Killing the Shepherd to Save the Sheep

Leo Volont

Registered Senior Member
Killing the Shepherd to Save the Sheep

Christianity’s primary doctrine, that of Salvation and Forgiveness of Sins through the Death of Jesus, I contend is not based on any actual metaphysical Truth, but is based upon a metaphor that doesn’t actually follow through.

Paul envisioned the Murder of Jesus as some essential Saving Sacrifice, in the order of the Passover Sacrifice of the Lamb. Of course, Paul, as a Pharisee, had been active in bringing about this ‘sacrifice’ of Christ, and so he was very much interested in demonstrating that this Murder had not only been useful but laudatory. But Christ had never spoken of himself as a Sheep, but as the Good Shepherd. Well, it certainly doesn’t save the Sheep if they turn on their Shepherd and tear him to shreds, as that only afterwards exposes them to the Wolves. Yes, Jesus once spoke of a Shepherd giving his Life for his Sheep, but then we arrive at the same denouement, that the Sheep are subsequently left without a Savior. And then there is the vast moral and ethical difference between the Shepherd falling prey to the Wolves while standing guard over his Sheep, compared to the bazaar event of being killed by His own Sheep, viciously turning upon Him. And then we have to remember that the Messiah was killed not because the Court of the Pharisees had actually proposed this concept of Salvation, acknowledging the Holiness of Christ, and anticipating the effects of a Divine Sacrifice. No. They saw the Rise of a Messianic King as a threat to their influence. Remember, that since Jesus was 12 years old and correcting Pharisees in the Temple, they had resented and hated the Young Man. When it became clear that He had Messianic Pretensions, and that He had a credible following and a growing popularity, he was murdered only so that the Pharisees and Herod could keep their Jobs and protect their own self interests. It is sadly ridiculous to suppose that such a cynical and jaded Murder could be caste in the light of a Religious Sacrament, but that is what the Christian World believes.

So we need to ask ourselves whether a Sheep can ethically lay claim to a Salvation predicated upon either their participation in or condoning of the Murder of their Shepherd? Not hardly!

Then there is the problem, when moving from the Metaphor to the Reality. Christ was not a Sheep… not a Sacrificial Lamb. And He would have had to be. Why? Well, because at the time of Abraham and Isaac, God had determined that there would no longer be any Human Sacrifices… or Abraham determined that way and God acceded. What they say happened is that God had told Abraham to Sacrifice his son Isaac, and at the last moment changed his Divine Mind and had Abraham substitute of goat instead. But sometimes the truth can be found better if the story is told with just a slightly different twist. The way I see it is that it was probably a Test. And Abraham Passed. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham told God to think again, and that such a severe and drastic request would no longer be acceptable to Mankind – that Absolute Righteousness must take precedence even over what must sometimes be the Arbitrary Whims of Divinity. Well, Good. God approved of Abraham’s demonstration of a solid moral center, and from that time on, Human Sacrifices would no longer be acceptable or expected.

So how is it that Paul, a Jew, and every Christian who pretends familiarity with the Bible, including the Old Testament, how is it that they can completely disregard that Pivotal Biblical Event that delivered Humanity from the severity and barbarity of Human Sacrifice. Do people not pay attention when they read? And in listening to Paul, do they accept everything without the least bit of evaluation? Yes, if Paul was another Christ, or even just a Saint. But when one reads the Bible carefully, one finds not one single solitary miracle attributed to Paul. Oh, yes, he shouted at a little old man in Crete until the poor old guy had a stroke. Hardly a miracle. And then once when a young man fell from a third floor window… not more than 10 meters… the young man who obviously had the wind knocked out of himself, stirred and got back up while a group of guys came running on over. Paul, one of the many bystanders, had the presence of mind to claim it as a personal miracle. Well, that hardly qualifies as being in the same league with healing the blind, healing lepers, feeding 5000 out of a single lunch bag, walking on water and raising the dead – all miracles that have been copied by many a true Saint… but not by Paul. So why is Paul allowed any credit?

I could see it if Paul had made any sense, but his theology and history are flawed, and even his metaphors do not follow. The conclusion we can arrive at is obvious, but not very charitable, and that is that Paul’s success depends upon the stupidity of all who believe him, and that is the Entire Christian Establishment.
 
