The crucifixion was a fraud.

[Avatar]

Originally posted by Xev
Avatar:
You forget that the earth is only 6000 years old......

-------------------
Of course not. You forget that athiests will agree with you on X-tianity's meaninglessness simply because, well, there isn't a God.

(And suffering disproves the existance of the Christian God, but that's another story)

Christians will ignore you because they don't want to lose thier sense of security, and in any case you are a bloody evil athiest and should be ignored (I believe Jan has a thread for that...) or burned.

And the rest of the thiests don't believe in Christianity anyway.

How could I forget BUT YOU ARE WRONG - earth was created only yesterday and all our memoruies were thought of in six days period.

(in a funny scotish/irish accent)Exactly exactly, christians ar afraid. fear is one of the fundaments of christianity (have talked abot tht in many threads)

And the rest of the thiests don't believe in Christianityanyway.

don't tell tht them. you'll be tried to be filled with a pile rubbish.

 

[Tiassa]

Markx

Six trials in 12 hours from midnight to the next morning and on, I don't know where that sort of tirals happens?. So the Jews were in a hurry to put Him up on the cross.

I've seen the assertion before in my library, but a search of Pagels and Armstrong is currently coming up empty. However, the Latter Rain entry on Sanhedrin points out what I'm seeking:

To form a session of the Sanhedrin there must at least have been 23 members present. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the council. Before the trial, Jesus was probably questioned there at night, in violation of all Sanhedrin rules. According to Jewish law at that time, no-one could be arrested at night. It was illegal to hold court proceedings after sundown on the eve or the day of the Sabbath or a festival. The Great Sanhedrin could convene only in the Chamber of Hewn Stones, never in the palace of a High Priest or in any other dwelling.

This AFA commentary, while praising the pain Jesus experienced in his crucifixion, points out that in order for the Bible to be true, the Sanhedrin stomped all over God's law:

The Mishnah was written approximately in 170 AD. It contained the vast body of law that ruled ancient Jewish life. While not codified until later, it clearly represents what the Gospel of Mark describes as the "tradition of the elders," and thereby provided the code of criminal procedure for religious trials at the time of Jesus. In a section called "Sanhedrin," we find the rules of procedural due process for defendants charged with a capital crime.

From the point of conspiracy to the point of execution, the Jews violated more than 20 of their very own procedural laws as they illegally tried and killed Jesus.

Furthermore, it should be noted, of the Jews "killing" Jesus: the Sanhedrin had no authority to authorize Jesus' execution. This point arises in Pagels, at the Latter Rain page, and is touched on peripherally by the AFA author, Syrios. Incidentally, Mr Syrios can escape many of his diffuclties surrounding the arrest and execution of Jesus if he stops viewing it as a Jewish act. I'm tempted to reach over to one of our debates about Islam and throw in a point about the difference between executing a person yourself and reporting him to the authorities to be executed. Especially when the reason for these killings is a difference of opinion.

On the one hand, such discrepancies--assuming Jewish credibility--point toward the growing sentiment that the Jewish murder of Jesus is a political affair and not of history in the sense that, despite all else, the Romans had the capital authority. Pagels (108) points out Ananus II, who assembled the Sanhedrin to hear charges against James; the move cost Ananus his priesthood. In the case of Jesus bar Ananias, the Sanhedrin brought him before Albinius, the same Roman prefect who responded to James' execution. Unable to pin down bar Ananias, the prefect released him as a madman and not a criminal.

To the other, such discrepancies--assuming Jewish malice--merely point out a simple fact:

They were in enough of a hurry to thumb their noses at God.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Markx]

show down...............

He is proving again ( first he proved when he went to upper room where his disciples were eating and she showed up ) and again that He was that same Jesus, the one who had escaped death, so to say, by the skin of His teeth. Because He was ever in disguise. He never showed Himself openly to the Jews. He had given them a sign. "No sign shall be given unto it except the sign of Jonah." No sign, but this. And He never went back to them to the temple of Jerusalem, to tell them, "Here I am." Not once. He was ever in hiding. Now, we will not belabor the things that have passed.

The points were, that Jesus was not reluctant to die. He had actually come for this purpose. Now, reading of the Scriptures tells me that not only was He reluctant, but He was preparing for a show-down with the Jews. You see, at the last Supper, He raises the problem of defense, telling His disciples, "As you remember, when I sent you out on your mission of preaching and healing, I told you that you were not to carry anything with you. No purse, no sticks. No staff. Did you lack anything?"

And they said "No, we lacked nothing." But now, I tell you, He tells them, "Those of you who have no swords must sell their garments and buy them." You must sell your garments and buy swords. Now, what do you do with swords? do we peel apples? Or you cut people's throats? so one of them said, "Master, we have two already." And He said, "That is enough."

And He takes His disciples - 11 of them. Judas had already gone to betray Him. Eleven disciples and Himself, and they walk to Gethsemane. And at Gethsemane - read the book, read your gospels - and it'll tell you that Jesus put eight men at the gate. Question is, why should He go to Gethsemane in the first place? And why put eight at the gate, telling them, "Tarry ye here, and watch with Me."

He means, stop here, and keep guard. Guarding what? What was there to guard in Gethsemane? A courtyard, olive press, empty place. What were they, the disciples, to guard five miles out of town at Gethsemane? Then He takes with Him, Peter, and the two sons of Zebedee. At least two of them had swords. And He makes an inner line of defense and He tells them, "Tarry ye here, sit ye here, and watch with Me. While I go and pray yonder... I alone go and pray beyond." I'm asking you, why did He go to Gethsemane? Why did He go there - to pray? Couldn't He have prayed in that upper room, while there at the Last Supper? Couldn't He have gone to the temple of Jerusalem, a stone's throw from where they were? Why go five miles out of town? And why put eight at the gate? And why make an inner line of defense?

And He goes a little farther, and falls on His face, and He prays to God. "Oh, my Father ... if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." Meaning, remove the difficulty from Me, but not as I will, but as Thou wilt. In the end, I leave it to You. But I want You to save Me. And, being in agony, He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat was as if it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Is this how one man, a person goes to commit suicide? Is this how the person who is ordained from the foundation of the earth, for the sacrifice, is this how He behaves, I ask you?

That He is sweating, it says, being in an agony, He prays more earnestly, and His sweat was as if it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.Now if you noticed how dramatic they try to make it. And the Lord of Mercy sends His angel, says the Bible. An angel came to strengthen Him. But, in what? In the belief that God was going to save Him. What does the angel come to strengthen Him in? To save Him. And in everything that happened from there onward, you can see God planning His rescue. Look. The fact was that the prophecy He had made was that He would be like Jonah - and we are told that He was unlike Jonah. He didn't fulfill. Jonah is alive, Jesus is dead.

Then, Pontius Pilate ( The best known Roman governor of Judea to later history because of his role in the accounts of Jesus' execution) He marveled when he was told that Jesus was dead because in his knowledge, he knew no man can die within three hours on the cross. Because this crucifixion was to be a slow, lingering death. This was the real purpose of crucifixion. It was not getting rid of an anti-social character, like a firing squad, or hanging, or impaling a person. It was a slow, lingering death.

And the bones were not broken - says the Bible. It was a fulfillment of prophecy. Now, the bones of an individual - of a dead person - whether you break them or not, is of the least consequence. If the bones were not broken, the only time it can help anybody, is if the person was alive. So you see, for 2,000 years now, it's a programming, a continuous programming. And Paul has put the whole deal of religion on one point: on this death and resurrection, because he tells us, I Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 14, that "if Christ is not risen from the dead, our preaching is in vain: our faith is in vain." Useless! You haven't got a thing!

So now Christian must, by hook or by crook, prove that somehow crucifixion killed the man, so we can earn salvation. Or there is no christianity.

 

[Markx]

Re: Markx

Tiassa very good find. These simple things are very bases of this religion and full with discrepancies.

 

[Avatar]

there is no christianity

 

[Tiassa]

Matticious G--Refuting the Refutation

Matticiousg

Welcome to Sciforums. Stay, explore, enjoy. And, yes, occasionally duck. But,indeed, welcome.

In order to address your proofs I'm asking you to accept (temporarily of course) certain givens that stem from my beliefs as a catholic.

This is an unfortunate reliance on the a priori, though I find it encouraging that you would acknowledge it as so. The problem here is the necessity of granting inflexible points of argument for the sake of allowing points of argument.

For instance, before we get into the points themselves, let me compare it to creationism, on the one hand, or Armyboyjay on the other.

Any Creationist can prove young-earth, anti-Darwinian, abiogenetic, divine creation ex nihilo, for instance, if we grant that Creationist in advance that God exists.

Our man leaving Bosnia notes: Just prove to me that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead and I will no longer have faith in Christ. This is an interesting proposition on the one hand, since I can guarantee you that it was never proven to him that God exists; that he decided to accept it. But toward that point we note that proof will, indeed, defeat faith. In the end, though, there's nothing surprising about that point. It is a given to Armyboyjay, then, that God exists. And in the end, no amount of evidence and rhetoric can change the fact that this is what he wants to believe in the first place, despite all else. Thus, to grant any Christian, for instance, the idea that God exists at the start of the debate is a Christian's best hope for avoiding the debate.

