Question for Christians - #3

[Mr Clingford]

Then what was the point of Jesus’s death? If it’s all symbolic then why bother going through with it?

Perhaps Jesus's death was a symbolic gesture of taking responsibility? I don't know.

If Jesus was fully human and fully divine (Catholic doctrine) and he is the embodiment of the reconciliation, then it would be assumed that prior to the fall both Adam and Eve were also both fully human and at least partially divine. Else you are left with some rather annoying questions.

I don't follow you here - why would it be assumed?

If Jesus’, life and death, were symbolic or at least partially symbolic and for everyone, then why didn’t everyone receive the benefits immediately?
Why must someone accept the story of Jesus in order to be saved? (As well as the billions that have lived and died never hearing of him at all?)

What do you mean by 'receive the benefits?'
What do you mean by 'saved'? Atheists, followers of other faiths and those who have not heard of Jesus may be in full relationship with God after death.

That is how the argument goes, but it’s incorrect and nothing more than special pleading. It’s irrelevant whether god is beyond/outside of time.

Why is it irrelevant?

BTW – if god is beyond/outside of time then what how is Jesus god?

One has to be careful exactly how one talks about Jesus because the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation are a little complex. Jesus and the Logos, the second part of the trinity, are not exactly the same. In a sense Jesus is God in material form.

In the Bible several different words may be poorly translated 'hell'; in the OT there is sheol, in the NT there is Hades (which is finite in Revelation) and Gehenna, the rubbish pit in the valley of Hinnon outside Jerusalem, which burns continually. So when one talks about hell in the Bible one has to know what word and usage is being applied. The notion of hell as the place of the devil and devils etc is a later development (especially of the Middle Ages and Milton!). Google these words for explanations of their meanings

 

[elliotfc]

I do assume that Jesus lived and died for all. The hell that Jesus visited was Hades in Greek, a place of the dead. Jesus, though, couldn't be in hell (meaning the separation from God voluntarily chosen by an individual) for ever because the trinity couldn't split from itself.

Good point. Back in the day, hell was heaven. The concept of hell has evolved over the centuries. Nobody "went' to heaven before Christ. Pseudepigrapha and tradition holds that Jesus HAD to descend into the realm of the dead so that he could give them the Good News.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't "assume" you know what's being asked...

Diogenes, may I turn this question around, because frankly I'm not sure what you would consider to be God's universal love for all of mankind.

Would it be something material, like a sack of money under the bed once a year? Something psychic, as in a euphoric feeling when looking at a sunset? Freedom from suffering/death?

I suspect that your answer would indicate why Christianity is unpalatable or irrelevant. What YOU would consider to be God's love doesn't correspond to what God has offered/given, and that's unfortunate for you, but hardly affects Christian belief.

-Elliot

I'm just asking Christians, who continously proclaim " God loves you/us/etc. ", to give me an example...

I'ts as simple as that..


Your obfuscation is not unexpected.. The point is, that what you, I and most people, consider to be examples of love, cannot be found in the documented or imagined behaviour of God.


Yes, love is different things to different people, but it is easy to look around and say,
" There is a really loving parent.. etc. "..


Why is it so hard, for a group of people who claim " God Is Love " to provide a tangiable example..


One could even assume God is love if there wasn't so much evidence to the contrary..

Perhaps you should ask yourself " Why should I even be asked this question? "...

 

[Mr Clingford]

Got any repeatable verifiable evidence? [for miracles]

Of course not! There isn't any - it's an absurd question

 

[elliotfc]

I was kind of hoping you would comment on what I'd said about the crucifixion not being anything unique. There is also the problem of making human sacrifice a major part of the faith. You can dress it up by saying he was man and god at the same time, but the gruesomeness remains.

Here's a couple of explanations.

One is the pre-existence of human sacrifice. Inspired by demons? Mere human invention? Who knows. In the Incarnation, it is addressed via co-option and transformation.

Another is similar...the need to conquer death. In Christ, death is brought to the innocent, who then dies only to be resurrected. Since death is allowed to rend the innocent assunder, it will be gruesome out of spite. Hate is given free rein to do what it will.

Even if you assume Jesus was a real person, which is an assumption due to a lack of evidence,

You can't say lack of evidence. Look, I wouldn't believe in Jesus if there was a lack of evidence. Rather, you should say the evidence isn't sufficient, or it is suspect, or it does not measure up to certain standards.

