Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sdelsolray · 02-26-2009, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biblethumping

I think you are missing the point. Jesus so loved his people he was willing to sacrifice himself to his father so that we may be absolved of sin. People do some crazy things when they are in love and make all sorts of sacrifices in the name of love. now magnify love to infinite omni love and it's easy to see the only way for Jesus to care for his flock was to sacrifice himself on the cross in the name of love. Some of you need to attend some bible school because this is the first thing taught.

This Jesus persona, and the awe placed on this act, seems a bit disingenuous. Assuming the tale true, his willingness to "sacrifice himself to his father so that we may be absolved of sin" is nothing special. He already knew he would not truly die - he was immortal. He also had the power to absolve others from sin - exercising it was a triffle.

Many humans (of less mortality and power) would willinging sacrifice their mortal life if, in exchange, the rest of mankind was benefitted in some way - e.g., cured of disease, given greater intelligence and empathy, etc. That lowly human's sacrifice would be more than the sacrifice of this Jesus persona. That lowly human arguably could love humanity more.

There's a fundamental disconnect in this part of the Jesus myth.

dog-on · 02-27-2009, 01:55 AM

So, can we agree that a Christianity whose God is actually YHWH from the OT is incoherent, especially considering how YHWH himself is portrayed in the NT versus his portrayal in the OT?

ph2ter · 02-27-2009, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Please tell me if you disagree with this statement and if so, why.

The basic premise of Christianity, as it currently is understood, is the following; A god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself.

If you agree that this is, in fact, a correct understanding of the basic Christian premise, can this be said to be actual evidence for the priority of gnostic or even proto-gnostic Christianity?

Could the doctrine championed by characters like Marcion be shown to be more "coherent" than the doctrine championed by, what became, the proto-orthodoxy?

Did the original Christ faith hold that YHWH was the demiurge and that the savior was a ransom paid to the demiurge for our salvation and isn't this actually a more "coherent" doctrine, on it's face?

I think you got it wrong.
Actually, the son(god) is sacrificed to pay for 'our' sins and to save 'us' from the judgement of father-god.
The Trinity concept came later.

George S · 02-27-2009, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Please tell me if you disagree with this statement and if so, why.

The basic premise of Christianity, as it currently is understood, is the following; A god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself.

If you agree that this is, in fact, a correct understanding of the basic Christian premise, can this be said to be actual evidence for the priority of gnostic or even proto-gnostic Christianity?

Could the doctrine championed by characters like Marcion be shown to be more "coherent" than the doctrine championed by, what became, the proto-orthodoxy?

Did the original Christ faith hold that YHWH was the demiurge and that the savior was a ransom paid to the demiurge for our salvation and isn't this actually a more "coherent" doctrine, on it's face?

I think you got it wrong.
Actually, the son(god) is sacrificed to pay for 'our' sins and to save 'us' from the judgement of father-god.
The Trinity concept came later.

Yes, and the Trinity is now (Unitarians aside) common to all Christianity.

Their theology today is that "A god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself." (edit to add: To make matters worse, the sacrifice is a three-day time out.)

The distinct father and son is the Arian heresy, right?

,

gurugeorge · 02-27-2009, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biblethumping

I think you are missing the point. Jesus so loved his people he was willing to sacrifice himself to his father so that we may be absolved of sin. People do some crazy things when they are in love and make all sorts of sacrifices in the name of love. now magnify love to infinite omni love and it's easy to see the only way for Jesus to care for his flock was to sacrifice himself on the cross in the name of love. Some of you need to attend some bible school because this is the first thing taught.

In view of the fact that the Father set the conditions for human sin (and that, not for anything genuinely morally wrong, but for seeking knowledge), the whole thing would seem to be an utter farce.

ph2ter · 02-27-2009, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Yes, and the Trinity is now (Unitarians aside) common to all Christianity.

Their theology today is that "A god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself." (edit to add: To make matters worse, the sacrifice is a three-day time out.)

The distinct father and son is the Arian heresy, right?

,

Arians believed that Jesus is a divine being created by the Father (that Jesus has beginning).
The son-god is originally a polytheistic concept and Christians were put themselves in troubles when started to elevate Jewish Messiah to the level of god. Trying to reconcile with the monotheism dogma they invented the Trinity concept which nobody really understands.

George S · 02-27-2009, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by biblethumping

I think you are missing the point. Jesus so loved his people he was willing to sacrifice himself to his father so that we may be absolved of sin. People do some crazy things when they are in love and make all sorts of sacrifices in the name of love. now magnify love to infinite omni love and it's easy to see the only way for Jesus to care for his flock was to sacrifice himself on the cross in the name of love. Some of you need to attend some bible school because this is the first thing taught.

In view of the fact that the Father set the conditions for human sin (and that, not for anything genuinely morally wrong, but for seeking knowledge), the whole thing would seem to be an utter farce.

Yes... and in BC&H we sort of (for the sake of argument) treat it as an object of study.

Thomas Jefferson attempted to throw out the miracle and magic and find a theology by rewriting the bible. He declared himself a cult of one and did not care who agreed with him.

Asimov took the bible and treated it as a historical document and ignored miracles too. He never pushed his atheism but let the book stand or fail on its own.

Religion should be taught in schools. All of them. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, New Age, Buddhism, Wicca, Pantheism, Panentheism, Paganism, Greek and Roman Gods, Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Holy Land Archeology, Biblical Contradictions, Koranic Contradictions, Satanic Verses, Shinto, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, Unitarians, Mystics, and a few I have, no doubt, managed to not mention.

dog-on · 02-27-2009, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Please tell me if you disagree with this statement and if so, why.

The basic premise of Christianity, as it currently is understood, is the following; A god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself.

If you agree that this is, in fact, a correct understanding of the basic Christian premise, can this be said to be actual evidence for the priority of gnostic or even proto-gnostic Christianity?

Could the doctrine championed by characters like Marcion be shown to be more "coherent" than the doctrine championed by, what became, the proto-orthodoxy?

Did the original Christ faith hold that YHWH was the demiurge and that the savior was a ransom paid to the demiurge for our salvation and isn't this actually a more "coherent" doctrine, on it's face?

I think you got it wrong.
Actually, the son(god) is sacrificed to pay for 'our' sins and to save 'us' from the judgement of father-god.
The Trinity concept came later.

I specifically said, as it is currently understood.

There is also the little matter of John's "In the beginning..."

ph2ter · 02-27-2009, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

I think you got it wrong.
Actually, the son(god) is sacrificed to pay for 'our' sins and to save 'us' from the judgement of father-god.
The Trinity concept came later.

I specifically said, as it is currently understood.

There is also the little matter of John's "In the beginning..."

But you tried to apply the Trinity concept to the time before it was accepted.
To the proto ortodoxy and to Marcion the Trinity concept was unknown.

figuer · 02-27-2009, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The basic premise of Christianity, as it currently is understood, is the following; A god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself.

Excellent summary of Christian theology.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-27-2009, 01:55 AM	#12
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	So, can we agree that a Christianity whose God is actually YHWH from the OT is incoherent, especially considering how YHWH himself is portrayed in the NT versus his portrayal in the OT?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.