But what, in this case, Matticiousg, are the a priori put at the stake?

Given 1:
Sacrifice does not neccessarily imply death. - It's a common catholic pratice to offer instances of suffering as a sacrifice to God in order to recieve grace from God and thereby turn a negative into a possitive. (note that by suffering I mean suffering inflicted upon one's self not necessarily by ones self.)

I fail to see the relevance. We could look toward Blonde Cupid's point that God made a sacrifice by descending into the flesh, as such, but I do feel that point has been addressed and put to rest. Yet, as you note Catholocism whatsoever, it is worth noting that you have an interesting point: According to the Nicene Creed, Jesus never died!

In the end, I can grant that sacrifice does not necessarily imply death. And, yes, I can grant that Catholics do, in fact, offer self-inflicted suffering unto God.

Despite the NIcene Creed, though, it is common conception that Jesus was a man and died.

Given 2:
Jesus is both fully human and fully devine. As this implies, Jesus as well as God did have full knowledge of the coming crucifixion.

Heretic. Docetism, though not properly a Christian heresy, has been the justification for persecution n the past. That the Catholic Encyclopedia continues, nonetheless, to refer to it as a heresy, it is worth noting that the Catholic stance on Docetism is that the heresy destroys the very meaning and purpose of the Incarnation.

In sub-Apostolic times this sect was vigorously combated by St. Ignatius and Polycarp. The former made a warning against Docetists the burden of his letters; he speaks of them as "monsters in human shape" (therion anthropomorphon) and bids the faithful not only not to receive them but even to avoid meeting them. Pathetically he exclaims: If, as some godless men [atheoi, I mean unbelievers, say, He has suffered only in outward appearance, they themselves are nought but outward show. why am I in bonds? Why should I pray to fight with wild beasts? Then I die for nothing, then I would only be lying against the Lord" (Ad Trall. x; Eph., vii, xviii; Smyrn., i-vi)

You know, Matt, what I love about that bit from Ignatius, every time I read it, is that Ignatius' argument against Docetism is selfish. He has agitated the authority, for right and wrong, and looks forward to his martyrdom for God. It would suck particularly hard if he was able to realize, upon being torn apart, that he was wrong. Ignatius' reasoning, then, seems much like a psychological self-justification for a form of suicide. It is a bulwark against his own doubting. Yet, such it is that the foundations of the Catholic Church decry docetism as a heresy; that is, to believe that Jesus Christ was anything other than fully human is to undermine his suffering and sacrifice.

Yet to speak of Jesus as being fully divine, we might then point out one of the ideas this creates which strikes fear into ecclesiastical hearts. If Christ could well foresee the coming crucifixion, then Christ also could well foreseen that he would suffer, and rise again (speak nothing of dying, as the Nicene Creed doesn't). This is a privilege and security that most facing the end of their lives in tribulant circumstances do not have. To say that Jesus suffered as a man; perhaps he felt some physical pain. But the anguish of having to wish for the end to escape the pain was not there, for Jesus would well have known that he would be resurrected, made whole and perfect, and taken to heaven. No other person making mortal sacrifice on behalf of others will know that they will be healed, raised, and made perfect. It is mere faith, a comfort against the unknown.

When one is a child, for instance, one might fear water because they are convinced that to jump in will be to drown. I, on the other hand, have knowledge of how to stay afloat, and faith in my ability to swim. This is a demonstrated fact that I can swim upon which I base a certain metaphysical faith (after all, just because I could swim yesterday doesn't mean I won't drown today). So if you believe, for instance, that one will die if they dive into the water, is the act of diving into water an act of courage against fear? Jesus, however, knew that he would float, knew that he could swim, and, if the tale of Jesus has it correctly at all, was the only one who knew where the water was. So when we talk of Jesus' mighty sacrifice when he dove into the water, it was only on the assumption that he could not swim. It is quite evident in the Bible that, as the analogy has it, Jesus was an Olympic Swimmer and a professional lifeguard.

And that, Matt, is what happens to the crucifixion when you assert the elevation of Jesus above humanity. Your church fathers knew it, and their sons, and their sons beyond that.

Given 3:
Jesus, in being fully human, allowed for God to relate and communicate with humans in a very special way: from a fully human perspective. In other words Jesus went through same type of BS and experienced the same type of emotions that we do as humans.

On the one hand, it's a nice piece of rhetoric. To the other, though, we run into a couple of issues. That people are squeamish and don't ever want to imagine Jesus, say, having a nocturnal emission, or doubled over in a barn somewhere masturbating furiously, shouldn't be an inhibitor to our considerations here. Was Jesus married? Did he have children? Was he ever tempted to sexually molest them? (Yes, I'm aiming for the muck because the muck is included in the same type of BS and ... emotions that we do as humans.) But that point is best underlined by your next "given":

Given 4:
Durring the crucifixion Jesus not only experienced all the physical pain associated with the crucifixion but also experienced all the emotional, spiritual, and physical pain that any human past, present, and future had, has, and will ever have. In that relativly short period of time. (note I'll admit that I don't know for sure that this is an official teaching but I learned it from a religion teacher who was in the process of becoming a priest at the time and therefore I feel it's safe to assume that it it)

Did you know that Jesus was gay? Most relevant to your point is McKinley's comparison of homosexuality as a sin to adultery as a sin. And, then, of course, the tag line at the end. Again, we point back to squeamish people among the flock, but such ideas just don't get much consideration when people choose to unleash their faith in Jesus on others.

But to stay more with the actual point at hand, we might ask, since Jesus foresaw the crucifixion and resurrection, did he truly endure the hopelessness that another human being endured? As has been pointed out, the removal of the finality of death changes the degree of sacrifice and loss.

Given #4 is a nice wish, but we simply don't see it in two senses:

• The contemporary rhetorical position selects on Jesus' behalf what sins are atoned, which practice has been in effect since the rise of Christendom.
• The logic within the framework indicates that, if Jesus had foreknowledge of both his crucifixion and his resurrection, that he avoided at least two aspects of suffering and anguish, thereby reducing the degree of sacrifice.

It's a common faith point across the spectrum of Christian churches, selectively implemented. But what Biblical evidence have we that Jesus felt every sin for all people for all time in those hours? (I should note in advance that the OT prophets or the Pauline epistemology will only earn derisive laughter in this because I'm quite sure that if Jesus said it, then Paul said he said it. Rather, while it is a common faith point, it is much like celibacy among hte clergy; one must construct it out of disparate authors and points of the Bible.

Given 5.
Jesus is the one and only messiah and will not return until the end of time at which time everyone will be resurrected.

Did I mention, earlier, that in the creationist debate, for instance, one of the "givens" that creationists would like acknowledged in advance is the notion that God exists?

In other words, Matticiousg, Why don't we just hand you the whole concept as a "Given"?

It would, after all, end this debate easily.

Given #5 is, in its effect, you asking Cris to simply hand you this entire debate in advance. Gee, it would be a terrible thing to actually have to support your faith with at least some reality, wouldn't it?

If we were two surgeons debating how best to cut into a patient, what would you say when I considered your argument and then said, "Can we establish it as a given that we should cut where I think we should cut?" Or, more simply, Can we establish as a given that I am already right?

Thus:

1.) You have only restated the effect of your Given points. I think we've demonstrated that a divine Jesus has knowledge that mere mortals lack. Furthermore, God has knowledge that mere mortal parents lack. And further yet, Blonde Cupid points out the idea of God's sacrifice of descending into the flesh. The crucifixion is not a sacrifice. Tell me: would it be more of a sacrifice to send your child away or to bring them home perfect?

You know, if a lab accident had killed Jesus, I might understand God's sacrifice. But who, at present, who isn't paid to do so, is praising the suffering Andrea Yates is going through for having lost her children?

We're in the hospital dying of cancer, for instance. We're both in pain. Is our suffering actually and really the same if I'm bombarding it with opium? Using a tool that, as the argument has it, you don't have, to quell the pain: am I suffering as much as you? Look, I can even leave the hospital for short walks, hold my children, feel the sunlight on my skin.

God chose the route that required the sacrifice of His Son. And God chose that route with the full knowledge that choosing that route would result in the necessary sacrifice of His Son. From the evidence we have before us, I have to reject your First Refutation to Cris' proof.

2.) Okay, just so I have it clear:

• God creates the heavens and the earth with full knowledge of all things.
• God executes a design that requires repair.
• God chooses a method of repair (e.g. Jesus)

At this point, God sounds like a fireman, who, frustrated that he can't find a way to the people trapped inside, just walks away and lets the building burn. Of course, God is also the arsonist in this one, so it doesn't particularly tug at my conscience that God is upset that His Son is dead. This is by His Will, His Plan, and His Need.

Poor Andrea Yates?

Your Second Refutation, Matt, falls short. Sacrifice? Cry me a river.

3.) This seems a greedy point. I'm having trouble giving it a benevolent reading.

• Obedience, not love, is the key to heaven (just an interesting perspective)
• How is "going to a better place" a sacrifice? When you're in Heaven with God, do you sit around moping, I wish my mother was here ...? How about, I wish I was still down in the flesh; oh, what a loss ...?

Or are we judging the sacrifice of having lost the living incarnation of the Savior? How would you say Jesus power has been limited by the sacrifice you've attempted to construct for Given 3 and Refutation 3?