Just another of the 22,000 cults and sects that comprise the imaginary interpretations of an irrelevant plagiarized mythology.

I guess the real point is - does anyone really care about your perspective?
 
Cris said:
Just another of the 22,000 cults and sects that comprise the imaginary interpretations of an irrelevant plagiarized mythology.

I guess the real point is - does anyone really care about your perspective?

If you don't care, then don't clutter the thread.
 
Leo: Without forgiveness of sins, how can anyone see the face of God?
and what about Jesus who said "Go, your sins are forgiven you"?

So you are saying that Jesus' death was unnecessary for the redemption?

Have you read De Incarnatione by St. Athanasius? I believe that it would aid you in discerning this subject.

De Incarnatione
 
Last edited:
Lawdog said:
Leo: Without forgiveness of sins, how can anyone see the face of God?
and what about Jesus who said "Go, your sins are forgiven you"?

So you are saying that Jesus' death was unnecessary for the redemption?

Have you read De Incarnatione by St. Athanasius? I believe that it would aid you in discerning this subject.

De Incarnatione

The Idea is for People NOT to sin.

One does NOT need to be forgiven. One only needs to stop sinning.

Say I fall in a river. I can climb out. How long do I stay wet? Not long.

One can fall into sin. One can climb out. How long does one stay wet? Not a single moment past that where one resolves to be Righteous.

Jesus said "Go and Sin no more".

Righteousness is enough.

Any Righteous Man can walk through the Gates of Heaven.

But any current Sinner... anyone still habituated to sin, who relies upon Forgiveness... there can be no Heaven for such a one. maybe Purgatory. But heaven would be ruined by any still active Sin.

Can one forgive a Disease? No. There has to be a quarantine.

Read the Sermon of the Mount. Christ speaks of Righteousness, and enforces that Righteousness with the Threat of Judgment.

The Wide Way of Destruction is REAL. The Promise of Forgiveness of Sins is the Most Clever Trick of the Devil.

Who profits most from the Promise that Sins are Forgiven but the Prince of Sin?

Stop being such a fool and begin to think. Open your eyes, ears, and heart.

Stop believing that Salvation is Easy and that Heaven is easier to get into then Harvard or Yale.
 
"Murder" is not an well thought description of the crucifixion.
the crucifixion involved murderers yes, no one denies that,
but its more than murder. Christ himself prophesied his own death,
and even said that "no man takes my life from me,
but I lay it down."


Paul is not preaching that its ok to sin

All he is saying is that he falls to sin since its beyond his power to stop it.
God sometimes allows people to keep falling into sin
in order for them to learn humility.

On the otherhand, no one doubts that you are correct in
saying that it is the Devil who says
"go ahead and sin again, Jesus will forgive you."

Still, we need to let people know that if they go to God,
to confession,their sins may be forgiven if they have true contrition.

By the way, Heaven is easier to get into than Harvard.
I think that the theif on the cross would agree.
 
Last edited:
More preaching from a religious nutter. Do the rules mean nothing? Is Leo V. to be allowed to continue preaching to the "sheep?"

And one must not forget that even the kindest shepherd eventually leads his flock to a slaughter.
 
Reminder from the Posting Rules for the Religion forum:

Whilst it is acceptable to post perceived failings and strengths of various belief systems, where this is done with the main aim of preaching the virtues of one's own religion (perhaps with a desire to convert others), or of disparaging those who hold to a different belief system, posts may be edited or deleted.
 
I for one enjoy the opposing interpretation of the religion being discussed by Leo V. and Lawdog. Honestly, it doesn't seem anymore like "preaching" than most of the other posts around here, whereas "preaching" is trying to convince another of one's own beliefs. That, of course, is often the purpose of philosophical discourse.

Also, I find it interesting that insulting these two folks, who are having a philosophical discussion about religion, by using phrases such as "religious nutter" is not considered "disparaging those who hold to a different belief system", and people who spout said insults are not warned when clearly the aim of such statements is to disparage and degrade the beliefs of others.
 
Let them be what, they are both Catholics, even they cant decide who is right.
 
Fuck em. They're religious nutters, obvious in the way they keep preaching their superstitions to the members of a science board.

