Death, Resurrection, Sacrifice, and the Trinity.
This topic is a spin-off from the “Crucifixion is a Fraud” thread. Over the history of the religion forum here at sciforums death has been debated a number of times and there have been many imaginative suggestions, none of which reached a conclusion, or at least none that I could detect. In the crucifix thread I tried to avoid the mention of death since I expected that would detract from the intention of the topic, but that tactic somewhat backfired on me. So this topic is an attempt to clarify, if possible what we mean by death as it applies to humans and gods.
Death
To a materialist death is a cessation of bodily functions needed to sustain the viability of the brain. Once the brain begins to decay then the person will cease to exist. It is assumed in this respect that the cessation of existence is permanent and death means a final ending.
From what we know death does appear to be final since there is no evidence that anyone has ever returned from death, or any mechanism that could result in such a return.
For most the prospect of having to face a permanent non-existence at some point is clearly not attractive. Couple that with the very strong human desires for survival then it is understandable why so many refuse to accept that death is the end. Humans are great problem solvers and when faced with a problem they can’t resolve many resort to hope and wishful thinking, and hence religion was born.
The root cause of every significant religion is the provision of hope that death is not final. There are no facts, proofs or evidence; the claims are pure speculative imaginative fantasies, but offered as reality.
Christianity in particular, through its various sects has a variety of perspectives on death, all of which rely on a physical death not being a final end.
The dualistic concept in its simplest form involves a physical body and a soul that inhabits the body. When the body decays and becomes inanimate (dies) the soul continues to live and exist. However, the soul may or may not be considered eternal.
If the soul is not considered eternal then a person can have a physical death as well as a spiritual death.
Another variation implies that the soul cannot exist on its own and when the body dies the soul enters a state of limbo until it is resurrected into a body. Some consider that this will occur at the second coming of Christ, i.e. judgment day. (e.g. the meek shall inherit the earth).
Yet another variation is that the body and soul are inseparable and the soul dies when the body dies. This seems to be an obstinate view of insisting that materialists are wrong and that a soul must exist, however, in this definition there is no practical difference with the materialist definition.
I’ve seen other variations suggested in these forums and if you feel I’ve missed your favorite concept then please post your suggestion.
So what does it mean for a human to die? Is it: –
1. Permanent cessation of existence.
2. An indeterminate state of limbo.
3. The loss of the physical body.
4. The loss of the soul.
5. The loss of body and soul at the same instant.
6. Or maybe an eternity of torment in a fiery hell.
7. Something else.
I’m trying to avoid using the term death in this list since that is what I am trying to define and I have used the word ‘loss’. Loss implies that the lost state is potentially retrievable. This definition is important when considering that within religious mythology, just like a video game, anything is possible. I.e. there are no facts to constrain the imagination.
Resurrection.
And what would resurrection mean? Which of the states of death above allows itself to be resurrected? And does resurrection mean the return of the soul to a body or does it mean the return of the physical body?
But presumably an omnipotent god could resurrect anything even to the point of reconstituting the atoms and brain patterns that comprised a particular person. A supposedly permanently lost soul could also be resurrected. In this sense death by any definition does not imply permanence.
Death of God.
Now what about God? How is it possible to consider the death of a God?
As an aside: If God is considered omnipotent and immortal then we are instantly faced with a paradox. Immortality implies “cannot die” but omnipotence (can do anything) implies that God could commit suicide. But if he could commit suicide then he cannot be immortal. But if he can’t commit suicide then he can’t be omnipotent. Hmmm!
On the surface it would appear that God cannot die otherwise he would not be immortal. Christianity faced this obvious conclusion early in its history when it claimed Jesus had died (whatever that means) on the cross, but wait, Jesus is God and the bible clearly states there is only one God, so Jesus cannot die. Creative imagination was needed to overcome this obvious paradox.
The Trinity.
And here we need to consider the controversial aspect of Christianity known as the trinity. This is not universally accepted among Christians and was only introduced around the 4th century in an attempt to overcome the confusion described above (ref Nicene Creed). There is virtually nothing in the bible that supports the trinity and what does exist is something of a stretch. The bible overwhelmingly emphasizes that there is only ONE god. So the trinity concept has to make itself fit. However, multiple personalities of a single godhead are not new and were known long before Christianity. See the roots of Hinduism.
I find this diagram of the trinity helpful –
The concept seems to be of 3 entities comprising “another” single entity, where each of the components have independent properties. The best analogy I can find is that of H20 that can be vapor, water, and ice, and at the correct pressure and temperature can be all three at the same time (the triple point of water).