The human "sacrifice" you poin out in Refutation 3 is unclear. That the personal loss is similar to God's has various potentials. Thus:

• Personal loss is similar to God's loss of a Son: I don't see this, so I'm setting it aside. However, I'm aware that someone might provide an aspect of this loss that I haven't considered yet.
• Personal loss as method of communication, per Ref. 2: It seems that to lose the living Christ is no great sacrifice. People are just as they were before--no living Christ to talk to in the flesh--but have, by the faith, gained something greater. What sacrifice is inherent in your Refutation 3?

On these and other grounds, I disagree with Refutation 3.

4.) Wow. That one is amazing. God, who is not a man, becomes man, so that He can experience mankind from that perspective, though the perspective is tainted by knowledge that other people aren't allowed. With true comforts of knowledge and events that, unlike human beings, do not result in your destruction, I can only laugh in response to Refutation 4.

Jesus could, by the Spirit, turn up the pain to Factor X if he wanted to; it doesn't change the fact that he sees the end. Look back at the sordid examples I gave Blonde Cupid. I have known people before who would have enjoyed it if I had tied, beaten, tortured, and raped them. In mortals we call this a neurosis at the very least. In God, though .... Look at it this way: if I seize your sister, tie her, have rough and violating sex, cut her body, burn her, and do all those sick things ... it's horrible, right? She has suffered at my will, so to speak.

But if your sister asks me to tie her, violate her, beat her, ad nauseam she knows that A) this is what she wants, B) this will end sometime, and C) she has no mortal fear except for the possible accident, and what is that compared to bungee jumping or riding a bicycle down Everest?

Jesus was seized, beaten, tortured, and, as more modern faiths have it, died. That A) it was what he wanted, B) he knew it would end shortly, and C) had no mortal fear except for the possibility of being hallucinogenic, can we say that a man who consciously worked toward his own destruction suffers the same as a person desperately clinging to life?

It's not the same. Knowing that one is God's Son does, indeed, change the perspective. And we can't say Jesus didn't know and didn't believe. Thus spake God (Luke 3.22), and, furthermore, faith is the cornerstone of redemption. We can conclude that Jesus knew well what his actions brought, chose the route he did, and accepted his death with full knowledge that he would rise.

They say Jesus obeyed unto Death at the Cross. The clear majority of people, as in those not Jesus and those not megalomaniac, face a different circumstance. Do you believe that Jesus will raise you? Do you know? In other words, do you fear death? For Jesus to fear death would be a renunciation of his faith. For Jesus, then, to fear death would be to forsake himself.

Of logic, it was a good showing, Matt. But the groundwork of your logic is points of faith, which serve little when debating the groundwork of the faith itself. It's not that you're wrong, per se, but that what you've managed to declare is that you believe it and that makes it so. (Given 5 really spanks that point home.) This is nothing new in the grand scheme; it is, in fact, the bread-and-butter of Christian faith and the movtivating arrogance of its darkest hours.

Insofar as I can derive your point, then, I must, unfortunately disagree. Following the whole of this topic so far, I currently hold that the original topic assertion still stands valid.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[matticiousg]

Tiassa,
Thankyou for the welcome and the advice. I feel I should clarify a bit about the point of my post. I was not trying to validate my beliefs as a christian and as a catholic. As I understood it Cris was trying to demonstrate that based on Christian beliefs the crucifixion was meaningless and therefore a fraud.
eg:

1. Jesus is God (from “They are one in the same God”).
2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead.

If these things were true then the claim that God sacrificed his son is a fraud, it is quite meaningless.

I was attempting to show that based on Christian beliefs (or at least Catholic beliefs) that this was not necessarily true. In fact since Cris constructed his argument based on Christian beliefs I assumed the validity of these beliefs were not being debated at the time.

However since I offered no proofs or even arguments to validate the beliefs I presented as givens, I completely agree that on its own the argument I presented is poor at best. As a philosophy teacher of my mine said once while regarding logic: "Garbage in = Garbage out."

Still given the spirit of the original exercise I feel my argument was appropriate. And given the spirit of the original exercise I contend that in order to refute my proof you must demonstrate that I did not show:

A. That "sacrifice" does not necessarily imply death.

B. Permanent loss was involved with the "sacrifice".

C. Suffering was involved with the "sacrifice".

Without questioning the validity of the beliefs. (I will make an exception if you can demonstrate that any of the beliefs are not in accordance with Catholic dogma.)

All that asside there are a couple of other parts of your post I'd like to address:

Yet, as you note Catholocism whatsoever, it is worth noting that you have an interesting point: According to the Nicene Creed, Jesus never died!

That's not quite right. While it never explicitly says that Jesus died. It certainly does not claim the opposite.

And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures.

While I might try to make the point that burial implies death. It's not necessary for consider the apostle's creed:

Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;

Death is specifically stated here.

Heretic. Docetism, though not properly a Christian heresy, has been the justification for persecution n the past.

Are you saying that what I said was heretical? As I understand it Docetism refers to the belief that Jesus is not both fully human and fully devine. I specifically stated the oposite.

That people are squeamish and don't ever want to imagine Jesus, say, having a nocturnal emission, or doubled over in a barn somewhere masturbating furiously, shouldn't be an inhibitor to our considerations here. Was Jesus married? Did he have children? Was he ever tempted to sexually molest them? (Yes, I'm aiming for the muck because the muck is included in the same type of BS and ... emotions that we do as humans.)

My beliefs are that Jesus was human and therefore tempted but never sinned. So nocturnal emission? Never really considered it but I suppose yes he probably did. (being human and all, also it's not considered sinful) Did he masturbate? No I don't think he did. On the one hand he was celibate and on the other masturbation is a sin and jesus never sinned. Did he marry? Not in the sense that I might marry a girl but he was supposed to be married to the church so in that sense yes. Did he have children? Nope he was celibate. Was he ever tempted to molest children? I don't think so. If I understand psychology correctly that particular temptation is not a natural temptation but a reaction to an event or events that happened in ones past. As I understand it Jesus was free from the taint of sin. So in other words even if something like that did happen he wouldn't have been affected in the same way you or I might. However I don't think something like that would have happened to him as there weren't any Catholic priests around at the time. (groaning at my own sick humor)

Did you know that Jesus was gay? Most relevant to your point is McKinley's comparison of homosexuality as a sin to adultery as a sin.

Firstly I think McKinley is misunderstanding what it means that Jesus took on all our sins when he died. This doesn't mean he actually sinned. It means that he accepted all the consequences of our sins (i.e. the suffering, death, and descension into hell) for us. Still it doesn't prove that Jesus wasn't gay. But then it doesn't really matter because Jesus was celibate and being homosexual isn't sinful of it's self. Some other things to note are that divorce is considered adulterous and therefore sinful in the Catholic church. Also I think it's at least decent of the clergy not to require something of a homosexual person (i.e. celibacy) that it doesn't require of it's own self. Well I think I've bored you enough now, but I hope I made somethings a little clearer. Also I appologise for all the expounding of my belief but it sounded like you were asking.
-Matt

 

[Tiassa]

Good post, Matt ... much to think about

Matticious G

I feel I should clarify a bit about the point of my post. I was not trying to validate my beliefs as a christian and as a catholic. As I understood it Cris was trying to demonstrate that based on Christian beliefs the crucifixion was meaningless and therefore a fraud.

I admit it didn't quite strike me that way, but it's a fair point that I won't argue with.

But therein lies a part of the issue.

Not necessarily true? Can we examine some fundamental questions?

(1) From what do Christian beliefs come?
(2) Do those Christian beliefs reflect that source?
(3) How do those Christian beliefs reflect that source?
(4) How do those beliefs fail to reflect that source?
(5) Do you drive eighty miles an hour because the speed limit is sixty?

oh ...

(6) If the conclusion is not necessarily true, doesn't that leave alternate truths? In terms of Christian beliefs, how many truths are there?

(1) Christian beliefs generally come from the Bible; I accept the extrabiblical sources of Catholocism in an academic sense; being that I don't share your vision of the Bible as holy, I cannot arbitrarily elevate it above the subsequent philosophers such as Protestants do. However, is the Bible the single source? If two people have a difference of opinion, and one takes their interpretation from their reading of the Bible, and another takes their interpretation from, say, Aquinas' commentaries on Christianity, what actually takes precedent? If the Bible can be constructed to convince the one that it does equal Aquinas, sure. But to assert that Aquinas is right ... in the end, the Bible gets elevated in a particular respect. Thus, we might say that Christian beliefs come from the Bible. I'm flexible on this point, though, if you care to disagree.

(2) Does the Christian belief in the crucifixion reflect the source? For instance, as I pointed out, Jesus was aware of his station in relation to God, cf Luke 3.22. It is accepted that Jesus knew of his death, and of his resurrection to life after 3 days in advance, cf John 2.19. Part of the crucifixion's power is Jesus' suffering; so much a part of that power is it that the Catholic Church considers it heretical to assert that Jesus was not fully human. What Cris has pointed out in Loone's words is the essence of the issue of docetism. Thus, I can see it as a faith point that one could believe Jesus to be a man, to perform miracles, to know his station, to see the future, to know the resolution, to have the extra tools of divinity, and still suffer the same physical and emotional anguishes as a human being. As a faith point, one need only declare it to be so. But the reality of the situation, insofar as any reality can be applied, we need to go back to Genesis. You've pointed out that by belief, but what if that belief doesn't reflect the source of the belief?

