Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vanderzyden · 10-11-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:
The entire idea of sacrificing the innocent to pay for the deeds of the guilty is repugnant to me, and should be to any thinking person....

OK, Kind Bud, here it comes...Are you ready?

INDEED!!

The very idea is repugnant, it is illogical. It isn't the way that I would arrange it. But, Jesus himself said it would be so. However, repugnance does not necessarily detract from the truthfulness.

As I have indicated previously, you carry this repugnance over into your analysis of scripture in general. You do not restrict it to the concept of a crucified son of God. In fact, it would seem that your presuppositional revulsions will prevent you from ever taking the Bible seriously at all. (Why then do you start threads like you did yesterday?)

Jesus

Luke 20:17 --Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written:

" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone'?

18Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." 19The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

Mark 9:12 -- Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?

Luke 6:22 -- Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

Paul also affirmed the "foolishness" of God:

1 Corinthians 1: 22 -- Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

1 Corinthians 3:18 -- Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

Vanderzyden

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Mageth · 10-11-2002, 12:15 PM

So the whole "Jesus the sacrificial lamb" thing is repugnant, illogical, and foolish, even to a christian?

And yet you wonder why some don't take the bible seriously?

ManM · 10-11-2002, 12:59 PM

K,

Quote:

So you are saying that we told God He would have to kill Himself to heal us and He agreed? How stupid could our ancestors have possibly been? Why didn't they tell God to heal the world by eliminating pain and suffering?

I'm saying that God is motivated by His love to do whatever it takes to heal His creation. By our choices, we placed God in the situation where His death was required to heal us.

Now tell me, suppose all pain and suffering were to disappear tomorrow, would we all get along? Pain and suffering are not the only evils in play. How do you propose God heal the rifts that exist between us?

Mageth,
I apologize for using the term 'natural' then. Perhaps I should have said 'obvious'.

Quote:

...and thus god is not the author of death, and thus death was "created" or imposed by a power other than god...

That does not follow. Light is not the author of darkness, but does that mean darkness is created or imposed? Darkness has no positive content of its own, but rather is the absence of light. Death has no positive content of its own; it is the absence of life.

jasonpiao,
I agree with you that those are examples of bad parenting. I do not believe in that God. God did not impose death upon us and he did not leave us to get sick.

We fell into death and sickness quite on our own, but instead of letting us fall away into nothingness, God gave His own life so that we might inherit eternal life.

tronvillain · 10-11-2002, 01:04 PM

Assuming the existence of both Jesus and God, the only reasonable explanation of Jesus dying on the cross that I can see is the creation of the Christian religion. Obviously Jesus did not have to die for our sins - an omnipotent God could have accomplished the task without having to sacrifice his son.

K · 10-11-2002, 01:09 PM

ManM:

I don't think you understand whay I'm am trying to say. According to the legend, Jesus had to die for our sins.

I assumed that it was God that decided that Jesus' death was required as atonement for our sins.

You countered and said that we were the ones who decided the requirement for Jesus' death. That's why I pointed out that since we decided what the atonement should look like, we should have chosen something worthwhile like the end of suffering instead of the death of God.

Now you've contended that we didn't actually decide and neither did God. That means that there has to be some higher power that both God and humanity have to submit to. That power is what has decided that the only way to fix the world is with the death of God. My only question now is. What is that higher power that dictates to God?

jasonpiao · 10-11-2002, 01:10 PM

So before he did that, did all the people who died not get eternal life?
Did they just cease to exist or suffer eternal suffering, in which case they are still eternal. Did it make ANY difference at all? Seems like the world is not any better a place.
In retrospect, god's master sacrifice seems quite ineffective. Not very godly, that.

Vanderzyden · 10-11-2002, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
So the whole "Jesus the sacrificial lamb" thing is repugnant, illogical, and foolish, even to a christian?

Not to a "christian". Rather, it's repulsive to a creature of pride.

"Vanity is my favorite sin." -- Satan, The Devil's Advocate

V

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

luvluv · 10-11-2002, 03:02 PM

Okay kids I'm going off script here. I've thought a lot about this issue and here are some thoughts I've had. The following words and opinions belong to luvluv only, and are not necessarily those of Christianity or God Himself.

I think it is possible that God's sacrifice was not to Himself, but to us.

Jesus did not die on a cross to appease an angry God, He died on the cross as an appeal to lost and hurting men. This is how I've seen it function most often. Christians respond to the sacrifice of Jesus as if it were made FOR THEM and not for God, and that is the attraction. Jesus Himself said "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me."

To many, the notion of a Savior who would suffer and give their lives for them, and who would have done it if they were the only person who ever lived, is an example of the love that they have been looking for, and a shining example of love they long to emulate. Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend.

There are many examples in the Old Testament of God extending mercy to his followers, and even forgiveness. It doesn't seem to follow from the Old Testament that God was incapable of forgiving. In fact, even many non-Hebrew communities were aware of the fact that while Yahweh would not hesitate to follow through on his threats, He was very quick to forgive if people truly repented for their wrong actions. It doesn't seem logical to me that God could not forgive people without the aid of a sacrifice.

The one explanation of this that makes sense to me (and at this point I am speaking in the name of the tradition of Christianity) is the fact that God told Adam that the soul that sins will surely die, and that God cannot go back on His word. Therefore, after He made that statement, He had to construct a means by which He could save us from the consequences of our actions. To that end Jesus gave His life. I guess you could ask, then, why didn't God just watch what He said? Well, I think it's possible that God wanted humanity to know of the gravity of sin, and that's why he instituted death (there are words to that effect in Genesis. God said that "My soul will not strive with man forever" and then decided to institute a life span for man). It's possible, given free will, that in a world in which it was not possible to die no one would ever take their actions very seriously. So the entire affair of setting up a penalty for sin and then overcoming it may yield a better end result than never setting up a penalty for sin. And setting the price of sin high may, in the end, bring more people to a relationship with God than setting the bar low. And a price that requires part of the Godhead to sacrifice Himself is about as high as it can get.

So, to answer K's question, God may have chosen this route because it was the best possible route. The extreme nature of the sacrifice carries with it a stronger emotional appeal than perhaps any other act. (I think the decision to end all death and suffering would make people ultimately less concerned about their morality)

From this standpoint, substitutionary atonement makes sense to me. But I still believe it could be simeltaneously true that the sacrifice was as much TO US as it was FOR US.

Mageth · 10-11-2002, 03:10 PM

Van:

Not to a "christian". Rather, it's repulsive to a creature of pride.

But you said:

The very idea is repugnant, it is illogical. It isn't the way that I would arrange it.

Are you a creature of pride, then?

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Vanderzyden · 10-11-2002, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:

Are you a creature of pride, then?

Yes, most assuredly. There is not one human that isn't.

Vanderzyden

10-11-2002, 03:10 PM	#29
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Van: Not to a "christian". Rather, it's repulsive to a creature of pride. But you said: The very idea is repugnant, it is illogical. It isn't the way that I would arrange it. Are you a creature of pride, then? [ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

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

10-11-2002, 12:15 PM	#22
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	So the whole "Jesus the sacrificial lamb" thing is repugnant, illogical, and foolish, even to a christian? And yet you wonder why some don't take the bible seriously?

10-11-2002, 01:04 PM	#24
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Assuming the existence of both Jesus and God, the only reasonable explanation of Jesus dying on the cross that I can see is the creation of the Christian religion. Obviously Jesus did not have to die for our sins - an omnipotent God could have accomplished the task without having to sacrifice his son.

10-11-2002, 01:09 PM	#25
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	ManM: I don't think you understand whay I'm am trying to say. According to the legend, Jesus had to die for our sins. I assumed that it was God that decided that Jesus' death was required as atonement for our sins. You countered and said that we were the ones who decided the requirement for Jesus' death. That's why I pointed out that since we decided what the atonement should look like, we should have chosen something worthwhile like the end of suffering instead of the death of God. Now you've contended that we didn't actually decide and neither did God. That means that there has to be some higher power that both God and humanity have to submit to. That power is what has decided that the only way to fix the world is with the death of God. My only question now is. What is that higher power that dictates to God?

10-11-2002, 01:10 PM	#26
jasonpiao Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Victoria, B.C. Posts: 60	So before he did that, did all the people who died not get eternal life? Did they just cease to exist or suffer eternal suffering, in which case they are still eternal. Did it make ANY difference at all? Seems like the world is not any better a place. In retrospect, god's master sacrifice seems quite ineffective. Not very godly, that.

10-11-2002, 03:02 PM	#28
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Okay kids I'm going off script here. I've thought a lot about this issue and here are some thoughts I've had. The following words and opinions belong to luvluv only, and are not necessarily those of Christianity or God Himself. I think it is possible that God's sacrifice was not to Himself, but to us. Jesus did not die on a cross to appease an angry God, He died on the cross as an appeal to lost and hurting men. This is how I've seen it function most often. Christians respond to the sacrifice of Jesus as if it were made FOR THEM and not for God, and that is the attraction. Jesus Himself said "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." To many, the notion of a Savior who would suffer and give their lives for them, and who would have done it if they were the only person who ever lived, is an example of the love that they have been looking for, and a shining example of love they long to emulate. Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend. There are many examples in the Old Testament of God extending mercy to his followers, and even forgiveness. It doesn't seem to follow from the Old Testament that God was incapable of forgiving. In fact, even many non-Hebrew communities were aware of the fact that while Yahweh would not hesitate to follow through on his threats, He was very quick to forgive if people truly repented for their wrong actions. It doesn't seem logical to me that God could not forgive people without the aid of a sacrifice. The one explanation of this that makes sense to me (and at this point I am speaking in the name of the tradition of Christianity) is the fact that God told Adam that the soul that sins will surely die, and that God cannot go back on His word. Therefore, after He made that statement, He had to construct a means by which He could save us from the consequences of our actions. To that end Jesus gave His life. I guess you could ask, then, why didn't God just watch what He said? Well, I think it's possible that God wanted humanity to know of the gravity of sin, and that's why he instituted death (there are words to that effect in Genesis. God said that "My soul will not strive with man forever" and then decided to institute a life span for man). It's possible, given free will, that in a world in which it was not possible to die no one would ever take their actions very seriously. So the entire affair of setting up a penalty for sin and then overcoming it may yield a better end result than never setting up a penalty for sin. And setting the price of sin high may, in the end, bring more people to a relationship with God than setting the bar low. And a price that requires part of the Godhead to sacrifice Himself is about as high as it can get. So, to answer K's question, God may have chosen this route because it was the best possible route. The extreme nature of the sacrifice carries with it a stronger emotional appeal than perhaps any other act. (I think the decision to end all death and suffering would make people ultimately less concerned about their morality) From this standpoint, substitutionary atonement makes sense to me. But I still believe it could be simeltaneously true that the sacrifice was as much TO US as it was FOR US.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.