No, of course you can say lack of evidence. You just did. It just sounds strange, because there is evidence to believe in Jesus. You just reject the evidence that other people accept.

As you use evidence, you consider it information that backs up a pre-determined conclusion. This is incorrect I think, because it courts of law, evidence exists to support alternate theories. Heck, in science too. The evidence has to be sussed out, but it's all still evidence.

everything that is supposed to be divine is unprovable.

It can't be proved in the ways that you expect things to be proved.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe miracles other religious figures supposedly performed?

Some. Or, at the very least I'm intrigued by them. They could be the result of demonic or confused spirits. Who knows.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Remember the ' free cheeseburger ' metaphor. There is no sacrifice when there is no loss involved.[

Well, I think that God has to obey the law of entropy. How can anything be lost? It can only be transformed.

Diogenes, you think that sacrifice is permanent, or, should be permanent. Christians don't. What you'll have to do is convince me and other Christians that we should think that sacrifice should be permanent.

Or, you'll have to convince us that the salvific act was no big deal.

Unfortunately, both of your positions are articles of faith, and I'm not sure how successful you'll be, but I assure you I've read and considered your statements on these points and will continue to do so.

Christians make a big deal about the resurrection, when in actuality the resurrection voids the sacrifice. If Jesus had stayed dead, that would be a sacrifice..

No, it was a sacrifice. How can you resurrect without dying?

Do you really believe they cancel each other out?!?!?!?! Everything that happens matters. Everything. They could not possibly cancel each other out. The crucifixion happened, and that was a big deal. Then the resurrection, and that was also a big deal.

We Christians believe that human sacrifice, as a particular form of death, still follows the rule. See, human death does not equal oblivion. We believe in an after-life. Given that belief, we still make a big deal out of death. Because death is a big deal. God agrees. God experienced death, like we will all experience death. That doesn't void death. That is a recognition of death. It's such a big deal that God had to experience and transform it. It was the ultimate sacrifice, since it recognizes each and every human death.

You appear to have a problem with life-after-death. You want a "good" death to lead to oblivion. Why? Why the heck would you want that? What, you want God to allow the best deaths and the best people to just become nothing? That's absurd, especially considering the Christian notions of absolute justice.

I'm sure this sounds absurd to a Christian, which is somewhat ironic, since absurdity goes with the territory..

Well said.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I think I see what you mean; if sacrifice is what it is all about then it doesn't appear to be much of a sacrifice, but my thinking doesn't uses the idea of sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus as God died symbolically taking the blame for the estrangement between God and humanity caused by an individual's selfish attention to himself at the expense of others; as creator of the universe he is ultimately responsible for what happens.

The sacrifice could not possibly result in what would satisfy the cynic. The cynic wants the sacrifice to result in oblivion, when no human death results in oblivion. But it's more that that. They want God himself to be subject to oblivion!

By this way of thinking there is NOTHING that God could do for humanity that would be meaningful, unless he makes himself into nothing via permanent death.

It's an interesting way of thinking I guess, but to me it is patenently ridiculous.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Only if you accept his divinity.

This is the answer to many a question.

But not nearly as horrible and painful as some others. I watched an aunt die of bone cancer. It took months, and she was in almost constant pain because she didn't want to be drugged into oblivion. Again, I don't see what makes Jesus so special.

You answered the question above.

Christians do not believe that Jesus died the most painful death imaginable, or the most painful death ever. They just believe that he died a painful death. Christianity is not contingent upon Christ having died the most painful death ever.

This is kind of like comparing what wounds you suffered in order to get a Purple Heart. That isn't, or shouldn't be, the point.

Yeah, but he only died for three days. Some "ultimate" sacrifice that is.

It's ultimate because it is God's sacrifice!

Again, you are working under the opinion that sacrifices have to be permanent, or last X amount of time.

When I say "ultimate", I'm mean that it has the ultimate EFFECT! See, in order for sacrifices to be meaningful, the EXPERIENCE is not the point! What results from the sacrifice is what makes sacrifice meaningful!

Here's an example, an extremely hypothetical one. Let's say some guy goes into North Korea and defuses some armageddon type plot by encrypting a computer. He's captured and tortured beyond belief to give up the codes, but he doesn't give in. He's tortured non-stop for 3 years, you name it he got it. Then he dies. Only 20 North Koreans knew about it, 18 are killed. The other 2 are bastards who couldn't care less. Nobody will ever know about the action/sacrifice of the guy. The guy ends up going to hell for eternity and in total anonymity.