(3) You're going to have to fill me in on that if you deem it a worthy undertaking; at present I do not feel that Christian faith reflects the Bible. Anyone can voice an abstraction, but the practical effect of biblical faith is much more complicated.

(4) I'll go so far as to say that the failure is broad, myriad, and frightening. Like I said, we have to go back to Genesis. The Bible that Americans, for instance, read, does not describe Christian faith. (e.g.--in Genesis, the only known supernatural character who does not lie is the Serpent.) Faith, for instance, says that mankind fell at Eden by its disobedience. God, however, knowing this would happen even before creation, chose to create beings knowing that they would fail to live up to his expectations. We require salvation because we are designed that way by God. And it was not authoritarian anger that drove God to chase mankind out of Eden but simple fear, cf Gen. 3.22. Thus, the notion of Original Sin is balderdash. I have never heard of something so ludicrous as the notion of begging God's forgiveness because He is angry with us for being as He made us. By the time we get to Jesus ... wowsers. There are words of Jesus in the Bible that the authors cannot possibly known him to have spoken--check any red-letter edition; there's stuff in the epistles that doesn't appear in the Gospels; perhaps these texts were burned as heretical? Nonetheless .... What happens, then, is that when you stack the morals of right and wrong up against the tale of the Bible, the only thing that makes God "good" is that one decides it so. Seriously? I would say, read through Sciforums' religion debates, or just look out at the culture. I think you'll find that the faith isn't very uniform, simply because it isn't solid to begin with, and much of what Christians believe is extra-biblical and according to some specific episode in history. To take a slightly personalized swipe, I find it interesting that while at once noting your Catholic faith, you describe conditions heretical to that faith. Yeah, I know Jesus had some endowment, but what actually happened in Luke 3.22 is a vagary of faith that only resolves according to the individual believer's needs. It's not that I'm trying to staple you to your own church's heresies, but that I well understand the metaphysical need to put down Docetism in terms of what the Christian experience is. Cris' topic has struck the heart of the issue.

(5) This is a potshot at Christian beliefs. Do you drive eighty because the law says sixty? It's analogous to extra-biblical faith in that sense. True, some people are compelled to wrong by the extra-biblical pillars of their faith. Strangely, though, few are compelled to wrong by the actual biblical pillars of their faith. I'm figuring this out now. The God of the New Testament is much more carefully crafted than the God of the Old Testament. As such, someone such as me might recoil from such an angry and jealous God. But the patchwork gospels offered up by those who usurped the covenant are their own issue in terms of credibility and faith. One chooses on faith to award the Bible credibility. You'll note that the Bible is not held to a standard among Christians whereby its practical merits show its value.

(6) You noted that Cris' proofs were not necessarily true in the Christian context. I am, I admit, compelled to ask, Necessarily what? Maybe I'm missing you wide left or something, but I'm having trouble figuring out the subjectivity of the term necessarily. Does this mean that the proofs are true for some and not for others? Certes, we're not here to crush diversity, but diversity in terms of the Bible does not make right wrong and wrong right. Thus, it's kind of like being not necessarily pregnant. In the case of either/or, it simply means that one does not know. And that's quite important. One need not know that the events of the Bible are true; one need only look at what the Bible says. Based on what I get out of it ... that's why I'm siding with the proofs against the crucifixion. But by and large, therein lies the point. What do you mean, not necessarily true? Such a state, while theoretically possible, seems to offer little toward resolution of the issues. I don't find not necessarily within the range of possible answers this time out. It does seem to me that the nature of the question requires an affirmative or a negative, and not an in-between. Help me: what am I missing, then?

However since I offered no proofs or even arguments to validate the beliefs I presented as givens, I completely agree that on its own the argument I presented is poor at best.

It's not the lack of proofs, per se. It's that the given points--the a priori--are part of what's at stake. Like I pointed out, Creationism instantly becomes possible when you acknowledge the existence of the Creator without proof. Likewise, Jesus the Redeemer becomes instantly possible when you accept without proof that Jesus is the Redeemer.

The cold way to say it is that faith seems to take precedent over reality. What I mean by this is that, while you have faith in the Bible, you also have faith in what it says insofar as it cannot (possibly?) say anything else. Not that you've proven rigid in any way, but I think you're probably aware of that biblical regard that some hold. But it does seem, Matticious G, that within your Christian paradigm (on the individual level) you put faith in the dogmatic interpretations; and no, not entirely to the letter. But for Jesus to be both fully human and fully divine: when the difference being discussed between truth and falsehood examines the point of whether Jesus is human or divine .... Frankly, in that term, you're only reinforcing part of Cris' topic post. And here we hit on knowledge and foresight and, well, life and death again. Quite simply: if I cut my finger off, sure, I'm going to suffer. What is the difference, though, in my suffering, if the doctors are able to sew that finger back on and make it at least partially functional again?

As a philosophy teacher of my mine said once while regarding logic: "Garbage in = Garbage out."

Replace garbage with beer, and you've got the German philosophers in a nutshell. I would have made a French/wine joke, but I don't read enough French philosophers.

Still given the spirit of the original exercise I feel my argument was appropriate. And given the spirit of the original exercise I contend that in order to refute my proof you must demonstrate that I did not show:

A. That "sacrifice" does not necessarily imply death.

B. Permanent loss was involved with the "sacrifice".

C. Suffering was involved with the "sacrifice".

Without questioning the validity of the beliefs. (I will make an exception if you can demonstrate that any of the beliefs are not in accordance with Catholic dogma.)

(A) Sacrifice does not necessarily imply death: This point is acknowledged. It is unnecessary in the present arena. Furthermore, we have it from Nicaea that Jesus did not die, ensconcing Docetism forever in the Church. (Hmm ... we can see why Docetism is not properly a Christian heresy according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia.) Thus I put to you, what degree of sacrifice do you seek to justify? At present, considering Cris' initial proofs, the sacrifice involved here does, in fact, involve death, the Nicene Creed notwithstanding. I can only leave it to you to establish what lesser sacrifice God and Jesus offered.

As Cris noted in his topic post: Christianity makes a massive issue out of God sacrificing his son to save mankind. In fact it is the essential basis for Christianity, the alleged atonement. How far do we have to stretch this to be the truth? Raised Lutheran, graduated Catholic high school ... there is nothing about that statement that seems odd to me. What was this sacrifice?

(B) Permanent loss was involved with the "sacrifice": What has God lost permanently? Nothing. I do see where you wrote, The sacrifice resulting from death is really a sacrifice resulting from loss, and in Jesus's death resulted in the loss of God's special method of relating and comunicating with human's. Now ... just ... wait just a cotton-pickin' minute ...

Okay, here's where I'm crashing into the wall on this.

(1) What is so special about this method of communication as to any other? That God is unwilling to undertake any other? For, certainly, the answer could not possibly be that God is unable to undertake any other method of communication.

(2) Again, we look back to Genesis and the Fall of Mankind. Um ... it seems to me that nothing happens without the Will of God. That God knew Man would require salvation is God's own business. But God knew in advance, knew of the method in advance, and knew that the method would only be applied for about three years. I don't see the sacrifice. Okay ... I go to the store, buy a can of paint and a brush. I come home, use the tool according to the method to paint my room, and throw the used brush and the empty paint can away. Have I made a sacrifice? I think not. Oh, what a loss ... no ... Jesus was a tool at best, with a specific and intended purpose. Rather than a sacrifice, God should rejoice that the tool worked. I mean, seriously ... when you're working on a car, and you can't find the wrench you need, so you tear all through the garage until you find something that will work--is it a tragedy? There are sixty baby-wipes in the little container. When I've used them, what am I sacrificing by throwing out (recycling, actually) the plastic tub or the tissues themselves?

I just don't see any sense of permanent loss. In order to achieve it, I have to award the "person" of God an unusual (actually, rather common) dispensation of sentiment toward utility. It's almost like God is sad that he's getting rid of His car. And that just seems ludicrous.

Matt, I know nothing about you except what I see in posts: Do you have children? Did you mourn the sacrificing of your infant as s/he became a toddler? The sacrifice of your toddler as s/he became a child? Of your child as s/he became a teenager? As a teenager as s/he became an adult? Will you mourn the loss of your little girl for the happy young woman she's become? Will you mourn the loss of your Li'l Buddy as he grows up into a family man? Will any of these losses equal what you would feel watching one die terribly?

And here's the thing, though ... that dying terribly--death is a part of life. But with your child, death means your child is dead. With God's Son, death means His Child is coming home to the next phase of his life.

I tend to sympathize a little toward Blonde Cupid's point about the sacrifice of having to put on the bag o'meat. But that point falls by the wayside here; that was hardly a permanent sacrifice, and what is thirty-three years in the face of eternity? I cannot from the ideas presented accept anyone has undergone a permanent loss in the case of the crucifixion.

