So Why Is The Gospel Still An Offense?

[SpuriusMaximus]

Exactly. I do know, that some religions take it more literally than others but the bottom line is there.

Well, I was actually trying to say that that's arguing semantics one level too deep for (what I understand as) your point, anyway.

Even if someone wants their explanation to be basically "the wages of sin are death, and Jesus got executed in our place" (I've actually read that one) instead of "sacrificial lamb", or whatever else, does it matter? The point still stands that (according to any Christian doctrine) God wanted Jesus to die horribly, in order to forgive someone else's sins.

It's still not justice.

"Oh, I'll be ok, some innocent got executed for my crime. They're not looking for me any more, man."

Does it really make any difference at that point if it's "they executed the wrong guy" or "someone bribed the judge with a lamb" or whatever other fine distinction?

Basically I'm not arguing here against your point, which I find very valid. I just don't understand what fine distinction sleepy lioness is trying to introduce into it. Explain it as anyone might, the doctrine still is that Jesus was executed for somebody else's sins. It's still just as wrong IMHO.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Ursula K. LeGuin (I think) has a great short story about a perfect place. Everyone is perfectly happy, perfectly well cared-for, and perfectly content. The problem is that there is one child kept in a dungeon and treated horribly. This child receives all the misery that the inhabitants of the perfect place would otherwise suffer. Everyone is aware of the existence of the tortured child, and one of the rituals of growing up is for one's parents to take one to see the tortured child and explain that everyone must be very, very grateful to him or her for making their perfect lives possible.

It's a very moving story, and I never thought of it as an allegory for the Christ story until this minute. (OK, you can say "duh!" if you want. I always thought of it before as more of an exploration of the "good of the one or the good of the many?" question.)

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Yes, but. after the lamb was sacrificed by having its throat cut and a light searing, its body was taken round the back of the temple and turned into lamb chops, leg-o-lamb and lamb stew for the delight of the priests. Does this mean the explanation for "the empty tomb" was that JC's remains were treated the same way? and and ing.

OMG! That means the Shroud of Turin was really made of cheesecloth?

 

[Neverfly]

Yes, but. after the lamb was sacrificed by having its throat cut and a light searing, its body was taken round the back of the temple and turned into lamb chops, leg-o-lamb and lamb stew for the delight of the priests. Does this mean the explanation for "the empty tomb" was that JC's remains were treated the same way? and and ing.

Oh, the whole thing is extremely bloodthirsty.
Killing doves, pigeons, goats, cattle, sheep, lamb- WHATEVER... all described pretty much as regular offerings and atonement.
And the rituals are very graphic.

What's even funnier is that God instructed people to do these acts for Lepers. To what end?

 

[Robin]

Ursula K. LeGuin (I think) has a great short story about a perfect place. Everyone is perfectly happy, perfectly well cared-for, and perfectly content. The problem is that there is one child kept in a dungeon and treated horribly. This child receives all the misery that the inhabitants of the perfect place would otherwise suffer. Everyone is aware of the existence of the tortured child, and one of the rituals of growing up is for one's parents to take one to see the tortured child and explain that everyone must be very, very grateful to him or her for making their perfect lives possible.

It's a very moving story, and I never thought of it as an allegory for the Christ story until this minute. (OK, you can say "duh!" if you want. I always thought of it before as more of an exploration of the "good of the one or the good of the many?" question.)

I think your interpretation is what LeGuin intended for the story. I don't think she intended any Christ allegory.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Ursula K. LeGuin (I think) has a great short story about a perfect place. Everyone is perfectly happy, perfectly well cared-for, and perfectly content. The problem is that there is one child kept in a dungeon and treated horribly. This child receives all the misery that the inhabitants of the perfect place would otherwise suffer. Everyone is aware of the existence of the tortured child, and one of the rituals of growing up is for one's parents to take one to see the tortured child and explain that everyone must be very, very grateful to him or her for making their perfect lives possible.

It's a very moving story, and I never thought of it as an allegory for the Christ story until this minute. (OK, you can say "duh!" if you want. I always thought of it before as more of an exploration of the "good of the one or the good of the many?" question.)

A modern version of the Jewish scapegoat or the medieval sin eater perhaps?

 

[Neverfly]

Basically I'm not arguing here against your point, which I find very valid. I just don't understand what fine distinction sleepy lioness is trying to introduce into it. Explain it as anyone might, the doctrine still is that Jesus was executed for somebody else's sins. It's still just as wrong IMHO.