A more detailed explanation of how 3 can be 1 seems to be difficult to find. The best I could find was that it is a mystery and beyond our understanding. Sigh!
However, I have not debated the trinity before so if someone with greater knowledge on this would like to contribute then please do so. I am not claiming exhaustive research on this.
Another issue I have here is that the Christian god is defined as immutable (never changes), what he is now he has always been. This implies that the trinity has always existed. But Jesus seems to have been begotten through the Virgin Mary and if he were a separate entity, as one would imagine after procreation then Christianity should be a polytheistic religion. But the introduction of Jesus conflicts with the claim of immutability, and the bible clearly says there is only one god.
The trinity seems to be a pure paradox, and a failed explanation of how a god can die but not die. The trinity is a logical impossibility. A real fudge factor that seems to add spectacular confusion.
The trinity mess seems to scream out how it is a tangled web of deceit. Christianity with its fantasy claims of a sacrificed deity who isn’t divine but is really, and who isn’t another god but is really. How can anyone understand or explain this? The answer is no one can, it is a mystery because God is incomprehensible. A lame excuse for creating a paradox.
But what about the H2O analogy? This really isn’t the same thing. H2O is a building block, and much like bricks can be used to build three very different structures, one wouldn’t consider a brick to be a structure in its own right.
Sacrifice.
Like so many words ‘Sacrifice’ has multiple meanings. The most acceptable I suggest is that it indicates that something has been given up for a greater cause. I would also suggest that for a sacrifice to remain valid it cannot be taken back or undone. For example if I sacrifice much of my freedom to give aid to a disabled relative then there is no way I can get that time back. In most cases a sacrifice is an altruistic act.
The degree of sacrifice is also relevant. In the example above if the sacrifice is only for an hour, then fine, it is still a sacrifice but not really deserving of a medal, but 60 years caring for a disabled parent is significant. And 60 years is significant because that is a large percentage of an average lifespan.
In these examples sacrifices are time related, but if time is not a factor, for example for an infinite being then such sacrifices have little to no meaning.
Another type of sacrifice involves a physical loss. For example if my arm was caught and I was being pulled into some huge manufacturing machine then if I cut off my arm to save my life then that would be a valid sacrifice. In this case, again, the sacrifice is permanent. But if I knew I could easily re-grow the arm again then is there really a sacrifice, or if it is considered a sacrifice it really isn’t significant.
Sacrifice involving Death.
If the supernatural is non-existent then to voluntarily give up ones life or to give up the life of another would be the ultimate sacrifice. The removal of life is the most extreme sacrifice imaginable.
But if death does not mean a final end then death can never be considered an ultimate sacrifice. Like the loss of an arm in the example above, a supernatural realm implies that the arm can be re-grown. Or like a video game, simply start again.
And if death is not final and souls are eternal then a physical death is as insignificant as in my example of giving up an hour of my time to help a disabled relative.
Sacrifice of a god.
For any sacrifice to be meaningful there must be a permanent loss of some kind. The significance of the loss must also be weighed.
It is difficult to imagine any sacrifice that an omnipotent, infinite, omniscient, creator could make that could be seen as meaningful or significant. And I would assert here as in fact impossible.
All time-based sacrifices equate to zero for an infinite and immortal entity. The 3 days that Jesus was meant to be dead is effectively irrelevant in this context.
All death related sacrifices also have no meaning or significance for an immortal entity, since gods cannot die, and more importantly, they know it.
And any other potential sacrifices will be self-imposed if the entity is both omnipotent and the creator. Any cost or pain would have been of its own design and would be no candidate for any type of sympathy.
Conclusions.
Death really only has significance or meaning if it is permanent.
Religion creates a false hope that death is not permanent, or doesn’t have to be permanent.
Gods cannot die so any attempt to evoke sympathy for the death of a god is nonsense.
The trinity is a confused attempt to resolve a paradox that Christianity created for itself, and results in an even worse paradox.
For any sacrifice to have meaning and significance requires permanence, a real loss, or a majority of time. Gods cannot experience any of these.
Finale.
Christianity claims that Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for our sins since the punishment for sin is death. But if sin is such a big thing that required a sacrifice, then where is the sacrifice? It is alleged that Jesus lives, and God (the father), and God (the son) don’t seem to have experienced any meaningful, significant or permanent loss of anything. If that is so then I would assert that sin is equally meaningless.
And hence the crucifixion and resurrection debacle is just another elaborate and meaningless irrelevant religious fantasy. But a neat piece of mythology, which could be better if it was logically consistent.
Cris
PS. My thanks to blonde_cupid for inspiring me to look deeper.