(C) Suffering was involved with the "sacrifice": One of the key complaints regarding Docetism is that by elevating Jesus to a divine level, by making him not fully human, one reduces the nature of his sacrifice. The Christian respnse to such issues traditionally has been anemic; consider Ignatius of Antioch, in his famous Epistle to the Trallians:

It is asserted by some who deny God--in other words, who have no faith--that His sufferings were not genuine (though, in fact it is themselves in whom there is nothing genuine). If this is so, then why am I now a prisoner? Why am I praying for a combat with the lions? For in that case, I am giving away my life for nothing, and all the things I have ever said about the Lord are untruths. (Trallians, 10)

Aside from excoriations, there isn't much said toward the issue.

Consider, please: You do, I'm sure, have certain human sympathies which compel you to feel happy or sad on behalf of other people. Now, just as a coincidence, and with nothing against Catholocism in it, I need to point out that I logged several-hundred hours of crisis-level counseling on the fly in my junior and senior years at Catholic school. The point being that among this, I developed heavy sentiments regarding sexual trauma. But no matter how much enlightenment I attained from this experience, I can never understand what I'm dealing with inside that other human being. Specifically, because I'm not female, and because I've never been through trials of such a particular nature, I cannot understand wholly what is taking place here.

Jesus had certain knowledge that we cannot. He cannot understand the frailty of mortal fear when he knows the terms of his death and has definitive knowledge of his resurrection.

As we see from Ignatius, the issue is not "suffering", per se, but "genuine suffering". Can we accept the distinction? Because that's the whole of the point. Yeah, a nail through the wrist setting off all these pain receptors is going to hurt. And prolonged pain ... well ... it doesn't sound like an attractive vacation package. But Jesus, being different than we, does not have fully the same perspectives. Just as I cannot understand wholly the psychological workings of a rape survivor by merit of fundamental differences (e.g.--gender, for starters), nor can Christ understand fully what we mortal humans think and feel. Sure, he can project, I suppose. But truly know?

If Jesus never had a clue toward his identity, or, rather, hadn't been let in by the voices from the heavens, and had he come to his realizations, and lived his life, and achieved his ministry of compassion, and even pulled off a miracle or two without being sure how ... well, yeah ... his sufferings would be more genuine. To ride into town knowing they're about to torture and kill you, to have realized by your nature that something larger than you is afoot, and that this end has great benefit, despite it being your end .... At that point, we have a demonstrable sacrifice that is as big as the Christians make it out to be, cf topic post.

Without questioning the validity of the beliefs. (I will make an exception if you can demonstrate that any of the beliefs are not in accordance with Catholic dogma.)

2 notes:

• To not question the validity of belief is to have no question about the belief except for a couple of explanatory notes. (e.g. How much did Jesus suffer?)
• Catholic dogma? Quite frankly, I'm not going to dedicate my life to slogging through that much dogma. Otherwise I'll get back to you in 12-15 years. However, that sacrifice does not imply death is irrelevant; that permanent loss cannot be shown refutes that point; that suffering was involved with the sacrifice means little in and of itself.

Everybody suffers. Woo-hoo ... welcome to the human race, Jesus. Thank you for being just like us. I had thought that the dogmatic point was that Jesus' suffering was great, and that he died. To what degree of suffering does anyone refer anymore?

That's not quite right. While it never explicitly says that Jesus died. It certainly does not claim the opposite

Um ... the Nicene creed does not say Jesus died. That it doesn't say he lived through the experience is beside the point, isn't it? Help me out, please, then: what else should we apply that standard to? Oh, heavens ... to take the Bible through that thresher, or even Catholic dogma, is to reduce Christian faith to its essential dust. True, the Apostles' Creed mentions death, but it's worth pointing out that the sum of Nicaea elevated Jesus beyond humanity (cf. Athanasius, per my initial post in this topic).

Are you saying that what I said was heretical? As I understand it Docetism refers to the belief that Jesus is not both fully human and fully devine. I specifically stated the oposite.

Technically, yes, your statement is heretical; to revisit the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on docetism:

A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ's human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death . . . .

Gnostics starting from the principle of antagonism between matter and spirit, and making all salvation consist in becoming free from the bondage of matter and returning as pure spirit to the Supreme Spirit, could not possibly accept the sentence, "the Word was made flesh", in a literal sense. In order to borrow from Christianity the doctrine of a Saviour who was Son of the Good God, they were forced to modify the doctrine of the Incarnation. Their embarrassment with this dogma caused many vacinations and inconsistencies; some holding the indwelling of an Aeon in a body which was indeed real body or humanity at all; others denying the actual objective existence of any body or humanity at all; others allowing a "psychic", but not a "hylic" or really material body; others believing in a real, yet not human "sidereal" body; others again accepting the of the body but not the reality of the birth from a woman, or the reality of the passion and death on the cross. Christ only seemed to suffer, either because He ingeniously and miraculously substituted someone else to bear the pain, or because the occurence on Calvary was a visual deception ....

Another Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, who came to Rome under Pope Hyginus (137) and became the master of Marcion, taught that "Christ, the Son of the Highest God, appeared without birth from the Virgin, yea without any birth on earth as man". All this is natural enough, for matter not being the creation of the Highest God but of the Demiurge, Christ could have none of it. This is clearly brought out by Tertullian in his polemic against Marcion. According to this heresiarch (140) Christ, without passing through the womb of Mary and endowed with only a putative body, suddenly came from heaven to Capharnaum in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; and Tertullian remarks: "All these tricks about a putative corporeality Marcion has adopted lest the truth of Christ's birth should be argued from the reality of his human nature, and thus Christ should be vindicated as the work of the Creator [Demiurge] and be shown to have human flesh even as he had human birth" (Adv. Marc., III, xi). Tertullian further states that Marcion's chief disciple, Apelles, sightly modified his master's system, accepting indeed the truth of Christ's flesh, but strenously denying the truth of His birth. He contended that Christ had an astral body made of superior substance, and he compared the Incarnation to the appearance of the angel to Abraham. This, Tertullian sarcastically remarks, is getting from the frying pan into fire, de calcariâ in carbonariam. Valentinus the Egyptian attempted to accommodate his system still more closely to Christian doctrine by admitting not merely the reality of the Saviour's body but even a seeming birth, saying that the Saviour's body passed through Mary as through a channel (hos dia solenos) though he took nothing from her, but had a body from above. This approximation to orthodoxy, however, was only apparent, for Valentinus distinguished between Christ and Jesus. Christ and the Holy Ghost were emanations from the Aeons together proceeded Jesus the Saviour, who became united with the Messias of the Demiurge ....

And it goes on. Some of the old myths are strikingly similar to the new questions.

In the modern age, as Christianity falls away, we are less inclinted to substitute myth for myth, and more inclined to simply sweep away dysfunctional myths and carry on. There were docetists who claimed that Christ's body was substituted (a la Sidney Cartier), that he never had a body, that ... hey, anything that raises Jesus above being a mere, mortal human.

It is a hard question. And the Church is definitely aware of the potential problems it raises in question to other aspects of faith. But Christianity never seeks global continuity; rather, it seems happy to select what faith bits suit it regardless of whether they fit together.

My beliefs are that Jesus was human and therefore tempted but never sinned ....

The whole of this paragraph is recognized ...

Um--for instance, what was it about the book and film Last Temptation of Christ that people found so offensive? That Christ was married? That he was vulgar? That he had earthly temptations? That he, in effect, was human?

We might recall, as well, that sin lies in thought as well as act. One need not have sex in order to be adulterous, for instance. Thus, if we see Jesus free from sin, it means he was never tempted by the sight of a young girl, that he never thought of shoplifting, that he never wanted to tell Joseph and Mary to get bent .... At this point, I would put my foot down and say that Jesus most definitely wasn't human, and that Cris' topic becomes even stronger by it. Such as we see in the McKinley article.

Firstly I think McKinley is misunderstanding what it means that Jesus took on all our sins when he died. This doesn't mean he actually sinned.

That's why I pointed you toward the adultery/homosexuality comparison. But it was a bit of an aside; just a note on Jesus and the sins he atoned for.

Well I think I've bored you enough now, but I hope I made somethings a little clearer. Also I appologise for all the expounding of my belief but it sounded like you were asking.

Apologize for nothing, and it's hardly boring. Sure, one-liners are fun, but it's such a temporary gratification. I actually learn a couple of things when I respond to posts like these. Expounding of faith, of course, is what we seem to do here when not wringing each others' necks. And yes, someone asked. There is, I admit, a community of infidels and atheists who do share the common bond, where Christianity is concerned, of not understanding how it got to be the way we perceive it.

Like this ... there's a host of details about Christian faith that just don't make sense, and that Christians are eternally unable or unwilling to explain. Technically, it's yours to believe, but those of us who pay attention are often compelled to do so because of other factors.

So expound away ... if we've got questions we'll throw them at you, like the docetism bit. While I'm hardly stretching it, I do admit to a liberal interpretation of the heresy. Why? Well, as the topic points out ... it creates a whole lot of theological problems that aren't yet hammered out.

For what it's worth, I'm having fun. But I'd hate to be the snowball in your trousers, though ....

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[KalvinB]

The Jews stomping all over God's law isn't surprising considering much of Jesus' dealings with them revolved around condemning them for doing just that.

Jesus would have a field day with the Catholics.

Ben

 

[blonde_cupid]

According to Cris:

***I’ll summarize this.

1. Jesus is God (from “They are one in the same God”).
2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead.

If these things were true then the claim that God sacrificed his son is a fraud, it is quite meaningless.

Sacrifice. Permanent loss of something of immense value.

If I sacrificed my daughter, whom I love dearly, so that many others could live, and with no hope and with a belief that I would never see my daughter again, then that would be a true and tragic sacrifice.***

I see a number of problems with Cris' argument from the get-go. First, it rests entirely on Cris' unfounded belief that death is permanent and that there is nothing beyond the physical death of the body.

Again, Cris said: "If I sacrificed my daughter... with a belief that I would never see my daughter again (I'll add emphasis here), then that would be a true and tragic sacrifice."

Cris' belief that the death/sacrifice of his daughter would be the end of his daughter leads him to conclude that her sacrifice would be true. Well, his conclusion can only be true if he conditions his belief to be true in his argument, which he does not. Contrarily, Cris conditions his argument on the truth of the resurrection. He argues that the truth of the resurrection would negate the sacrifice.

Ironically, Cris uses his own unfounded belief in the finality of death as the basis of his argument. His fundamental belief is used to try to prove as fraudulent the very event which God* used to demonstrate to us that death is not permanent. Cris has set himself up for failure here.

Cris conditioned his argument on the truth of these statements:

***1. Jesus is God (from “They are one in the same God”).
2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead.

If these things were true then...***

If these things were true then Cris' unfounded belief in the absolute permanence of death would be false.

And so goes the rest of the argument.

 

[Markx]

I think in my above posts I gave you pretty detailed account. I think it is very logical also. I am not sure if you read that or not. But I think any one can see that poor Jesus wasn't willing to die for your sins. Or atleast that wasn't his intent at all.

 

[KalvinB]

Jesus did his father's will. He made that known at least once.

It didn't matter what he wanted. He told his father what he wanted but he always did what his father wanted whether or not he wanted it himself.

Hence the whole "take this cup from me IF IT IS THY WILL."

No duh he wasn't fond of the whole idea of dying. Who would be?

It's nice you understand that Jesus wasn't fond of the whole idea. But it doesn't really prove anything Christians didn't already know.

Ben

 

[Tiassa]

Taking exception, Blonde Cupid

Blonde Cupid

First off, I'm laughing. This is the third attempt I've made to respond to your post, and they all start with the note that I find it hilarious. However, the rest of it ... well, I'm trying to figure out how to explain to you how ludicrous is your accusation that Cris' belief in the permanence of death is unfounded.

So we'll look at it from a number of perspectives.

First, you start with Cris' enumerated proofs, which are drawn from Loone's rants. What he is pointing out is the paradox of those beliefs. Jesus, who never sinned (and that includes thinking about it, does it not?) during the 18 blank years of his life, and who knew he was elevated as God's Son, suffered like anyone else? It's the reason Catholics were so hung up on Docetism and still hold a line against it.

What you're trying to introduce appears to be a side consideration. While it has relevance, it is an attempt to change the dogma addressed at the very least. If you have difficulties with what Loone's Christian faith creates, is it somehow beyond your Christian duty to advise him of the incorrectness of his faith?

What Loone's rants create, as Cris has shown, is a condition whereby Jesus could not have the same human perspective as anyone else in his position on the cross for such petty issues as differences of opinion. Which means, then, that Jesus did not experience human sin in any way that is truly sympathetic.

Think of it this way: God, for whom all things are possible, needs to experience what is taking place down among the world. So he pares off and descends into the flesh. However, God is always aware. It is, analogously, like observing a special ed classroom and then telling people what the developmentally-delayed people are thinking. Well, sure, if you're somehow similarly-developed (and also able to communicate such details), you can say what takes place inside the mind with a reasonable degree of accuracy. How can a heterosexual man, for instance, stand in front of an audience and tell us what homosexual men think? One is not the other.

So you're separating the analogies and applying the same rule to them: the a priori of resurrection. In the end, when you accuse Cris' of unfounded beliefs in the permanece of death, you seem to be blowing smoke out your ass, to be honest. Please, Blonde Cupid, provide some scientific evidence showing definitively that death is not the end of the personal human experience.

At present, it is easier to show the scientific validity of the finality of death--that is, the objective, observable, and seemingly factual finality of death--than it is to show the scientific validity of the unobserveable faith. In fact, I doubt that the transience of death has ever been demonstrated. Ghosts, goblins, and other such notions are, thus far, folklore. The passing spirit in the mundane world cannot be quantified, cannot be observed objectively. We see a strange light--it's a Ufo or a ghost or an angel ... okay, now quantify that and show me. I sat in a field many nights watching sephirothic glyphs of light dance all around me. But I can't verify they were actually there; I watched them from afar. Now, is it more accurate for me to say that these spirit-glyphs are real, or that I saw strange patterns of light in a field in light fog?

When one restricts themselves to pure dualism, we see a symptomatic implementation of that dualism in the expressions of perception. Hmm ... I saw lights that resembled the Qabalistic tree of life. Must mean they're actually spiritual entities of the Judeo-Christian derivation, right? I mean, I saw them. They couldn't be Ufos, couldn't be natural phenomena, couldn't be a matter of perception on my part despite the fact that I was absorbed in modern post-Qabbalism at the time. Right? They must be spirits? Or else they must not? What is the dualism? That something is evidence of God or not? It only comes into play if one believes that such a dualism is true.

Thus, is the "tunnel of light" evidence of God? Indisputable evidence? Hardly; it cannot be quantified as yet.

So the first thing we need, Blonde Cupid, is some sort of support for your arbitrary accusation that the finality of death is unfounded.

I see a number of problems with Cris' argument from the get-go. First, it rests entirely on Cris' unfounded belief that death is permanent and that there is nothing beyond the physical death of the body.

As noted, please demonstrate that the finality of death is an unfounded notion. In other words, please affirm objectively that death is transient.

Cris' belief that the death/sacrifice of his daughter would be the end of his daughter leads him to conclude that her sacrifice would be true. Well, his conclusion can only be true if he conditions his belief to be true in his argument, which he does not. Contrarily, Cris conditions his argument on the truth of the resurrection. He argues that the truth of the resurrection would negate the sacrifice.

The truth of the Resurection does not negate the sacrifice. I have to admit, I'm disappointed by this one, Blonde Cupid.

Imagine: Blonde Cupid is born, lives as well as his parents and priests and community can teach him. One day, he comes to disagree with his community on certain points. They hold fast. Determined, Cupid continues his press, bringing his opponents to such desperation that they are prepared to kill him. Riding into town, he knows that he will be tortured. He believes God will raise him, but this does not assuage the regret he feels at knowing that his wife and children will be hurt by his loss, and that they will live their mortal lives without him. The pain is unbearable; Cupid goes into shock. As the last flicker of life escapes him, he cries out his anguish and frustration, and passes into the Other Realm. God, seeing this sacrifice for what God has said is right, raises Blonde Cupid in order to exploit this sacrifice toward the positive. Now, here, you've sacrificed in the way that we are all taught in church that Jesus sacrificed: he felt pain, he felt human emotion, and wiped away sin.

Now, imagine: Blonde Cupid is born, lives as well as his parents and priests and community can teach him. At his baptism, God speaks to him: You are my son, and I am well pleased. Knowing this, Blonde Cupid sets forth to do the will of his father. He knows that he must find a way to redeem these people from the errors of the corruption willed upon them. The only way to do this is apparently to push until they break and revoke the prior covenant. Thus, a new covenant will be established after the prerequisite demonstration of suffering and dying. You'll be home with Dad on Sunday. In addition, you've never been in love, never wanted a woman, and have no children to love and miss. Even the mundane: Blonde Cupid knows that this death is not the end of his earthly experience; he gets to have one more meal of really good, fresh-caught fish before he goes home.

In either case, Blonde Cupid, you have been raised. In the former, you have truly sacrificed. In the latter, you have merely gone through the demonstration of sacrifice. For some reason, I have this image in my mind of how many people I know who flock back to their vices after the Lenten abstention. In that sense, one of the reasons I consciously monitor my substance intake is that I never wish to say that I will never partake again. My mother, for instance, asked me to stop drinking for a month because I had dropped out of college amid an impressive collection of beer, rum, and schnapps bottles. This was the easiest thing to do, even with J waving snifters of Curvosier under my nose. Why? Because in thirty days the demonstration ends, and I'll drink again. Hopefully, I'll drink more responsibly.

This is a far cry from, say, never being able to taste--not so much get drunk by, but taste--Guinness again.

Much like my knowing that I'll be downing Guinnesses soon made it considerably easier to endure whatever withdrawal symptoms plagued me, so does the knowledge that the suffering would end soon, and that he would be whole and perfect again make it easier to endure the suffering that you've known since Adam you would have to put up with.

Cris, losing his daughter, and his daughter herself, do not have that whisper in the ear from God that they are to sacrifice themselves only to be raised again without blemish.

That is, Cris is looking at never being able to drink again, as the analogy goes, instead of knowing that next beer is only a few days around the corner.

Ironically, Cris uses his own unfounded belief in the finality of death as the basis of his argument. His fundamental belief is used to try to prove as fraudulent the very event which God* used to demonstrate to us that death is not permanent. Cris has set himself up for failure here.

I'll stand on the above sections in general.

But there are a couple of points that need specific clarification.

(1) Redemption comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
(2) Therefore, the transience of death comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
(3) This is because Jesus Christ suffered, died, and was raised, demonstrating that mortal humans can endure eternally through faith in Jesus Christ.
(4) Thus, if Jesus Christ did not suffer and die as an ordinary, mortal human, the notion of his sacrifice as justification for faith in resurrection becomes weak, and begins to crumble.

By the way, are you still footnoting God* to that whomever/whatever standard? Your argument defeats the asterisk if so.

And that's a relevant point. We have faith that Jesus Christ died and was raised for us. We have faith that we will be raised. We have faith that death is transient. The reasons for that faith, however, are fraudulent, as Cris has shown by extrapolating from Loone's points.

Those who have faith in other ideas do not ever receive the proof of the transience of death. Of course, the faith that this is so depends upon the nature of Jesus' sacrifice.

Thus, the authority of condemnation which Jesus claims at various points in his ministry, the forfeiture of the bribe, ad nauseam, rests wholly upon his suffering being genuine. Else the faith that we can be similarly raised becomes wholly arbitrary; given how important salvation is to Christians, you'd think they would be less reckless with their faith.

If these things were true then Cris' unfounded belief in the absolute permanence of death would be false.

And so goes the rest of the argument.

Actually, Blonde Cupid, might I recommend that you consider that sumamrization of Loone's points in terms of the three proofs provided instead of looking at the summarization and saying Cris is wrong. The point is that the Christian objections thus far seem to be covered by said proofs. Markx and I have tried to fill in some of the detail here, but it seems that no Chrisitans want to put aside the a priori assumptions of faith in order to objectively examine that faith. Like I pointed out to Matticious G

Did I mention, earlier, that in the creationist debate, for instance, one of the "givens" that creationists would like acknowledged in advance is the notion that God exists?

In other words ... Why don't we just hand you the whole concept as a "Given"?

It would, after all, end this debate easily.

Given #5 is, in its effect, you asking Cris to simply hand you this entire debate in advance. Gee, it would be a terrible thing to actually have to support your faith with at least some reality, wouldn't it?

If we were two surgeons debating how best to cut into a patient, what would you say when I considered your argument and then said, "Can we establish it as a given that we should cut where I think we should cut?" Or, more simply, Can we establish as a given that I am already right?

So, what you have in essence, is that you are attempting to make a knowledge refutation of a philosophical examination of faith.

Look, it's faith, and not fact that one will be raised. The whole of it is faith. The fraud of the crucifixion comes when one considers that the faith in the crucifixion does not reflect either the Bible or its natural translation into reality.

One need not show whether or not we actually rise from death in this debate; in essence, the problem here is that Christians advertise an impossible theology based on selfish needs. The idea of a life continuing after death isn't impossible to fathom, but by the Christian demand it's a farce.

Put it, first, in the context of the grand crimes of the past. Imagine that, an authority based in a faith that is fraudulent. Not the Bible itself, but the faith. Part of this is that the faith does not reflect the Bible. Another part of this is the paucity of the Bible. At the core, though, we see a story that, without such considerations as degrees of sacrifice, resembles a robot coming to earth and departing to the mother ship to transfer the data banks. Just following instructions.

It's almost ironic. Christians obey because of the sacrifice "God" made for them. Witches generally acknowledge the actual sacrifice taking place. When you cut wheat, you thank the wheat for its sacrifice--you need to eat, and it needs to live; one of these priorities will win out, so thank you for letting me eat, Good Wheat. I find it ironic that, by whatever quirk, the Wheat now owes us thanks for eating it. And when the basis of that paradigm shift is spotty, customized theology with the consistent effect of empowering attempts by humans to dominate other humans, destroying lives in the name of compassion, then, yeah ... the rest of us--the ones getting stomped by the Christian legion--will eventually take the time to examine the basis of your claims to authority and dominion. And when what you tell us doesn't match up with what you say is reality ... well, can there be two truths of God?

Believe whatever you want. But please, don't be arbitrary about it. I mean, the only reasons any questions of faith arise at all is because the Bible fails to make those issues of faith clear. The exploration of these issues, the greed for salvation, has compelled Christians to a theology that is laughable in many cases.

There are, for instance, answers to this conundrum, but they interfere with other biblically-derived "truths". Why not have Jesus be, you know, just this guy, and whenever God needs something, the holy spirit descends, communicates through Jesus, and returns to God having delivered its message. This would be a more natural assumption, and Paul did call Jesus a mouthpiece. Of course, that brings the immaculate conception into question, and casts doubt all over other considerations (e.g. the "Us" in Genesis--who is God talking to?)

It is a sticky situation that might have been avoided had the egos who canonized the Bible paid attention, and had the authors of those scriptures been able to conceive legitimately beyond their own lifetimes. Seriously, if Madison and Jefferson had the ability to foresee the AK-47, MAC-10, or other such weapons, would the Second Amendment read the way it does?

It's a matter of perspective. Many Christians start with the idea that Jesus suffered and died on the Cross for them before they ever undertake any intellectual examination of the Bible. By the time I reached my Lutheran confirmation classes at 12, my classmates already believed every word of the Bible, even though they hadn't ever really read it. How many times have I heard, from Christians, "The Bible doesn't say that" only to show them the words? Your faith perspective takes precedent over your intellectual perspective. It's easy enough to simply believe; hell, people believe in JZ Knight and Ramtha. But it's more difficult to understand. And understanding Chrisitan faith is how Christians can stop the institutions of their faith from menacing the world.

It may be more important to you to believe without thinking outside the Book, but part of that involves setting aside your faith assumptions and understanding what it says in that Book. It's like God lying in Genesis. The amount of twisting Christians have to do in order to make God honest ... well, it starts conflicting with other parts of the Bible eventually.

Like the current topic. God knew before he created the Universe ex nihilo that it would become corrupted; God knew that he could not repair that corruption; God knew that the best solution he had to that corruption was to enter the environment and try to fix the situation. Frustrated, God now condemns those who don't automatically conform to the program despite the sketchy code. You know, part of this whole thing might have been avoided if God had been honest with His creations in the first place, or at least if God hadn't been so damned frightened of them to kick them out of the Garden. The sacrifice is undermined right there by the fact that this is how God wanted it. (see earlier posts to Matticious G, cf sexual examples).

sacrifice

sacrifice

\Sac"ri*fice\ (?; 277), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Sacrificed; p. pr. & vb. n. Sacrificing.] [From Sacrifice, n.: cf. F. sacrifier, L. sacrificare; sacer sacred, holy + -ficare (only in comp.) to make. See -fy.] 1. To make an offering of; to consecrate or present to a divinity by way of expiation or propitiation, or as a token acknowledgment or thanksgiving; to immolate on the altar of God, in order to atone for sin, to procure favor, or to express thankfulness; as, to sacrifice an ox or a sheep.

Oft sacrificing bullock, lamb, or kid. --Milton.

2. Hence, to destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with loss or suffering.

Condemned to sacrifice his childish years To babbling ignorance, and to empty fears. --Prior.

The Baronet had sacrificed a large sum . . . for the sake of . . . making this boy his heir. --G. Eliot.

3. To destroy; to kill. --Johnson.

4. To sell at a price less than the cost or the actual value. [Tradesmen's Cant]


sacrifice

\Sac"ri*fice\ (?; 277), n. [OE. sacrifise, sacrifice, F. sacrifice, fr. L. sacrificium; sacer sacred + facere to make. See Sacred, and Fact.] 1. The offering of anything to God, or to a god; consecratory rite.

Great pomp, and sacrifice, and praises loud, To Dagon. --Milton.

2. Anything consecrated and offered to God, or to a divinity; an immolated victim, or an offering of any kind, laid upon an altar, or otherwise presented in the way of religious thanksgiving, atonement, or conciliation.

Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood Of human sacrifice. --Milton.

My life, if thou preserv'st my life, Thy sacrifice shall be. --Addison.

3. Destruction or surrender of anything for the sake of something else; devotion of some desirable object in behalf of a higher object, or to a claim deemed more pressing; hence, also, the thing so devoted or given up; as, the sacrifice of interest to pleasure, or of pleasure to interest.

4. A sale at a price less than the cost or the actual value. [Tradesmen's Cant]

Burnt sacrifice. See Burnt offering, under Burnt.

Sacrifice hit (Baseball), in batting, a hit of such a kind that the batter loses his chance of tallying, but enables one or more who are on bases to get home or gain a base.


sacrifice

\Sac"ri*fice\, v. i. To make offerings to God, or to a deity, of things consumed on the altar; to offer sacrifice.

O teacher, some great mischief hath befallen To that meek man, who well had sacrificed. --Milton.


sacrifice

n 1: the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc. [syn: forfeit, forfeiture] 2: personnel that are sacrificed (e.g., surrendered or lost in order to gain an objective) 3: a loss entailed by giving up or selling something at less than its value; "he had to sell his car at a considerable sacrifice" 4: the act of killing (an animal or person) in order to propitiate a deity [syn: ritual killing] 5: (in baseball) an out that advances the base runners v 1: endure the loss of; "He gave his life for his children"; "I gave two sons to the war" [syn: give] 2: kill or destroy; "The animals were sacrificed after the experiment"; "The general had to sacrifice several soldiers to save the regiment" 3: sell at a loss 4: make a sacrifice of; in religious rituals


sacrifice: The offering up of sacrifices is to be regarded as a divine institution. It did not originate with man. God himself appointed it as the mode in which acceptable worship was to be offered to him by guilty man. The language and the idea of sacrifice pervade the whole Bible. Sacrifices were offered in the ante-diluvian age. The Lord clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals, which in all probability had been offered in sacrifice (Gen. 3:21). Abel offered a sacrifice "of the firstlings of his flock" (4:4; Heb. 11:4). A distinction also was made between clean and unclean animals, which there is every reason to believe had reference to the offering up of sacrifices (Gen. 7:2, 8), because animals were not given to man as food till after the Flood. The same practice is continued down through the patriarchal age (Gen. 8:20; 12:7; 13:4, 18; 15:9-11; 22:1-18, etc.). In the Mosaic period of Old Testament history definite laws were prescribed by God regarding the different kinds of sacrifices that were to be offered and the manner in which the offering was to be made. The offering of stated sacrifices became indeed a prominent and distinctive feature of the whole period (Ex. 12:3-27; Lev. 23:5-8; Num. 9:2-14). (See ALTAR.) We learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews that sacrifices had in themselves no value or efficacy. They were only the "shadow of good things to come," and pointed the worshippers forward to the coming of the great High Priest, who, in the fullness of the time, "was offered once for all to bear the sin of many." Sacrifices belonged to a temporary economy, to a system of types and emblems which served their purposes and have now passed away. The "one sacrifice for sins" hath "perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Sacrifices were of two kinds: 1. Unbloody, such as (1) first-fruits and tithes; (2) meat and drink-offerings; and (3) incense. 2. Bloody, such as (1) burnt-offerings; (2) peace-offerings; and (3) sin and trespass offerings. (See OFFERINGS.)

I included this lengthy page from Dictionary.com because, while only one definition even comes close to the sacrifice we're discussing, I thought the last entry, from a Bible dictionary, was worth including.

But I do think your post falls flat this time. For all these reasons and more.

The end question becomes, Why should (anyone) give up a human process in which they perceive benefit in order to undertake a process which they perceive as muddled, confused, and largely detrimental?

That is, as Christians evangelize, wouldn't it be nice if, just once, they actually knew what they were saying instead of reciting dogma which, as we see in Cris' considerations of Loone's ranting, often creates a host of metaphysical difficulties that challenge the heart of the faith's integrity. You tell us we should believe this on faith without demonstrable proof. What are we supposed to think? I'm not even referring to the dynamic, incoherent diversity of Christian perspectives, but of the more uniform omissions within the logical process. The Bible speaks of a crucifixion, and tells us great things come from it. Without evidence, people believe, and that's just fine. But when we hear about the grace of God and the miracle of Christ, compassion, redemption and all of that, what you're pitching are accretions of need. The Bible doesn't support the same sense of sacrifice as Christians would like us to believe. Of course, how much Lamb of God can anyone hear without starting to make the scapegoat association?

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by KalvinB
Jesus did his father's will. He made that known at least once.

It didn't matter what he wanted. He told his father what he wanted but he always did what his father wanted whether or not he wanted it himself.

Hence the whole "take this cup from me IF IT IS THY WILL."

No duh he wasn't fond of the whole idea of dying. Who would be?

It's nice you understand that Jesus wasn't fond of the whole idea. But it doesn't really prove anything Christians didn't already know.

Ben

Kalvin you can continure with your strange and out of this world thinking and arguments. But answer my simple question did he full fill the prophecy or not? Is jesus lying or you are? How else do you want me to prove it, that he wasn't willing to die, neither he died on cross, nor he was dead in his grave. I just gave you every thing from Bible it self. Now you still can't understand that???..

 

[Cris]

blonde_cupid,

A good try, but you seem to have missed the point of the thread and have become sidetracked into thinking I was talking about death, which I wasn’t and which I deliberately did not mention in my thread starter. You are showing signs of desperation in this approach.

I see a number of problems with Cris' argument from the get-go. First, it rests entirely on Cris' unfounded belief that death is permanent and that there is nothing beyond the physical death of the body.

The issue of death and a potential afterlife is irrelevant here. The example is to show the concept of a permanent loss. Feel free to choose any other example where you experience a permanent loss of something of immense value and suffer as a result. My argument does not in any way rest on the nature of death. You have missed the point entirely.

The rest of your post is consequently irrelevant since it is based on an incorrect assumption.

I’ll re-emphasize the point for you.

We are encouraged to feel sad for God, and therefore encouraged to love him, because he allegedly sacrificed something he loved for us.

John 3:16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only son.

He did no such thing. If Jesus never came back and his soul/spirit was permanently lost then yes under those conditions I could see that God might have suffered a terrible loss, and would be worthy of our love and worship.

But his son allegedly came back after a very short time, and God would have known this was going to happen.

The only way we can feel sorry for God is if Jesus was lost permanently. But the Christian bumper sticker I saw the other day said “Jesus Lives”.

And a 3-day break for an infinite omniscient God is effectively zero.

Christianity is based on this terrible sacrifice so that we could be cleansed of our sins.

Show me the sacrifice – what did God give up? In what way did he suffer from a permanent loss for something he loved?

Since Jesus is meant to still be in existence then clearly there could not have been a sacrifice, God would have lost nothing and could not have sufferred in any manner, consequently Christianity and the crucifixion is a fraud, whether God exists or does not exist.

Cris

 

[KalvinB]

"Kalvin you can continure with your strange and out of this world thinking and arguments."

Oooh. Wierd. Logic.

"But answer my simple question did he full fill the prophecy or not?"

Yes

"Is jesus lying or you are?"

You're an idiot. Read my post. Jesus didn't want to die. But he did anyway.

"How else do you want me to prove it, that he wasn't willing to die"

PAY ATTENTION! see above.

"neither he died on cross"

uh huh.

"nor he was dead in his grave."

uh huh.

"I just gave you every thing from Bible it self."

No. You gave me your interpretation which, if you can't even understand my posts, I can't very well expect you to understand the Bible now can I?

"Now you still can't understand that???"

PAY ATTENTION!

Ben

 

[KalvinB]

gag me Cris.

Since when does sacrifice have to be forever to be a real sacrifice?

It's only not good enough for you because you can't comprehend the the extent of what Christ went through.

Ben

 

[Adam]

Again: If he existed, and if that happened, then he went through no more than did many thousands of other people in that place and time. Sure, it must have sucked, but his case wasn't that special.

 

[Cris]

Kalvinb,

Since when does sacrifice have to be forever to be a real sacrifice?

At its very simplest definition ‘sacrifice’ is a loss.

If the loss is permanent and the item lost was of something loved, then that is tragic and deserves immense respect for the victim (the loser).

If the loss is temporary and the loser knows it is temporary, then all that we have is a mild inconvenience, and really nothing to cry over.

It's only not good enough for you because you can't comprehend the extent of what Christ went through.

He died in pain. Millions of people have and do die in pain. So death through pain is nothing particularly special in this respect.

But he then comes back to life and ends up in paradise. So the death and pain thing for an eternal entity is again only a mild inconvenience, i.e. nothing special.

But I guess what you want to assert is that he died for our sins, right? And this of course could be seen as a wonderful thing if there was a real exchange, e.g. Jesus dies in exchange for our sins. But there was no exchange since he comes back to life. So it looks like he had a painful death and ends up in paradise, and what, we are meant to be thankful for this? Note I've left an opening for you here if you want to exploit it.

Back to John 3:16, God so loved the world that he gave his only son.

So what does giving mean here? Usually when you give something you don’t expect to get it back. I.e. this implies permanence to my way of thinking. And of course we are meant to become all-emotional over this wonderful gift and immense sacrifice. But wait; does God change his mind? After only three days he takes back the gift. That’s kinda deceitful. He makes out he is making this great sacrifice for the human race, and then we see he gets his son back, and of course with his omniscience he knew all this all the time.

Nope, there is nothing here except for a deceitful fraud, if of course any of it happened at all.

It could only make sense if the resurrection never occurred, and the loss was real and permanent. But wait isn’t the resurrection another essential ingredient of Christianity. “The resurrection is the very basis of our faith and hope (I Cor. 15: 14-19).” Hint: Another opening for you.

So if Jesus lives then Christianity is a fraud and meaningless.

And if Jesus is permanently dead and there was no resurrection, then Christianity has no basis.

Either way Christianity has no credibility.

Cris

 

[Markx]

No. He did not full fill the prophecy. He was dead in the grave you inteligent biblical profesor.

PAY ATTENTION


Then you start with your typical Whining. Uh Huh


Admit it now that you are lying.

** You're an idiot. Read my post. Jesus didn't want to die. But he did anyway.**

Now who is beeing idiot. You just prove me right. If he died then he didn't full fill the prophecy. READ YOUR BIBLE AGAIN.


Now you have just said it. Ouch. It is hard when you don't PAY ATTENTION. So read again and agian. You are believing exactly opposite what JESUS told you. How sad Kalvin.
:bugeye:


NOTE: Please don't whine when you write. Thanks. :bugeye: