The 'lamb of God'.

lifegazer

Philosopher
L
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,047
I want to discuss the crucifixion. Of course, such a discussion will have to assume that the events reported by the New Testament really happened... otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

In 1:29 of John's gospel (KJV), John the baptist heralds Jesus' arrival with the words:
Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Assuming that God exists and that Jesus was the pure manifestation of God as man, some serious questions arise from Jesus' consequent sacrifice ('sacrifice' since he had the power [He's 'God' remember] to melt the Romans' brains and walk away smokin' a cigar) upon the cross:
(1) Why did God allow Itself to be punished thus? Why would the All Powerful allow this to happen to Itself rather than walk away puffin' a large one?
(2) How/why would this sacrifice purge humanity of sin? For example, can we say that Hitler (as an extreme example) is totally blameless in the light of the crucifixion?

How can we answer these questions and make sense of this event?
... If you believe the religion that is 'Christianity', God's suffering alone suffices to redeem man of sin, even though he didn't really die - the resurrection, remember.
Granted, Jesus suffered badly. Anybody who watched Gibson's 'The Passion of Christ' might consent to that. But is a day of suffering worthy of man's absolute redemption from sin? I don't think so. Worthy of awe and respect, perhaps. But why would we now be totally blameless, as a result? It makes no sense at all:
God suffered for a day, therefore humanity has no sin.

... Does not compute. Is not rational. Does not follow. Especially considering the vile acts commited by humanity for the proceeding 2000 years. In fact, the Christian interpretation of the crucifixion almost gives a license to sin without regret, for we can do whatever we want and say "I'm blameless, mate.".

It makes no sense because it's a crock and a gross misrepresentation of the truth due to ignorance mixed with a huge splash of ego.
Christianity has perpetuated the division between God and man, not to mention the division between men themselves. As a result, the significance of this profound event has been made to look like the act of a lame duck. 'God' actually appears dumb because there's no way that short-lived suffering alone suffices to make us all blameless unless something hitherto unreported by Christianity can make sense of it all.

I put it to you that the aforementioned sacrifice only makes sense when viewed under the light of a truth that reveals that only God exists. [as per my own philosophy]
... Why?
... Because if we are to believe that Jesus is the pure manifestation of God as man and only God exists, then God is to blame for everything that has ever happened, since there is no other [but God].
The crucifixion was God speaking to [the] ignorance that also exists in God:
I AM to blame for everything, for there is no other. I sacrifice myself for the sake of ignorance, that men may stop blaming themselves and other men. Only 'I' exist. Let this act be a recognition of the fact that 'I' am "to blame"... and that 'I', therefore, taketh away the sin of the world - for sin is not the world's doing.

Furthermore, the resurrection serves to report that there is no death. God does not die. Beliefs/experiences expire... life does not.

The ministry of Jesus has been perverted by Christianity. Albeit ignorantly. Those Christians were/are blameless.
I'm not here seeking retribution or apologies [from Christians]. In fact, I'm here to wipe the slate clean so that the profundity of the original message might now come to light.
All that matters is the final outcome.
 
lifegazer said:
The crucifixion was God speaking to [the] ignorance that also exists in God:
I AM to blame for everything, for there is no other. I sacrifice myself for the sake of ignorance,

...

The ministry of Jesus has been perverted by Christianity. Albeit ignorantly.
Click to expand...

Man, your god is a stupid (Rule 8).
 
lifegazer said:
(1) Why did God allow Itself to be punished thus? Why would the All Powerful allow this to happen to Itself rather than walk away puffin' a large one?
Click to expand...

<calvinist apology>
It goes something like this:
1) God's justice is perfect,
2) The wages of sin is death
3) Man sinned,
4) God wanted to save Man.

According to 2) and 3), somebody has to do the time. It can't be Man, since that would prevent 4), and God can't just change the rules since that would violate 1).

The solution is to send Junior to Hell. If you do the math, three days of God Incarnate in Hell is equivalent to an eternity for all the elect.

((2) How/why would this sacrifice purge humanity of sin? For example, can we say that Hitler (as an extreme example) is totally blameless in the light of the crucifixion?
Click to expand...

I don't get that either; this kind of substitution certainly isn't allowed in modern legal systems. But it seems to comport with the practice of killing innocent sheep as a means of annulling human crimes.

I realize that my analysis here can be demolished both from a Biblical and extra-Biblical perspective. I won't take it personally.
 