Would you say "Wow, what a sacrifice!" I would too. But then I would say, what kind of God would allow such a man to end up in hell for eternity? What's that all about? Rather, a just God would reward such a man for what he did, and his act would be recognized in the next one.

That's the difference between the way we think Tricky. Since you don't believe in the afterlife or eternal justice, you stop at what happens on the planet Earth in the finite human lifetime. If I did that, no doubt I'd think like you on this point.

The test you apply is a no-win situation. 3 days? Why not 3 million years? Crucifixion? Why not flaying and a slow burn? These are hoops to jump through that miss the point. The point is that Jesus did suffer and that Jesus did die.

So if it wasn't the pain that was important,

Argh. No the pain was important. It wasn't important to you, but it's important to Christians.

and it wasn't the death (since he didn't stay dead),

Argh. Nobody stays dead. You're just indicating your rejection of Christian theology, rather than an understanding of Christian theology. Which is fine...just don't pretend that you are stating base points that all Christians would agree with for rhetorical reasons.

then what was Jesus's great sacrifice? What did he do that countless other humans have not also done?

Something and nothing.

The whole point was for Jesus to do something that EVERY human does. Be born. Experience pain. Die.

That fact ALONE could have been the sacrifice. Just the mere experience.

God didn't crucify Jesus! Humans did. If they didn't, the sacrifice of Jesus would remain.

So you're right in that he didn't do what every other human won't do. That's the point!

Of course he did suffer and he did die in a horrible way. I'm not about to minimize that (unlike you). To minimize that would be to say that suffering is no big deal, or that death is no big deal. And I think they are big deals. If you don't, then that makes you different from Christians.

They were such big deals that God himself assumed them.

It appears you can't/won't see that which is sad. It's awful when pain and suffering and death are minimized. God chooses a way to address them, and then his act is minimized.


-Elliot

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Jesus Christ!

As a former Catholic, I can say that that explanation doesn't hold water anyway.
See:
God needs to punish Man (due to the original sin).
God Punishes Man Sending Him to eternal death (or Hell).There is nothing Man can do to avoid it.
God loves Man so much, he can't see him in eternal death (or Hell).
God finds a scape clause: He sends his son who is also a part of him and who is also him to live here and die here. He is crucified by man.
This sacrifice is perfect, pleases god and can save Man.
But this sacrifice is not perfect. Man have to accept it. If not, he dies anyway.
So God needs to Punish Man that doesn't want to accept that sacrifice (either by not accepting it conciously , not believing in it or never hearing of it )

Is that unlimited love for man?
Is that a perfect sacrifice? (If so, how can it be that some men can still die and go to hell)
Wich sin of mine is jesus paying with his death in the cross?
What amount of pain suffered by god is enought to clear the alleged offense man did to god?
How can a men offend god? May an ant offend you?


Considering all the alleged facts, how can this story be so imaginary? An imaginary offense punished by an imaginary hell and cleared by an imaginary sacrifice that leads to an imaginary grace. Where is the substance?

What's the morality in this story? god feeling the neurotic need to punish man, chooses to punish himself instead, with a punisment that is not a punishment because is not permanent(being god eternal) , but pleases him. Is that moral?

The rationalization of that is too hard. And the fact that there is no evidence of anything of it makes it harder.

 

[Ossai]

elliotfc

So it's a question of expectation then. You would minimize the Incarnation while others maximize it. What is the universal standard to declare one opinion more valid than the other? And if none exists, then it is a matte of opinion, so your hypothetical may or may not apply. I declare that it doesn't apply, given the popularity and staying power of Christianity.

The same standard by which you proclaim a universal/objective morality.

Only if you believe that all sacrifices were permanent!

See, Christians do not believe that! Sacrifices are TEMPORARY OFFERINGS that have an enormous amount of meaning and power, so much so that they are redeemable.

That explains everything. Christians have their own meaning for words that don’t correspond to what others mean. So when a Christian says ‘I respect the beliefs of others’ what they really mean is ‘Everyone else is going to hell.’ Well that certainly clears that little miscommunication up.
Now my question is, how do I write my response in a manner you can understand it.

And the very next thing you post is a perfect example.

Sacrifice has its privileges. Would you want something different? Would you rather that whenever someone sacrifices something for another person, NOTHING "good" would ever happen to the sacrificer? That is ridiculous, if you believe that God values sacrifice. By valuing sacrifice he will elevate the sacrificer in the next one.

Sacrifice has its privileges.

Payment.

Would you rather that whenever someone sacrifices something for another person, NOTHING "good" would ever happen to the sacrificer?

Paying for something is godly. (earlier you mentioned that god = good).
I’ve got it. God is a Capitalist!

Mr Clingford

If Jesus was fully human and fully divine (Catholic doctrine) and he is the embodiment of the reconciliation, then it would be assumed that prior to the fall both Adam and Eve were also both fully human and at least partially divine. Else you are left with some rather annoying questions.

I don't follow you here - why would it be assumed?

What else could the reconciliation be? It can’t be the presence of god, he shows up a number of times after the fall and before Jesus. Adam and Eve were said to be immortal before the fall. How could a living being be immortal without a bit of the divine?

What do you mean by 'receive the benefits?'

Being saved.

What do you mean by 'saved'?

The typical Christian meaning really, not go to hell and get to spend eternity with god.

Atheists, followers of other faiths and those who have not heard of Jesus may be in full relationship with God after death.

As a personal belief that’s great, but it goes against Christian doctrine.

That is how the argument goes, but it’s incorrect and nothing more than special pleading. It’s irrelevant whether god is beyond/outside of time.

Why is it irrelevant?

From the person’s perspective (which is all we have) the person does not have a choice. Or to be a bit more exact. At time T when the decision point is reached, Person A must do X.
The whole outside/beyond time is a cop-out to say god didn’t know which is in direct opposition to god being omniscient.

In the Bible several different words may be poorly translated 'hell'; in the OT there is sheol,

Where every dead person went irregardless of good or bad, at least until they encountered other cultures.

in the NT there is Hades (which is finite in Revelation)

Which is where Hades comes in, a distinctly Greek influence. (and for some reason I want to say Persian but it’s been a while since I’ve read anything about this.)

and Gehenna, the rubbish pit in the valley of Hinnon outside Jerusalem, which burns continually.

I remember reading about this one but the symbolic meaning escapes me at the moment. I’m wanting to say it was used as a reference which was expanded in later verses.

Got any repeatable verifiable evidence? [for miracles]

Of course not! There isn't any - it's an absurd question

Let me ask another question then. What is a miracle.

Elliotfc

You can't say lack of evidence. Look, I wouldn't believe in Jesus if there was a lack of evidence. Rather, you should say the evidence isn't sufficient, or it is suspect, or it does not measure up to certain standards.

Actually, lack of evidence pretty much covers it.

No, of course you can say lack of evidence. You just did. It just sounds strange, because there is evidence to believe in Jesus. You just reject the evidence that other people accept.

What evidence would that be?

As you use evidence, you consider it information that backs up a pre-determined conclusion.

No, that is not evidence, that is selective data mining.

kimiko
everything that is supposed to be divine is unprovable.

It can't be proved in the ways that you expect things to be proved.

How can it be proven then?

By this way of thinking there is NOTHING that God could do for humanity that would be meaningful, unless he makes himself into nothing via permanent death.

You are the one that has exclusive focused on that way of thinking. Diogenes has repeatedly asked you for an example of god’s love, i.e. various things that god could do for humanity.

It's ultimate because it is God's sacrifice!

But god didn’t actually sacrifice anything.
From Merriam-Webster Sacrifice
1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2 : something offered in sacrifice
3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost

Here's an example, an extremely hypothetical one. Let's say some guy goes into North Korea and defuses some armageddon type plot by encrypting a computer. He's captured and tortured beyond belief to give up the codes, but he doesn't give in. He's tortured non-stop for 3 years, you name it he got it. Then he dies. Only 20 North Koreans knew about it, 18 are killed. The other 2 are bastards who couldn't care less. Nobody will ever know about the action/sacrifice of the guy. The guy ends up going to hell for eternity and in total anonymity.

Ok the man sacrifices his life to stop the plot. He expected no compensation.

Would you say "Wow, what a sacrifice!" I would too. But then I would say, what kind of God would allow such a man to end up in hell for eternity?

The same one that sent babies to hell and took great pleasure in bashing babies against rocks.

What's that all about?

Hey the guy apparently was Christian an his sacrifice was meaningless.

Rather, a just God would reward such a man for what he did, and his act would be recognized in the next one.

What next one?

Argh. Nobody stays dead.

Want to expand on this one. I’ve never meet anyone that came back from the dead. (Dead dead, not dead for a couple of minutes while doctors got their body working again).

That fact ALONE could have been the sacrifice. Just the mere experience.

How, what was given up?

Of course he did suffer and he did die in a horrible way. I'm not about to minimize that (unlike you). To minimize that would be to say that suffering is no big deal, or that death is no big deal. And I think they are big deals. If you don't, then that makes you different from Christians.

They were such big deals that God himself assumed them.

Temporarily, then apparently ran back to heaven. Still no sacrifice.

Ossai

 

[kimiko]

It might have been...but the cynic could/would say that the differences were of the romantic/sentimental variety.

I think you could elevate the execution of an innocent man over the execution of a guilty man for qualitative reasons. If your friends sell you out and your mother's watching, that could compound the suffering.

You're assuming everyone who was ever crucified was guilty.

 

[frisian]

Temporarily, then apparently ran back to heaven. Still no sacrifice.

Ossai [/B]

Duration defines a sacrifice? How so?

 

[frisian]

You're assuming everyone who was ever crucified was guilty.

Under the umbrella of Christian thought, only one was not guilty of anything and was crucified.

 

[kimiko]

You can't say lack of evidence. Look, I wouldn't believe in Jesus if there was a lack of evidence. Rather, you should say the evidence isn't sufficient, or it is suspect, or it does not measure up to certain standards.

No, of course you can say lack of evidence. You just did. It just sounds strange, because there is evidence to believe in Jesus. You just reject the evidence that other people accept.

As you use evidence, you consider it information that backs up a pre-determined conclusion. This is incorrect I think, because it courts of law, evidence exists to support alternate theories. Heck, in science too. The evidence has to be sussed out, but it's all still evidence.

I say lack of evidence precisely because it doesn't measure up to standards. You can't ask for special treatment. Was the Trojan War real? It hasn't been proven, so some people don't believe it actually happened, but that it's myth. It may have happened, but possibly someplace else, like England. Is the Iliad proof of the Trojan War? Of course not. Likewise, the Bible isn't proof for the contents of the Bible.

The problem with the Bible is that parts are garbage as far as history is concerned. That is evidence for something, too, but apparently evidence believers reject or explain away.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Under the umbrella of Christian thought, only one was not guilty of anything and was crucified.

Under the umbrella of Christian thought, we don't have to stay here discussing this topics, since they already revealed.

 

[Ossai]

Frisian

Duration defines a sacrifice? How so?

A sacrifice is giving up something. No time limit involved.

If it were explained in a different manner, Jesus died but to show his blessing/agreement/ etc god resurrected him. But that would require Jesus to be independent from god.

Ossai

 

[kimiko]

Under the umbrella of Christian thought, only one was not guilty of anything and was crucified.

Exactly. That's the problem. Everyone captured in Spartacus' uprising was crucified- miles and miles of the Appian Way were lined with crucifixes. Not all of them were gladiators, thousands just fled their enslavement.

There have been people put to death in the US that were exonerated by DNA after the fact.

Ali Muhhamad, the Bab, supposedly sinless as he claimed to be a mirror of God, was put to death.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Under the umbrella of Christian thought, only one was not guilty of anything and was crucified.

Under the umbrella of Christian thought, any other person would have been guilty of all kinds of stuff..

 

[kimiko]

The whole point was for Jesus to do something that EVERY human does. Be born. Experience pain. Die.

God already knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. He knows every emotion and sensation experienced by humanity, he created them.

 

[Kitty Chan]

God already knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. He knows every emotion and sensation experienced by humanity, he created them.

Jesus knows how it feels to be born, experience pain, and die. This way we know we have a God that would be on our level and understand personally our pains and joys thoughout life. Not just be a God in the sky, or carved in stone.

He knows how crummy or beautiful this world can be because He has experienced it first hand.

He knows what it feels like to be loved and hated, have good days and bad. He knows what it is like to be human and all the bad and good that comes with it.

Because He is God, He did not have to, He does not have to do anything, there is no motivation other than love. Jesus did not do anything wrong, broke no laws. He said the greatest thing was to love your neighbours as yourself.