This topic is a spin-off from the “Crucifixion is a Fraud” thread. Over the history of the religion forum here at sciforums death has been debated a number of times and there have been many imaginative suggestions, none of which reached a conclusion, or at least none that I could detect. In the crucifix thread I tried to avoid the mention of death since I expected that would detract from the intention of the topic, but that tactic somewhat backfired on me. So this topic is an attempt to clarify, if possible what we mean by death as it applies to humans and gods.
Death
To a materialist death is a cessation of bodily functions needed to sustain the viability of the brain. Once the brain begins to decay then the person will cease to exist. It is assumed in this respect that the cessation of existence is permanent and death means a final ending.
From what we know death does appear to be final since there is no evidence that anyone has ever returned from death, or any mechanism that could result in such a return.
For most the prospect of having to face a permanent non-existence at some point is clearly not attractive. Couple that with the very strong human desires for survival then it is understandable why so many refuse to accept that death is the end. Humans are great problem solvers and when faced with a problem they can’t resolve many resort to hope and wishful thinking, and hence religion was born.
The root cause of every significant religion is the provision of hope that death is not final. There are no facts, proofs or evidence; the claims are pure speculative imaginative fantasies, but offered as reality.
Christianity in particular, through its various sects has a variety of perspectives on death, all of which rely on a physical death not being a final end.
The dualistic concept in its simplest form involves a physical body and a soul that inhabits the body. When the body decays and becomes inanimate (dies) the soul continues to live and exist. However, the soul may or may not be considered eternal.
If the soul is not considered eternal then a person can have a physical death as well as a spiritual death.
Another variation implies that the soul cannot exist on its own and when the body dies the soul enters a state of limbo until it is resurrected into a body. Some consider that this will occur at the second coming of Christ, i.e. judgment day. (e.g. the meek shall inherit the earth).
Yet another variation is that the body and soul are inseparable and the soul dies when the body dies. This seems to be an obstinate view of insisting that materialists are wrong and that a soul must exist, however, in this definition there is no practical difference with the materialist definition.
I’ve seen other variations suggested in these forums and if you feel I’ve missed your favorite concept then please post your suggestion.
So what does it mean for a human to die? Is it: –
1. Permanent cessation of existence.
2. An indeterminate state of limbo.
3. The loss of the physical body.
4. The loss of the soul.
5. The loss of body and soul at the same instant.
6. Or maybe an eternity of torment in a fiery hell.
7. Something else.
I’m trying to avoid using the term death in this list since that is what I am trying to define and I have used the word ‘loss’. Loss implies that the lost state is potentially retrievable. This definition is important when considering that within religious mythology, just like a video game, anything is possible. I.e. there are no facts to constrain the imagination.
Resurrection.
And what would resurrection mean? Which of the states of death above allows itself to be resurrected? And does resurrection mean the return of the soul to a body or does it mean the return of the physical body?
But presumably an omnipotent god could resurrect anything even to the point of reconstituting the atoms and brain patterns that comprised a particular person. A supposedly permanently lost soul could also be resurrected. In this sense death by any definition does not imply permanence.
Death of God.
Now what about God? How is it possible to consider the death of a God?
As an aside: If God is considered omnipotent and immortal then we are instantly faced with a paradox. Immortality implies “cannot die” but omnipotence (can do anything) implies that God could commit suicide. But if he could commit suicide then he cannot be immortal. But if he can’t commit suicide then he can’t be omnipotent. Hmmm!
On the surface it would appear that God cannot die otherwise he would not be immortal. Christianity faced this obvious conclusion early in its history when it claimed Jesus had died (whatever that means) on the cross, but wait, Jesus is God and the bible clearly states there is only one God, so Jesus cannot die. Creative imagination was needed to overcome this obvious paradox.
The Trinity.
And here we need to consider the controversial aspect of Christianity known as the trinity. This is not universally accepted among Christians and was only introduced around the 4th century in an attempt to overcome the confusion described above (ref Nicene Creed). There is virtually nothing in the bible that supports the trinity and what does exist is something of a stretch. The bible overwhelmingly emphasizes that there is only ONE god. So the trinity concept has to make itself fit. However, multiple personalities of a single godhead are not new and were known long before Christianity. See the roots of Hinduism.
I find this diagram of the trinity helpful –
The concept seems to be of 3 entities comprising “another” single entity, where each of the components have independent properties. The best analogy I can find is that of H20 that can be vapor, water, and ice, and at the correct pressure and temperature can be all three at the same time (the triple point of water).
A more detailed explanation of how 3 can be 1 seems to be difficult to find. The best I could find was that it is a mystery and beyond our understanding. Sigh!
However, I have not debated the trinity before so if someone with greater knowledge on this would like to contribute then please do so. I am not claiming exhaustive research on this.
Another issue I have here is that the Christian god is defined as immutable (never changes), what he is now he has always been. This implies that the trinity has always existed. But Jesus seems to have been begotten through the Virgin Mary and if he were a separate entity, as one would imagine after procreation then Christianity should be a polytheistic religion. But the introduction of Jesus conflicts with the claim of immutability, and the bible clearly says there is only one god.
The trinity seems to be a pure paradox, and a failed explanation of how a god can die but not die. The trinity is a logical impossibility. A real fudge factor that seems to add spectacular confusion.
The trinity mess seems to scream out how it is a tangled web of deceit. Christianity with its fantasy claims of a sacrificed deity who isn’t divine but is really, and who isn’t another god but is really. How can anyone understand or explain this? The answer is no one can, it is a mystery because God is incomprehensible. A lame excuse for creating a paradox.
But what about the H2O analogy? This really isn’t the same thing. H2O is a building block, and much like bricks can be used to build three very different structures, one wouldn’t consider a brick to be a structure in its own right.
Sacrifice.
Like so many words ‘Sacrifice’ has multiple meanings. The most acceptable I suggest is that it indicates that something has been given up for a greater cause. I would also suggest that for a sacrifice to remain valid it cannot be taken back or undone. For example if I sacrifice much of my freedom to give aid to a disabled relative then there is no way I can get that time back. In most cases a sacrifice is an altruistic act.
The degree of sacrifice is also relevant. In the example above if the sacrifice is only for an hour, then fine, it is still a sacrifice but not really deserving of a medal, but 60 years caring for a disabled parent is significant. And 60 years is significant because that is a large percentage of an average lifespan.
In these examples sacrifices are time related, but if time is not a factor, for example for an infinite being then such sacrifices have little to no meaning.
Another type of sacrifice involves a physical loss. For example if my arm was caught and I was being pulled into some huge manufacturing machine then if I cut off my arm to save my life then that would be a valid sacrifice. In this case, again, the sacrifice is permanent. But if I knew I could easily re-grow the arm again then is there really a sacrifice, or if it is considered a sacrifice it really isn’t significant.
Sacrifice involving Death.
If the supernatural is non-existent then to voluntarily give up ones life or to give up the life of another would be the ultimate sacrifice. The removal of life is the most extreme sacrifice imaginable.
But if death does not mean a final end then death can never be considered an ultimate sacrifice. Like the loss of an arm in the example above, a supernatural realm implies that the arm can be re-grown. Or like a video game, simply start again.
And if death is not final and souls are eternal then a physical death is as insignificant as in my example of giving up an hour of my time to help a disabled relative.
Sacrifice of a god.
For any sacrifice to be meaningful there must be a permanent loss of some kind. The significance of the loss must also be weighed.
It is difficult to imagine any sacrifice that an omnipotent, infinite, omniscient, creator could make that could be seen as meaningful or significant. And I would assert here as in fact impossible.
All time-based sacrifices equate to zero for an infinite and immortal entity. The 3 days that Jesus was meant to be dead is effectively irrelevant in this context.
All death related sacrifices also have no meaning or significance for an immortal entity, since gods cannot die, and more importantly, they know it.
And any other potential sacrifices will be self-imposed if the entity is both omnipotent and the creator. Any cost or pain would have been of its own design and would be no candidate for any type of sympathy.
Conclusions.
Death really only has significance or meaning if it is permanent.
Religion creates a false hope that death is not permanent, or doesn’t have to be permanent.
Gods cannot die so any attempt to evoke sympathy for the death of a god is nonsense.
The trinity is a confused attempt to resolve a paradox that Christianity created for itself, and results in an even worse paradox.
For any sacrifice to have meaning and significance requires permanence, a real loss, or a majority of time. Gods cannot experience any of these.
Finale.
Christianity claims that Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for our sins since the punishment for sin is death. But if sin is such a big thing that required a sacrifice, then where is the sacrifice? It is alleged that Jesus lives, and God (the father), and God (the son) don’t seem to have experienced any meaningful, significant or permanent loss of anything. If that is so then I would assert that sin is equally meaningless.
And hence the crucifixion and resurrection debacle is just another elaborate and meaningless irrelevant religious fantasy. But a neat piece of mythology, which could be better if it was logically consistent.
Cris
PS. My thanks to blonde_cupid for inspiring me to look deeper.
Last edited:
*rubing the hair*