (evidently for visual effect) and then ... who knows. Somehow this satisfied his codependency issues so that he could let some of us in to his country club. It's a ridiculous set of beliefs and no amount of ceremonial headgear, ritual hand gestures or mystical incantations will change that.

This is a good example of how a historical materialist perspective takes the spirituality out of the discussion. If you want to mock people, fine. It's the same avoidance from the other side.

I think that people are drawn to Christianity, or any religion, for reasons other than a fear of death or authority, and I've tried to show what some of those qualities may be. The surreality of the stories resembles the surreality of dreams. That they never happened is less important than that they are always happening, in a mythic sense, even if most of the participants don't have that understanding.

Not sure I understand what we're arguing about anymore. I have no desire to mock people. But I do and will continue to mock absurd beliefs. If someone can demonstrate that my characterization of the christ myth is inaccurate in any way I'll be glad to retract it. Until then I'll continue to see Yahweh as omni-codependent.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Not sure I understand what we're arguing about anymore. I have no desire to mock people. But I do and will continue to mock absurd beliefs. If someone can demonstrate that my characterization of the christ myth is inaccurate in any way I'll be glad to retract it. Until then I'll continue to see Yahweh as omni-codependent.

I don't know that we're arguing about anything.

I said that for me the supernatural plays no part in this discussion. I think it's irrelevant. I'm not interested in any possibility that any Jesus miracles were real in a material or historical sense, or ridicule of them. It's a waste of time.

 

[braces_for_impact]

A critical detail in death is the lack of life. Anybody dead for a while and then alive again is not dead.

Am I the only person who doesn't get it?

To be fair, "Slightly inconvenienced for our sins" just doesn't have the same punch.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not sure I understand what we're arguing about anymore. I have no desire to mock people. But I do and will continue to mock absurd beliefs. If someone can demonstrate that my characterization of the christ myth is inaccurate in any way I'll be glad to retract it. Until then I'll continue to see Yahweh as omni-codependent.

I don't know that we're arguing about anything.

I said that for me the supernatural plays no part in this discussion. I think it's irrelevant. I'm not interested in any possibility that any Jesus miracles were real in a material or historical sense, or ridicule of them. It's a waste of time.

I would agree with you about this if there were a couple of dozen guys who believed in Jesus's miracles and none of them had any political power. When, however, they want to use the "fact" that he performed those miracles to enact legislation based on their understanding of what he wanted, then pointing out the absurdity of these claims and poking holes in them is something which should be done at every opportunity.

If atheists just sit around not giving a shit and doing nothing while the Christians get up and give a tremendous shit and try to do a lot, our not giving a shit can help lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering.

 

[blastula]

OK, so you were just describing a possible theology, not the theology.

AFAICT, there's no such thing.

Yet, you did say, "that's how I understand the theology."

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't know that we're arguing about anything.

I said that for me the supernatural plays no part in this discussion. I think it's irrelevant. I'm not interested in any possibility that any Jesus miracles were real in a material or historical sense, or ridicule of them. It's a waste of time.

I would agree with you about this if there were a couple of dozen guys who believed in Jesus's miracles and none of them had any political power. When, however, they want to use the "fact" that he performed those miracles to enact legislation based on their understanding of what he wanted, then pointing out the absurdity of these claims and poking holes in them is something which should be done at every opportunity.

If atheists just sit around not giving a shit and doing nothing while the Christians get up and give a tremendous shit and try to do a lot, our not giving a shit can help lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering.

I don't understand. To not ridicule is to do nothing? To allow that spirituality exists and can be pursued free of superstition is surrender? Where in anything I've said is there any indication that I approve merging church and state?