Rhea

Then we're back to a human death on human terms. The "taking on the sins" thing only makes sense to a God. A human mind can't comprehend it and therefore would not suffer from it.

In which case it is easy to find examples of people who "suffered more". In my opinion, that is.

theoscholar

I didn't say he wasn't also God. In metaphysics, this is a paradox, not a contradiction (he's not A and non-A at the same time AND the same relationship).

Krosis

in reference to the OP..

makes you think.. If jesus had lived and died in the last 80 years or so.. Christians would be wearing little gold electric chairs around their necks.

creepy.

southernhybrid

Xianity is based on the ancient and brutal concept of human blood sacrifice. It's the creepiest part of Xianity imo. Why adult Xians never stop and think about how stupid, and primitive this belief is I will never understand. I guess the power of indoctrination supersedes the power of the rational mind. It's so sad.

You couldn't be more incorrect. We choose to think independently and then come to the realization that Xianity like other religions is a myth and so is God. We do not choose to separate ourselves from God. We have discovered that God is an ancient myth created by man out of a need to try and understand the universe. The only gods exist in the mind of man. It does get a bit old when theists keep telling us that we have chosen to live apart from something that has no basis in reality.

Rhea

{Insult deleted}.

I expect he will be insulted by my saying so.





Although there is a precedent. One of the leading Creation Science teachers said in an interview: (Paraphrased)
"I had been a critical scientist in evolution. Then I finally reached a critical point where I had to reconcile my scientific knowledge with the bible. It conflicted. I had to go with my faith and reject the evidence. It was a turning point for me."


Note: The evidence was compelling and well-supported. He had to reject it only because the Bible didn't support it. It never lost its basis in reality. He now teaches creation at a Christian college and doesn't talk about everything he knows to be supported by physical evidence.


A deliberate choice. I see Xians making that choice with much less deliberation every day. At least this guy had the brains to admit what he was doing.


...

But yeah, basing your life on blood sacrifice is pretty primitive and barbaric. I'm glad much of the world has evolved past that.

Barcode

The depiction of a dying Jesus, replete with gaping wound, crown of thorns and holes in his hands and feet reminds me a bit of say, Hellraiser. And how many "good" Christian parents would let their children be exposed to that?

Enlighten Me

I wonder why Christians don't demonstrate admiration for the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan practice of human sacrifice. After all, they had the "correct" concept: spill blood to appease a god. They just didn't have the right victim at their disposal....

Mageth

As to (1), this is assuming that He (God) can experience "misery" in any meaningful fashion. How do we know that bearing the "sins of the world" is even a trivial task to an Omnimax God? (The man-part of the man-god paradox simply had to die).

As to (2), a neat trick that, since the Father and Son are One God. While they were separated, was the universe temporarily blessed with two Gods? And again, how do we know that the Father (God) "turning his back" on the Son (God) for an instant caused any significant inconvenience or pain to either of them, esp. since both knew it was just for an instant?

Jesus the man-god - the man part died; the God part didn't, of course. Which means only the man-part truly required resurrection. The God part's sacrifice was allegedly separation from the Father-God (for an instant) who, paradoxically, since the Father-God and Son-God are one God, is also himself. So all the God-part had to do was hang around for less than 40 hours (in the presence of God the Father, or in other words with Himself) and wait for his man-body to be resurrected so he could repossess it.

Now, it's evident from the Gospels that Jesus' death was voluntary. In the Garden he consented, when he said "Not my will, but thine"; to paraphrase, knowing that the Father and Son are one, he essentially said "Not my will, but my will."

And Jesus' death was, of course, a sacrifice to God (who, paradoxically, Jesus also is, so it was essentially a sacrifice to himself). The sacrifice was necessary because, for some reason, God (the Father, the Son, and, I suppose, that other ghostly fellow, who paradoxically are all one God) requires death in payment for sin, no matter how trivial the sin. Normally, it is the responsibility for each sinner to make this payment, either by dying himself or, under a special arrangement with God, God can be appeased by properly killing a choice goat, sheep or some other suitable animal.

But God came up with this plan that a sinless man could be sacrificed, and that one sacrifice would serve to appease God for all men's sins (or at least for all men that were willing to believe that this one sacrifice would appease God). This one sacrifice would free those who accepted it from the "wages of sin" - death. Now, exactly how the death of one human could do this is, of course, a mystery (oooh!). And exactly why someone who, instead of choosing to bear their own burden of sin, chooses to lay that burden on some innocent person to escape death, pleases a supposedly Just and Righteous God is another mystery (oooh!).

Now, God saw that the only way to get a man through life without sinning is to go down there and possess a man and do it himself, and then arrange to get the man sacrificially killed. So God did that - he sent the Son-part down to possess Jesus' body and run the show. Now, don't forget that the Son and Father are One, so paradoxically it was God up there and God down here the whole time. And, paradoxically, Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, though Jesus' actions and words were directed by the God-part; otherwise, he could never be sinless (I find it a bit paradoxical that someone could be considered "100% man" when possessed and directed by a God. Maybe it's "100% man" in the same way that a hamburger stand might advertise their burgers as "100% beef").

So, in the end, this man-god (the God part, anyways) arranged to get himself (or at least the man part) killed on a cross. He (the God part) did this as a sacrifice to himself (God) to appease himself (God), to meet the requirements of the "wages of sin" requirement that he himself (God) had established. Now, for a brief instant, God (the Father) "turned his back" on God (the Son). But, after this instant, the two were reunited. Next thing you know, less than 40 hours later (a bit off, as the man-god had predicted that he would be in the grave for "three days and three nights") the man-god pops up again, better than ever, able to walk through walls and do other neat tricks. A few weeks later, the man-god-Son went back to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father-God (or, to paraphrase, to sit at the right hand of himself).

Bottom line (with credit to our own Koyaanisqatsi): God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.

Infidelic

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Mageth

Why, thank you, Infidelic. If you want more, I once posted a similar interpretation of the Christian Supersition around here somewhere, and it's been immortalized:

The Greatest Story Ever Sold

BTW, I had another thought:

under a special arrangement with God, God can be appeased by properly killing a choice goat, sheep or some other suitable animal.

But God came up with this plan that a sinless man could be sacrificed, and that one sacrifice would serve to appease God for all men's sins (or at least for all men that were willing to believe that this one sacrifice would appease God).

Therefore, was God's plan perhaps really intended to save goats, sheep, etc. from unnecessary and unjust suffering?