You had me at "crock".

Then you lost me where you find it does make sense only within your philosophy. I don't think you wanna go there. If it makes sense, then you gotta adopt Jesus. That's gonna make you a Christian or a Moslem or something.

Do you have parallels in your philosophy to Abraham and Isaac. Isaac wasn't slain but Jesus was and God wanted it to happen?

Do you have a theory on blood sacrifice in general?

Do you agree with Paul of Tarsus on the meaning of the messiah?
 
lifegazer said:
... The crucifixion was God speaking to [the] ignorance that also exists in God:
I AM to blame for everything, for there is no other. I sacrifice myself for the sake of ignorance, that men may stop blaming themselves and other men. Only 'I' exist. Let this act be a recognition of the fact that 'I' am "to blame"... and that 'I', therefore, taketh away the sin of the world - for sin is not the world's doing.
Click to expand...
Why is this interpretation to be preferred to any other? If God's Omni-Ignorant self is involved why isn't isn't God merely screaming in madness, "I'm killing Myself, Wheeeee." Does He even have to have a reason that we'd understand? After all, we don't mean anymore to God than toenails do to us.
 
Welcome back, officially, Darren.

Hmmm.... better than your usual stuff. At least, it certainly starts out better. And you're spot-on with something that has always concerned me, as well.

However, you are being rather obtuse about the ramifications of the resurrection within your theories; in fact, I can see nothing in particular about your theories that would suggest any deeper meaning to the Crucifiction than exists in mainstream Christianity.

Let's take the dream analogy, for a moment, back into consideration. You're dreaming. In the dream, you've been this bodiless watcher. You create a few million dream-personae, who move throughout your dream-world doing all sorts of things you really don't like.

Already, we run into problem number one. If you are creating the dream, why would you put your dream-personae through situations that you don't care for? And why would it bother you that your own creations are doing something that you made them do? Alternatively, if they are doing things you don't want them to do and you cannot control them, then are you truly omnipotent within the dream? Clearly not.

But let's continue.

So next you make a dream-avatar: a personal dream-personae which you choose to experience from directly. Then you arrange for that avatar to suffer and die, only to restore it to life... for what reason? How does this do anything for the other dream-personae?

In other words, it is possible that this theory makes even less sense under your own ideas than it does under mainstream Christianity.

But don't despair - your thread has me thinking of the situation underlying such Christ-themed works such as the Chronicles of Narnia, Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, etc. in which someone is sacrificed, and returns more powerful than before. I gotta wonder - is there some heroic notion within this that appeals to us for its own sake, or is it the specific parallel to a 2000-year-old fable that makes it appealing?
 
Here's what I've heard as the explanaition on How Jesus's death cleared the sins of his followers, for all generations.

He took the sins onto his own soul, he claimed them as his own, then went to hell and had them cleansed in the fire. Any sin, past present and future. You must remember, at the time, the were sacrificing animals under the same pretense. You gave your sins to the animal, and then killed it, and your sins along with it. Jesus made himself the lamb (since baby sheep were a common sacrifice of the day) of all mankind. He took everybody's sin who would give them to him. So even today, according to his words, you "Give it to God" and it's already been paid for. You can choose to hold onto them if you want, then you have to have them cleansed on your own (burning the chaff from the wheat) but the idea is you don't have to, since Jesus has already paid for them.
And the logic of it? How can he take sins from the future onto himself? You first have to accept that part of His omnipotence includes the ability to view and be present in all moments of time simultaniously. Time is spread out before Him like a map. If you accept this, then you can pretty much accept anything else as possible for Him.

And no, the Christian interpretation of the Crucifixion does not give Christians free will to sin without regret, because we are able to recognise pain in others, as a result of our actions, and even 'victimless' sins are said to hurt and disappoint the Father, and if you love Him, you don't want to do that. So it doesn't give Christians any more license to misbehave any more than the belief in 'No God' gives atheists a license to commit crimes, since they don't believe in hell anyway. The difference is, if you give your crimes to Christ, you needn't suffer in the afterlife. That's the message. Not, "Have fun, do what you will, I'll pick up the tab. " Saying all Christians believe this and behave accordingly is akin to any racist comment that can be made, it stems from ignorance.

Of course, asking for logic in Christianity is futile effort anyway, there are several passages that refer to God's logic as being unexplainable to human minds. I'm not good with referrences, but a lifetime in the church, and I've heard most of it. The phrase "God works in mysterious ways" is just a catchy paraphrasing of a specific passage claiming that God's reason seems ludacris to the human mind. That's why they call it 'faith.' You're not meant to figure it out with your mind.
 
zaayrdragon said:
.... I gotta wonder - is there some heroic notion within this that appeals to us for its own sake, or is it the specific parallel to a 2000-year-old fable that makes it appealing?
Click to expand...
Ya know Z, Pythagoras is one of my favorite Greeks. He believed that Nature could be coaxed to give up her secrets. He chose a God in Nature. He was a Sun God worshipper.

I just mention that cuz you seem like a nature boy. And for the connection to the Sun, of course. The notion that the sun dies everyday and goes into the underworld only to be resurrected and give hope to us all and chase away the darkness predates the Jesus myth. I think resurrection myths originate in sun-god mythology. Later myths have to go one better than prior myths. That's probably why so many have similar characteristics. They have to incorporate all the things they old gods did or they won't be seen as new and improved.

Jesus didn't really do much more than prior man-god myths. He did have a softer take on the harsh Father God though. I'm glad of that anyway. If we have to inherit a world religion, it sure could be worse.
 
lifegazer said:
I want to discuss the crucifixion. Of course, such a discussion will have to assume that the events reported by the New Testament really happened... otherwise there's nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...
I wish to discuss that the Terminator lived and his sole purpose was to exterminate Sarah Connor.

Of course, such a discussion will have to assume that the events reported in The Terminator really happened...otherwise there's nothing to discuss.
 
Atlas said:
You had me at "crock".

Then you lost me where you find it does make sense only within your philosophy. I don't think you wanna go there. If it makes sense, then you gotta adopt Jesus. That's gonna make you a Christian or a Moslem or something.
Click to expand...
The underlying theme of this thread is that 'Christianity' has misinterpreted and misrepresented the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus.
... So I can believe that Jesus was God and did taketh away the sin of the world, but that doesn't make me a Christian. As I said, Christianity sustains the division between [everyday] man and God. Christians definitely do not believe that only God exists.
This belief resides at the heart of the aforementioned misrepresentation.
It's impossible for me to proclaim myself as a Christian.
 
Atlas said:
Why is this interpretation to be preferred to any other? If God's Omni-Ignorant self is involved why isn't isn't God merely screaming in madness, "I'm killing Myself, Wheeeee." Does He even have to have a reason that we'd understand? After all, we don't mean anymore to God than toenails do to us.
Click to expand...
The [internal] experience of being man is a real experience. Thus God's experience of being man, in the world, is - as a whole - pretty grim.
Your last sentence reveals your ignorance. Even after all of our discussions, you still maintain that if God is the totality of existence, then 'you' are a meaningless plop in the ocean. But this isn't true, for if God is the totality of existence, then 'you' are indeed that God, experiencing itself as 'Atlas'.
What does this mean for 'you'? It elevates 'you' to Divine status, rather than reducing 'you' to a plop in the sea, as you so-often parrot as a response to many of my posts.
It also elevates 'them' to Divine status.
It unifies existence... even in the world. It opens the gates to heaven on Earth. It purges us of our separate egos and unites us as the Spiritual One.
 
lifegazer said:
The [internal] experience of being man is a real experience. Thus God's experience of being man, in the world, is - as a whole - pretty grim.
Your last sentence reveals your ignorance. Even after all of our discussions, you still maintain that if God is the totality of existence, then 'you' are a meaningless plop in the ocean. But this isn't true, for if God is the totality of existence, then 'you' are indeed that God, experiencing itself as 'Atlas'.
What does this mean for 'you'? It elevates 'you' to Divine status, rather than reducing 'you' to a plop in the sea, as you so-often parrot as a response to many of my posts.
It also elevates 'them' to Divine status.
It unifies existence... even in the world. It opens the gates to heaven on Earth. It purges us of our separate egos and unites us as the Spiritual One.
Click to expand...
Somebody break out the koolaid.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Welcome back, officially, Darren.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Needed a break from this place.
Let's take the dream analogy, for a moment, back into consideration. You're dreaming. In the dream, you've been this bodiless watcher. You create a few million dream-personae, who move throughout your dream-world doing all sorts of things you really don't like.

Already, we run into problem number one. If you are creating the dream, why would you put your dream-personae through situations that you don't care for? And why would it bother you that your own creations are doing something that you made them do? Alternatively, if they are doing things you don't want them to do and you cannot control them, then are you truly omnipotent within the dream? Clearly not.
Click to expand...
Every "dream-personae" is an experience being had by God - and not an entity unto itself. So your first question is reduced thus:
Why would God put itself in a situation that facilitates dire experiences?

... In the beginning, God has zero experience, other than of God.
As John says:
In the beginning was the word (thought/awareness)
And the word was with God (God was aware)
And the word was God (God was Self-aware)
[1:1 KJV]

That was God's experience. Self.
Pretty limiting really, considering that there is no other to interact with. Nothing else to amuse oneself with. Nowhere to go. No thing to do.

The creation of the [experience of the] world was God's playground. A place to be. Things to do. Somewhere to go.

Now remember that I said: In the beginning, God has zero experience, other than of God.

This is important. It means that if God is still Self-aware upon having the awareness of the world, that no consequent experiences of hate; fear; otherness; sadness; etc., can occur. Consequently, experiences such as love; peace; happyness; etc., will be stifled also.
God must abandon Self identity so that the potential to experience everything may blossom.
This facilitates negative experience. But it also facilitates positive experience. And in the end, the positive shall devour the negative - good shall devour evil - and the end-result shall be God, experiencing heaven-on-Earth, with a full knowledge of all experience, thus making the end-experience a very beautiful thing indeed.

Gotta leave it at that. Busy today.
 
lifegazer said:
Please go away or say something intelligent. I'd prefer the latter.
Click to expand...
For someone who seems to know everything there is to know about god, you're a bit cranky.

Was god cranky too?
 
Ceinwyn said:
For someone who seems to know everything there is to know about god, you're a bit cranky.

Was god cranky too?
Click to expand...
God was everything mate.
I'm only interested in mature and intelligent discussion. I see no reason for you to post here if you're not interested.
 
Hmmmm...

Well, at least your Christian approach is more internally coherent, so far. Although I certainly offer you the right to call yourself anything you want to, you would be defined as a Christian by almost ANYONE else with any understanding of the term.

Do you believe in Jesus? Then you are a Christian. All else is optional. Full stop.

Now, it so happens, that since the Bible appears to be little more than a glorified book of faerie tales, I have no reason to buy into this reasoning of yours. Neither will anyone who likewise rejects the Bible.

Your earlier attempts appeared to be meant to appeal to scientists and, by extension, atheists; yet it did neither, and in fact earned you more than a few laughs and a great deal of ridicule. Now you are trying to appeal to Christians... I have no idea if that tactic will work any better, but it will definitely alienate your theories from atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians.

Your goals recede from you faster the harder you reach for them.

And you're still clearly cherry-picking the Bible. Think of John 3:16 for a moment: clearly, God thought pretty highly of this Universe He created. "For God so loved Creation (gr. Kosmos)... " In other words, whatever this reality we are experiencing is, it is of the greatest value to God. So why should we not revel in this creation? Why should we not accept this creation as our ultimate reality?

The funny thing about the Bible is, it supports everyone's opinion - provided you have the ability to cherry-pick and translate as you see fit.
 
lifegazer said:
... In the beginning, God has zero experience, other than of God.
As John says:
In the beginning was the word (thought/awareness)
And the word was with God (God was aware)
And the word was God (God was Self-aware)
[1:1 KJV]
Click to expand...

No.

How can you demand "intelligent" answers if you begin with false assumptions (as usual)?

The "word" here is the greek's Logos. Reading doesnt hurt, knowing history and what others believed doesnt hurt.

Here, I made your homework (again):

Lo·gos (lō'gōs', lŏg'ŏs')
n.

Philosophy.

In pre-Socratic philosophy, the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning about the cosmos.

Among the Sophists, the topics of rational argument or the arguments themselves.

In Stoicism, the active, material, rational principle of the cosmos; nous. Identified with God, it is the source of all activity and generation and is the power of reason residing in the human soul.

Judaism.

In biblical Judaism, the word of God, which itself has creative power and is God's medium of communication with the human race.

In Hellenistic Judaism, a hypostasis associated with divine wisdom.

Christianity. In Saint John's Gospel, especially in the prologue (1:1–14), the creative word of God, which is itself God and incarnate in Jesus. Also called Word.
Click to expand...

So, no, nothing to do with your definition/interpretation (thought/awareness) try again. But this time please go back to school first.

Nope, Im not being agressive, you have to understand that Im respecting you by telling you what you need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom