Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 02-27-2009, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

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.

No, I actually said that due to the obviously incoherent doctrine that we currently know as Christianity, wouldn't it make more sense if the god in question was someone other than YHWH.

and do I really need to quote John... :

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

George S · 02-27-2009, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

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.

How does a 3-day timeout qualify as a sacrifice anyway?

figuer · 02-27-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Excellent summary of Christian theology.

How does a 3-day timeout qualify as a sacrifice anyway?

Actually, there can be no 3-day timeout (or the universe would collapse into nothingness).

Roland · 02-27-2009, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

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.

Interesting point. What did Jesus actually "sacrifice"? What did he give up? True, there was tremendous suffering involved in his death, but his reward was to be made eternal Lord of the universe. That hardly sounds like a "sacrifice" in the traditional sense of the term.

Now, if he'd agreed to spend the rest of eternity suffering in hell so that others wouldn't have to, THAT would be a sacrifice.

Lógos Sokratikós · 02-27-2009, 07:13 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?

"A god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself" is nothing other than a dog that chases its own tail. Therefore it is only evidence that Man created God in his own image.

dog-on · 02-27-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

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?

"A god sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself" is nothing other than a dog that chases its own tail. Therefore it is only evidence that Man created God in his own image.

Indeed! But what does that have to do with the origins of Christianity.

show_no_mercy · 02-27-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Excellent summary of Christian theology.

How does a 3-day timeout qualify as a sacrifice anyway?

It wasn't even 3 days. More like 1.5 days.

bacht · 02-27-2009, 08:21 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.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2.5-11

At this point Christ is almost the same as God, not quite con-substantial

Lógos Sokratikós · 02-27-2009, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

not quite con-substantial

I'd say the story is unsubstantial.

Clivedurdle · 02-27-2009, 08:48 AM

On Unitarians, just glancing at Darwin's Sacred Cause, not sure whether to buy it, and I note a very significant Unitarian background in his family, and that they are really Deists in the Godspell tradition - he's just a man.

Conclusion: Heretics!:devil1:

(Therefore no robots you are not an atheist xian but an atheist unitarian with godspell flavours!)

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

02-27-2009, 08:48 AM	#30
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	On Unitarians, just glancing at Darwin's Sacred Cause, not sure whether to buy it, and I note a very significant Unitarian background in his family, and that they are really Deists in the Godspell tradition - he's just a man. Conclusion: Heretics!:devil1: (Therefore no robots you are not an atheist xian but an atheist unitarian with godspell flavours!)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.