Religious superstitions are silly and deserve to be ridiculed. I and others use the term "nutter" in exactly the same fashion with religious nutters as we do with ESP and UFO nutters. They have a credulous belief in that which has no real evidence and come to a science forum and make wild-ass assertions about their beliefs time and time again. They're 'nutters.' Woo-woos. The credulous. They have 'faith,' which is belief without evidence.

They are 'nutters' in a way similar to 'trekkies' who get together and compare their blueprints for the Enterprise. For instance:
Religious nutter said:
So how is it that Paul, a Jew, and every Christian who pretends familiarity with the Bible, including the Old Testament, how is it that they can completely disregard that Pivotal Biblical Event that delivered Humanity from the severity and barbarity of Human Sacrifice.
How? It's a fictional story. It can be whatever your imagination wants it to be. The transporters can be on deck 11 and deck 10 if you want.

If the religious nutters don't want the godless ridiculing them and "cluttering" their threads, they should start their own message board or join one that's devoted to religious nutters.
 
If the religious nutters don't want the godless ridiculing them and "cluttering" their threads, they should start their own message board or join one that's devoted to religious nutters.

sciforums.com : Philosophy : Religion

Doesn't the nature of the forum invite such dialogue?
 
I don't give two shits. Its a science board first. Religious nutjobs can obviously break the rules and preach all they want. But they should expect those who think critically and question their superstitions to ridicule them.
 
SkinWalker said:
Fuck em. They're religious nutters, obvious in the way they keep preaching their superstitions to the members of a science board.

Religious superstitions are silly and deserve to be ridiculed. I and others use the term "nutter" in exactly the same fashion with religious nutters as we do with ESP and UFO nutters. They have a credulous belief in that which has no real evidence and come to a science forum and make wild-ass assertions about their beliefs time and time again. They're 'nutters.' Woo-woos. The credulous. They have 'faith,' which is belief without evidence.

They are 'nutters' in a way similar to 'trekkies' who get together and compare their blueprints for the Enterprise. For instance: How? It's a fictional story. It can be whatever your imagination wants it to be. The transporters can be on deck 11 and deck 10 if you want.

If the religious nutters don't want the godless ridiculing them and "cluttering" their threads, they should start their own message board or join one that's devoted to religious nutters.

*************
M*W: I couldn't agree with you more! The only reason they post here is to poke fun at the atheists. Unfortunately, they are not able to see it through. They lack logic and reasoning, and they'll never win when it comes to the truth. It amazes me how the moderators continue to allow their ignorance to be a part of scientific discussion.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: I couldn't agree with you more! The only reason they post here is to poke fun at the atheists. Unfortunately, they are not able to see it through. They lack logic and reasoning, and they'll never win when it comes to the truth. It amazes me how the moderators continue to allow their ignorance to be a part of scientific discussion.

this coming from the lady that believes in Mary Magalene because she read a best selling fiction novel.
 
Bowser said:
sciforums.com : Philosophy : Religion

Doesn't the nature of the forum invite such dialogue?

I think Bowser is right. You don't put a a Philosophy section with a Religion subforum without knowing that people are going to actually discuss religion in the context of religion. If religion is not meant to be dicussed by the religious on this message board, then there would be no Religion subforum, and all discussions of religion would be under Human Science.

To be honest, this is getting ridiculous. Every time a religious person opens up a thread on religion, and he begins discussing religion in the context of religion, and the discussion is meant to be between religious people who believe at least partially as they believe, then the Atheists, and I don't just mean those who don't believe but those who actually hate religion, come in and ruin it because they don't want others to discuss that for which they have no respect. Get over it. Ignore the religion subforum if you hate religion so much, or shut your yaps.

Also, in order to try and see an end to this as best I can (which I doubt will happen but someone ought to try), I am going to invite the administration, if people like Skinwalker's claims about this being primarily a science board with no room for religious discussion by the religious, to remove the religion subforum altogether. I know it seems drastic, but if religious discussion is not welcome on this board by more than the select few who feel it is their duty to derail every religious discussion, then the discord should be ended and the Religion subforum deleted from the message board. In order that this request is seen as serious, and in order to ensure that someone in the administration actually hears of it, I will start a thread in the administrative section of this board.
 
Back
Top