This is pretty simple, actually. Lioness' intent is to try to deny it for what it is.

It's much easier to believe something if you close your eyes.

 

[Neverfly]

A modern version of the Jewish scapegoat or the medieval sin eater perhaps?

The Jewish scapegoat
You will need:
2 goats
1 cow
your fingers
3 cups chopped parsley
1 cup flour
Kill the first goat. Take your pick which one- it doesn't matter. Pour the blood from the carcass onto the second goat. Sprinkle the blood all around seven times.
Have the sinners lay their sins upon the blood anointed goat. Send that goat fleeing into the wilderness to carry away the sin.
Kill the cow.
Pour the blood upon the base of the alter and sprinkle it's blood all around seven times...

It's kinda funny how Christians make a big deal about their funny claims about witchcraft and the occult isn't it? Seems like birds of a feather to me...

ETA: These are the exact instructions given by God in the perfect Good Book.

 

[truethat]

Well, I was actually trying to say that that's arguing semantics one level too deep for (what I understand as) your point, anyway.

Even if someone wants their explanation to be basically "the wages of sin are death, and Jesus got executed in our place" (I've actually read that one) instead of "sacrificial lamb", or whatever else, does it matter? The point still stands that (according to any Christian doctrine) God wanted Jesus to die horribly, in order to forgive someone else's sins.

It's still not justice.

"Oh, I'll be ok, some innocent got executed for my crime. They're not looking for me any more, man."

Does it really make any difference at that point if it's "they executed the wrong guy" or "someone bribed the judge with a lamb" or whatever other fine distinction?

Basically I'm not arguing here against your point, which I find very valid. I just don't understand what fine distinction sleepy lioness is trying to introduce into it. Explain it as anyone might, the doctrine still is that Jesus was executed for somebody else's sins. It's still just as wrong IMHO.

I agree with you. And I'll take it one further. It is immoral to ask a person to accept someone's death as payment for your sins.

This is the part Kathy ignored.

It is not just sadistic for God to say he needed the blood sacrifice but even worse that Christianity comes to mankind and says "let him die for your sins and then you can go to heaven?"

Guess what? No way. If my sins are so bad that you'd need to murder someone for the sins, then murder me instead. I couldn't let someone die for me that way. No way.

 

[Minarvia]

OMG! That means the Shroud of Turin was really made of cheesecloth?

Probably. And remember, Jesus' own disciples didn't recognize him after he first arose. That tells me that either it wasn't him or else he was a zombie whose face had changed.

 

[Neverfly]

I agree with you. And I'll take it one further. It is immoral to ask a person to accept someone's death as payment for your sins.

This is the part Kathy ignored.

It is not just sadistic for God to say he needed the blood sacrifice but even worse that Christianity comes to mankind and says "let him die for your sins and then you can go to heaven?"

Guess what? No way. If my sins are so bad that you'd need to murder someone for the sins, then murder me instead. I couldn't let someone die for me that way. No way.

Well.. hold on.

Christ willingly accepted and sacrificed himself. That is very honorable.

Additionally, many of his disciples were dead set against the idea and tried to talk him into fleeing.

I agree that it is sadistic and needless of God.

But as far as the Christ- he sacrificed himself. His disciples cried and begged him not to...
The Modern Christians feel that they are thankful and grateful to him for having done so.

To put this into perspective, imagine you got a phone call. Your house was on fire. "OMG!" You think, "My child is in the house with the sitter!"
Upon arriving at the scene, you learn that a brave fireman died in the process of saving your child. Your child lives. You would feel very deep gratitude toward that fireman.

So far, you are like the Christian. The difference is- You would not praise and glorify the fire for taking the firemans life so that he could heroically sacrifice himself to save your child.

 

[truethat]

Yeah that's a very good distinction. Or in relevant news, they found out a fireman set a fire to be a hero here in NYC, so he deliberately threw a fire in the hall and set it on fire than ran back to the station to be a first responder. Only thing was he set the fire in the escape route and four people died. Christians seem to worship this kind of thinking.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

To put this into perspective, imagine you got a phone call. Your house was on fire. "OMG!" You think, "My child is in the house with the sitter!"
Upon arriving at the scene, you learn that a brave fireman died in the process of saving your child. Your child lives. You would feel very deep gratitude toward that fireman.

So far, you are like the Christian. The difference is- You would not praise and glorify the fire for taking the firemans life so that he could heroically sacrifice himself to save your child.

I don't buy that analogy, sorry.

See a fire is a physical thing. It's something objectively happening there. You can't just imagine it away.

"Sin" is not a substance or physical phenomenon that exists and taints by itself. It's not a fire. It's not a chemical spill.

"Sin" is a moral judgment. And God is doing the judging and forgiving there.

Do you understand that distinction? It's not some fire that God has to dash in and put it out. (In as much as that even makes sense for an omnipresent and omnipotent being.) It's not some chemical spill where you have to do the prescribed things to contain it, whether you like those things or not.

Here God is lawmaker, judge, jurry and executioner rolled into one. He's the one deciding what's sin and what's not. He's the one deciding who gets pardoned and who gets eternal punishment.

If he wants to forgive a sin, he can just go "ok, you're forgiven." It's not like the fireman who _has_ to go put that fire out. The sin here is just God's own judgment call. What's stopping him from just making it differently?

The idea that God _has_ to go through a horrible ritual, to be able to remove that sin, is absurd. Doubly so when the ritual is his own invention anyway.

WTF? Do we have an OCPD-suffering god, who has to go through his own rituals no matter what?

 

[I Ratant]

"The idea that God _has_ to go through a horrible ritual, to be able to remove that sin, is absurd. Doubly so when the ritual is his own invention anyway."
.
And despite that, we're -STILL- original sinners until we get dipped and splashed.
Original sin wasn't absolved, it just got put on probation.

 

[Neverfly]

I don't buy that analogy, sorry.

See a fire is a physical thing. It's something objectively happening there. You can't just imagine it away.

"Sin" is not a substance or physical phenomenon that exists and taints by itself. It's not a fire. It's not a chemical spill.

"Sin" is a moral judgment. And God is doing the judging and forgiving there.

Do you understand that distinction? It's not some fire that God has to dash in and put it out. (In as much as that even makes sense for an omnipresent and omnipotent being.) It's not some chemical spill where you have to do the prescribed things to contain it, whether you like those things or not.

Here God is lawmaker, judge, jurry and executioner rolled into one. He's the one deciding what's sin and what's not. He's the one deciding who gets pardoned and who gets eternal punishment.

If he wants to forgive a sin, he can just go "ok, you're forgiven." It's not like the fireman who _has_ to go put that fire out. The sin here is just God's own judgment call. What's stopping him from just making it differently?

The idea that God _has_ to go through a horrible ritual, to be able to remove that sin, is absurd. Doubly so when the ritual is his own invention anyway.

WTF? Do we have an OCPD-suffering god, who has to go through his own rituals no matter what?

HansMusterman, you completely got the wrong end of the stick...You misunderstood the analogy 100%

In my analogy- God IS the fire.

Now: Knowing that God is the fire---

So far, you are like the Christian. The difference is- You would not praise and glorify the fire for taking the firemans life so that he could heroically sacrifice himself to save your child.

The believer praises and glorifies the fire for having given the fireman the chance to die in saving the child.

 

[Freethinker]

I don't think that's fair.
What she has done in the past, and what she does now, with her own life, is none of our business. And we have no right to judge it.

Personally, I'm just faintly appalled that her religious views have Kathy convinced that the bad things she has suffered were all her fault.

Facts are neither fair nor unfair. Kathy has simply substituted her faith for her previous addictions. Now she is no longer responsible for what she did before. She has been forgiven for being human, as if that was necessary.

 

[Robin]

A modern version of the Jewish scapegoat or the medieval sin eater perhaps?

Well the story in question "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K Le Guin (The Wind's Twelve Quarters Part II) is basically an allegory for a modern capitalist society although it uses the imagery of the scapegoat.

Le Guin precedes it with an couple of pages about what she means by it and it is more about idealism than answers. The idea is that the "ones who walk away" would not allow their happiness to be dependent on even one suffering person. She does not specify an alternative but ends the story saying that the ones who walk away "seem to know where they are going".

In the next story she makes it clear that she considers Anarchism as an alternative system and her book "The Dispossesed" is a warts and all description of that kind of society.

But I think she would probably be very annoyed at it being taken as a religious allegory.

 

[truethat]

Well I'd definitely be one of the ones who would walk away.

 

[TraneWreck]

"The idea that God _has_ to go through a horrible ritual, to be able to remove that sin, is absurd. Doubly so when the ritual is his own invention anyway."

Unless he's just ◊◊◊◊◊ with us...

 

[Third Eye Open]

What is it exactly that I have done to this Jesus fellow that I need to be asking forgiveness for?