The crucifixion was a fraud.
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
"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."
And? How is it any less a sacrifice just because it's temporary? Jesus cried when Lazarus died even though he was going to bring him back to life.
Face it; This is one of the lamest arguments you've come up with. "Jesus didn't suffer enough."
Whatever.
MarkX:
I wasn't whining jackass. Stupid teenager.
"If he died then he didn't full fill the prophecy."
Yes he did. Jonah was PART of an image of what was to come. Just because Jonah didn't die, didn't mean Jesus wasn't going to.
You have ZERO concept of prophecy. Jonah was three days in the belly of a fish. Jesus was 3 days in the belly of the earth. Very simple.
Hit yourself with a clue stick and read up on OT sacrifices. Specifically the passover lamb. Oh wait, the sacrifices were usually FEMALE. OH OH OH!!!!
Wake me when you come up with a real objection instead of this pathetic dribble you've managed to spill all over.
Ben
And? How is it any less a sacrifice just because it's temporary? Jesus cried when Lazarus died even though he was going to bring him back to life.
Face it; This is one of the lamest arguments you've come up with. "Jesus didn't suffer enough."
Whatever.
MarkX:
I wasn't whining jackass. Stupid teenager.
"If he died then he didn't full fill the prophecy."
Yes he did. Jonah was PART of an image of what was to come. Just because Jonah didn't die, didn't mean Jesus wasn't going to.
You have ZERO concept of prophecy. Jonah was three days in the belly of a fish. Jesus was 3 days in the belly of the earth. Very simple.
Hit yourself with a clue stick and read up on OT sacrifices. Specifically the passover lamb. Oh wait, the sacrifices were usually FEMALE. OH OH OH!!!!
Wake me when you come up with a real objection instead of this pathetic dribble you've managed to spill all over.
Ben
KalvinB, that you were responding to me is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that your post had nothing to do with the topic.
If you want to just be an anti-everyone propagandist, open up another topic about Jews and Catholics and show us the same intellectual prowess you showed with your anti-Islamic bender.
In the meantime, please contribute something relevant to the topic and stop behaving like a child.
We've tried to overlook your attitude problem in this topic, but you seriously don't seem to want us to.
Now, given that you're not even a Christian, KalvinB, I would ask that you stop this fraudulent provocation to undermine it. Christians have enough issues to settle out without people like you going around giving them an even worse image.
thanx,
Tiassa
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
Cris,
***A slightly edited quote from Loone...And be raised up from the dead.***
***2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead.***
***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.***
If your example of sacrificing your daughter did not mean her permanent death, what was the true and tragic sacrifice?
***...was the claim at least equal to that of me sacrificing my daughter?***
How did you sacrifice your daughter?
***It is not difficult to see that God made no such sacrifice, and certainly nothing that could come remotely close to what I would see as a true sacrifice.***
What comes remotely close to what you would see as a true sacrifice?
***1. God is immortal; he cannot die... Therefore Jesus cannot die; i.e. he cannot die through sacrifice.... Sacrifice means a permanent loss... Jesus was raised from the dead... Therefore if Jesus came back then he wasn’t permanently lost... If he wasn’t permanently lost then there was no sacrifice.***
It sure sounds like you're talking about death, Cris. If not, then how else do you think you could sacrifice your daughter so that she is permanently lost, Cris?
***For a sacrifice to have meaning then the entity making the sacrifice must experience suffering at the loss, as a human would suffer if they sacrificed their loved child.***
If a human sacrificed their loved child how, Cris?
***A slightly edited quote from Loone...And be raised up from the dead.***
***2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead.***
***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.***
If your example of sacrificing your daughter did not mean her permanent death, what was the true and tragic sacrifice?
***...was the claim at least equal to that of me sacrificing my daughter?***
How did you sacrifice your daughter?
***It is not difficult to see that God made no such sacrifice, and certainly nothing that could come remotely close to what I would see as a true sacrifice.***
What comes remotely close to what you would see as a true sacrifice?
***1. God is immortal; he cannot die... Therefore Jesus cannot die; i.e. he cannot die through sacrifice.... Sacrifice means a permanent loss... Jesus was raised from the dead... Therefore if Jesus came back then he wasn’t permanently lost... If he wasn’t permanently lost then there was no sacrifice.***
It sure sounds like you're talking about death, Cris. If not, then how else do you think you could sacrifice your daughter so that she is permanently lost, Cris?
***For a sacrifice to have meaning then the entity making the sacrifice must experience suffering at the loss, as a human would suffer if they sacrificed their loved child.***
If a human sacrificed their loved child how, Cris?
matticiousg
Registered Member
Tiassa,
I admit to not seeing it like that before, but it causes me to question why you don't apply the same rules to cris' argument. In other words why not just say that Cris' argument is fundamentally flawed because it rests on a priori that are matters of faith as well. Why not just say Cris' argument is flawed because it It gives as a priori that God exists, Jesus was God, and Jesus was resurected? Maybe I'm missing something here but it seems like a double standard.
Similarly you keep making the assertion that I'm commiting the heresy of docetism when you fail to realize that
a: docetism is in fact part of a greater heresy that states Jesus cannot possibly be fully human and fully devine.
b: by making the assertion that Jesus' devine nature somehow impaired him from experiencing genuine suffering and death you and Cris are in essence rejecting the idea that Jesus could be fully human. If Jesus was fully human (which is the antithesis of docetism) it's logically required to accept that he could experience suffering and death the same way as any other human.
Therefore could I not dismiss Cris' arguments on the basis that it tries to use Christian beliefs as it's grounds but does not provide accurate Christian beliefs for those grounds. (essentially, if I am to accept his argument that the crucifixion is meaningless I must first accept the docetism heresy.) How is that different from Me making the argument that God is real because the material world is an illusion?
Furthermore Cris' insistence on permanence being the only way to prove a sacrifice occurred:
and
wereas the definitions you posted certainately seem to portray that sacrifice can mean something else:
Does that not amount to a false dilema and thereby reder the whole argument logically valid.
In any account even if you accept my refutation it really doesn't prove anything except that Cris needs to form a stronger argument.
I'm beging to get pressed for time so I try and adress some of your other questions briefly but as best I can:
1. Catholic beliefs come from two places: The Bible which is sometimes called "the word of God in the words of men" and tradition which essentially amounts to all the teachings of the Catholic church and is used as the basis for interpreting the Bible as well as covering some issues not quite found in the Bible (explicitly).
2. I would say they do. But I don't think that's the kind of answer you were looking for. I'll get back to it when I have more time.
3. Well, honestly I'd say they're both too inextricably combined to warrant a question like that.
4. Same as above.
5. No I drive 80 because I find that 60 is too slow for me.
6. I meant neccessarily true in the sense that if a logical argument does not neccessarily lead to it's conclusion it is considered invalid.
I got more to expound But no time right now. So I'll catch you later.
-matt
I admit to not seeing it like that before, but it causes me to question why you don't apply the same rules to cris' argument. In other words why not just say that Cris' argument is fundamentally flawed because it rests on a priori that are matters of faith as well. Why not just say Cris' argument is flawed because it It gives as a priori that God exists, Jesus was God, and Jesus was resurected? Maybe I'm missing something here but it seems like a double standard.
Similarly you keep making the assertion that I'm commiting the heresy of docetism when you fail to realize that
a: docetism is in fact part of a greater heresy that states Jesus cannot possibly be fully human and fully devine.
b: by making the assertion that Jesus' devine nature somehow impaired him from experiencing genuine suffering and death you and Cris are in essence rejecting the idea that Jesus could be fully human. If Jesus was fully human (which is the antithesis of docetism) it's logically required to accept that he could experience suffering and death the same way as any other human.
Therefore could I not dismiss Cris' arguments on the basis that it tries to use Christian beliefs as it's grounds but does not provide accurate Christian beliefs for those grounds. (essentially, if I am to accept his argument that the crucifixion is meaningless I must first accept the docetism heresy.) How is that different from Me making the argument that God is real because the material world is an illusion?
Furthermore Cris' insistence on permanence being the only way to prove a sacrifice occurred:
and
wereas the definitions you posted certainately seem to portray that sacrifice can mean something else:
Does that not amount to a false dilema and thereby reder the whole argument logically valid.
In any account even if you accept my refutation it really doesn't prove anything except that Cris needs to form a stronger argument.
I'm beging to get pressed for time so I try and adress some of your other questions briefly but as best I can:
1. Catholic beliefs come from two places: The Bible which is sometimes called "the word of God in the words of men" and tradition which essentially amounts to all the teachings of the Catholic church and is used as the basis for interpreting the Bible as well as covering some issues not quite found in the Bible (explicitly).
2. I would say they do. But I don't think that's the kind of answer you were looking for. I'll get back to it when I have more time.
3. Well, honestly I'd say they're both too inextricably combined to warrant a question like that.
4. Same as above.
5. No I drive 80 because I find that 60 is too slow for me.
6. I meant neccessarily true in the sense that if a logical argument does not neccessarily lead to it's conclusion it is considered invalid.
I got more to expound
But no time right now. So I'll catch you later.-matt
"the fact that your post had nothing to do with the topic."
It was revelant to your post and the topic. But then you and MarkX both appear to be too stupid to see relevance. Jews breaking Gods laws to arrest Jesus at night isn't an issue since the Jews were breaking many of the laws at the time. It would be expected that they break laws.
But, like I said. You're both to stupid to make such a simple connection.
"Now, given that you're not even a Christian, KalvinB, I would ask that you stop this fraudulent provocation to undermine it. Christians have enough issues to settle out without people like you going around giving them an even worse image."
oh pish. Then there's people like you who give aithiest's a bad name. Jackass.
Ben
It was revelant to your post and the topic. But then you and MarkX both appear to be too stupid to see relevance. Jews breaking Gods laws to arrest Jesus at night isn't an issue since the Jews were breaking many of the laws at the time. It would be expected that they break laws.
But, like I said. You're both to stupid to make such a simple connection.
"Now, given that you're not even a Christian, KalvinB, I would ask that you stop this fraudulent provocation to undermine it. Christians have enough issues to settle out without people like you going around giving them an even worse image."
oh pish. Then there's people like you who give aithiest's a bad name. Jackass.
Ben
As a jackass who likes to delude himself into thinking he can have a little stab at logic and rational thought now and then, I'd like to point out that some of you are discussing the laws, facts, and evidence of what is most likely a mythical situation. Doesn't that strike any of you as slightly odd?
Docetism and other questions
MatticiousG
Points to consider ... I thank you, and shall endeavor to answer them.
To even discuss Biblical measures, one must accept a certain degree of a priori that God exists. What, for instance, is the point of discussing whether or not God lied in Genesis if we do not accept, for the sake of that argument, that God exists?
Thus, to phrase the question somewhat more harshly than it needs, For all the theists complain of atheistic stubbornness, why is it that when an atheist enters the arena and works with what is before them, they are accused of holding a priori views? Quite simply, in terms of the debate, they are respecting the existence of the a priori.
So if what Loone put up is true as Cris has summarized it, the situation creates the paradoxical result that Cris has documented.
In acknowledging the existence of the a priori, we are exploring whether or not they are valid.
The a priori that God exists is vital to the present debate. In the case of Creationism, as I noted, to accept God a priori is to end the debate. In the case of the present debate, to accept that Jesus is the Redeemer is to end the debate.
As to Jesus being fully human ... sure, I'll accept that and all its implications, but such a state does,in fact, cause some difficulties. Genesis, for instance--the best answer to who the "Us" referred to by God is that the Logos/Christos was already present. It also presemts the possibility that the Bible is just a legend woven around a revolutionary charismatic. Any number of demons of faith spring up. As I cruise through the Google search (via Newadvent.org) for "Docetism", I'm not seeing the docetism you describe in point (a). Particularly fun is the debate 'twixt Faustus and Augustine. Indeed, Faustus has the better position. Augustine, though having the sympathy of the Church and therefore the presenters, comes off as not being particularly coherent. For instance, when Faustus points out
What, then, constitutes an accurate portrayal of Christian belief? Anything that resolves an issue the way a particular Christian wants it?
For despite Loone's tendency to be incoherent, the presented theological consideration that Cris has extrapolated is quite familiar to me. This kind of theology is quite common, though often more coherent.
That God cannot make a square circle is because the words describe two disparate, representative states. We might agree on an intricate polygon, but the fact is that that shape has its own definitive description of its state.
Real, among other things, means things that are verifiable. Illusion, among other things, means that the perception is incorrect, and therefore the object is not verified but only implied and accepted.
The illusory nature of the real world is a philosophical resolution arising from questions of identity and self.
What is real can be verified. God cannot be verified. To say that God is real because the Real World is illusory is merely a philosophical attempt to circumvent the fact that God cannot be objectively observed. I'm sure the point we're after here is actually something else, but I'm having a hard time stringing those parts together from your post right now.
• One of the things the dictionary definitions break is the notion that God sacrificed anything. I don't really see that. I see something in there that's close ... to give up something of value.
• While you have a point that a sacrifice can involve other things, I must reiterate a question: What degree of sacrifice are we discussing? Is Jesus merely a goat or a dove to be burned at the altar by the high priest? Is Jesus the santeria chicken? Or the sacrifice of incense and bottlecaps? It's just that, while you have a point about the diversity of sacrifices, part of the point, isn't it, is that Jesus made an Ultimate Sacrifice? If Jesus had atoned for the world by killing a goat and sending into the desert, sure, we could still say that he sacrificed for us.
• If I have a business plan that calls for spending thirty million dollars in order to make one-hundred million dollars, have I "sacrificed" that thirty million dollars?
(Don't worry about being pressed for time ... we can always get back to it later.) )
(2) Accepted, as such. Truly, take the time you need. That, at present, I have all day to write huge and frequent posts is a luxury I enjoy. But I well know that others don't always have that luxury. We'll get to it when it becomes absolutely essential (e.g. the debate cannot progress without its discussion), or when we get the chance.
(3) Fair enough; it is an awfully broad question. In that sense, I suppose I should mention that these can be taken rhetorically if you prefer.
(4) We know that individual Christians have some pretty funny notions from time to time, and even some tragic ones. But what happens when those become institutional? I think this has happened a good deal in history; in this case, I can hold up the whole of Protestantism as an example, and you can take that in whichever context you like
(5) Exactly. And many Christians transgress the Bible because it is unappealing to be that devoted. As with the prior consideration; what happens when those notions become institutional? Sola Scriptura Christianity does not have the excuse of being extra-biblical. Catholcism does. But when lawbreaking is institutional, such as McKinley pointed out in the gay Jesus article? Is Catholocism immune to such errors? I don't think its history would describe it as immune.
(6) In science, where we do not have a dualist proscription, sure, if the conclusion is not necessarily true then it is at least partially false. Consider, please: Either Christ suffered genuinely as a human being or he did not. This is what seems to be on the table; it seems quite dualistic. Thus, once you have proven that the statement that the crucifixion is not necessarily a fraud, you will also leave open the possibility that the crucifixion is not necessarily genuine, thus nullifying the truth of the resurection according to the principle you've proposed in its defesne. And then we're back to square one.
But to sum up a couple of larger points affecting the debate:
• Double standard: I'm having trouble putting it politely, but that's not an issue I have with you ... it's just my general disposition--Christians often complain of double-standards, and while in the most basic nature of many issues there does appear to be the double-standard, it is often because Christians oblige themselves to it. Creationists accuse a double-standard when we assume there is no God; it's not a lack of evidence in the observations, but a lack of anything to observe. Blonde Cupid and the finality of death: people have tried and failed to scientifically show life after death. While it's true that a lack of evidence does not equal evidence, what makes the Bible's afterlife any more legitimate than that of, say, Brust's "Deathgate Falls" and "Halls of Judgement" (note: the point is that those latter are fictional places). A lack of evidence toward their falsehood does not make them true. There are other double-standards of conduct we've discussed at Sciforums before, but its best to leave those aside. The larger point is that quite often, when Christians lament a double-standard, it is because they have imposed it on themselves.
• Docetism: Please, when you get a chance, provide a reference on your definition of Docetism. I've never heard it until you offered it.
• Degree of sacrifice: I don't understand why Christians, in an effort to make a point about the nature of sacrifice, wish to open up the possibility of diminishing the degree of sacrifice. After all, isn't that diminishing what is at issue here?
• Perspective: This is key. For instance, I've spent enough time, untrained, counseling psychological trauma that it drives me batty. As a reference point, I won't train for crisis counseling because what instruction I've had is so demonstrably contrary to practical experience that I usually lose my temper and just wing it on my own. This is not to puff my chest, though. It's to make a point: there are certain aspects of what we (as counselor and counseled) went through on which I am perfectly clear, and perfectly correct. But there are a number of aspects of what we went through which I cannot understand. I am not a woman who spent childhood being raped, for instance; I cannot know what that feels like. That both God and Jesus knew that everything would be okay in the end does negate the sense of a sacrifice, or at least a certain degree of sacrifice, except for the formal, priestly sort. What sacrifice? Everything is okay in the end; the world is as corrupt as it was before, Jesus is home with Dad and unblemished .... No human being gets that. For humans, it's Pascal's wager; believe in God, because if you're wrong, you'll be dead and unable to regret it. For Jesus, though, as the Bible tells it ... he knew what was going on. It was part of the plan since creation.
I think if we bear these ideas in mind, we might at least come to some middle ground on our perception of the issue. So many of the details we're discussing revolve around them; in our personal discussion in this topic, and in the general topic as well, these points do seem to come up.
thanx much,
Tiassa
MatticiousG
Points to consider ... I thank you, and shall endeavor to answer them.
At this point, I would have to ask you to demonstrate the matters of faith. On the one hand, I'm thinking of Blonde Cupid's and my exchange over the finality of death. To the other, the a priori of Cris' argument--e.g. that God exists--isn't as relevant to the abstract considerations of what we're discussing. Have you ever, for instance, read a bad mystery novel in which the final exposition of the whodunit makes absolutely no sense? (As a literary note, what I'm referring to, for example, is when the "frame-up" of the apparent guilty party is exposed and the reader realizes they were given no clues toward this conclusion; it is, literally, for the reader, out of thin air.) Does it matter whether or not we assume The Detective and The Victim and The Butler, as such, existed? Or can we look at what the story tells us and determine that it doesn't add up the way it's explained?
To even discuss Biblical measures, one must accept a certain degree of a priori that God exists. What, for instance, is the point of discussing whether or not God lied in Genesis if we do not accept, for the sake of that argument, that God exists?
Thus, to phrase the question somewhat more harshly than it needs, For all the theists complain of atheistic stubbornness, why is it that when an atheist enters the arena and works with what is before them, they are accused of holding a priori views? Quite simply, in terms of the debate, they are respecting the existence of the a priori.
So if what Loone put up is true as Cris has summarized it, the situation creates the paradoxical result that Cris has documented.
In acknowledging the existence of the a priori, we are exploring whether or not they are valid.
The a priori that God exists is vital to the present debate. In the case of Creationism, as I noted, to accept God a priori is to end the debate. In the case of the present debate, to accept that Jesus is the Redeemer is to end the debate.
(a) You're going to have to show that. I'm looking through the Catholic Encyclopedia and it gives me nothing toward this larger heresy. Furthermore, the entry on Son of Man sheds some light, as well ...
(b) The point of raising Docetism as an issue is that I do not feel it proper to resolve questions of faith with heresies. Had, for instance, the heresy of Docetism been deemed not heretical, we might not be having this crucifixion debate today.
As to Jesus being fully human ... sure, I'll accept that and all its implications, but such a state does,in fact, cause some difficulties. Genesis, for instance--the best answer to who the "Us" referred to by God is that the Logos/Christos was already present. It also presemts the possibility that the Bible is just a legend woven around a revolutionary charismatic. Any number of demons of faith spring up. As I cruise through the Google search (via Newadvent.org) for "Docetism", I'm not seeing the docetism you describe in point (a). Particularly fun is the debate 'twixt Faustus and Augustine. Indeed, Faustus has the better position. Augustine, though having the sympathy of the Church and therefore the presenters, comes off as not being particularly coherent. For instance, when Faustus points out
Augustine's best response is:
But Augustine's logical anemia aside, I'm not seeing any formal reference to your definition of docetism. However, I am seeing justification for your definition in a host or irresponsible theology.
No, you cannot. The basis of Christian belief Cris has presented comes from a Christian (e.g. Loone). If the Christian beliefs Cris has presented are inaccurate, take it up with Sir Loone. (I wouldn't bother, though ... most of us don't.)
What, then, constitutes an accurate portrayal of Christian belief? Anything that resolves an issue the way a particular Christian wants it?
For despite Loone's tendency to be incoherent, the presented theological consideration that Cris has extrapolated is quite familiar to me. This kind of theology is quite common, though often more coherent.
I intentionally omitted this parenthetic note from my prior citation of your post because I had to ask: Huh? Actually, it's not that bad, but just that I've got three ways of reading it that require different responses. I cannot, unfortunately, figure out quite what you mean with this note.
I have a feeling that this question will be a little more clear when I understand the prior parenthetic note better. However, in general, we might start with the notion that with God all things are possible. This is not entirely true, of course; God cannot, by Catholic definition, be paradoxical in this way. Consider Augustine (I think it was) and the stone too heavy to lift. The Catholic Encyclopedia, somewhere, lists the notion of the square circle, and that is what I would like to point out.
That God cannot make a square circle is because the words describe two disparate, representative states. We might agree on an intricate polygon, but the fact is that that shape has its own definitive description of its state.
Real, among other things, means things that are verifiable. Illusion, among other things, means that the perception is incorrect, and therefore the object is not verified but only implied and accepted.
The illusory nature of the real world is a philosophical resolution arising from questions of identity and self.
What is real can be verified. God cannot be verified. To say that God is real because the Real World is illusory is merely a philosophical attempt to circumvent the fact that God cannot be objectively observed. I'm sure the point we're after here is actually something else, but I'm having a hard time stringing those parts together from your post right now.
For the next little bit ... I do think you're way off-track. Hopefully, I can demonstrate:
• One of the things the dictionary definitions break is the notion that God sacrificed anything. I don't really see that. I see something in there that's close ... to give up something of value.
• While you have a point that a sacrifice can involve other things, I must reiterate a question: What degree of sacrifice are we discussing? Is Jesus merely a goat or a dove to be burned at the altar by the high priest? Is Jesus the santeria chicken? Or the sacrifice of incense and bottlecaps? It's just that, while you have a point about the diversity of sacrifices, part of the point, isn't it, is that Jesus made an Ultimate Sacrifice? If Jesus had atoned for the world by killing a goat and sending into the desert, sure, we could still say that he sacrificed for us.
• If I have a business plan that calls for spending thirty million dollars in order to make one-hundred million dollars, have I "sacrificed" that thirty million dollars?
(Don't worry about being pressed for time ... we can always get back to it later.)
(1) Exactly. For instance, Athanasius, who, in a political settlement at Nicaea under Constantine in 325 EV, managed to install the ideas that A) Jesus could not be human, otherwise he could not save us, and B) God created the Universe ex nihilo (which, while the concept existed, was essential to Athanasius' argument against Arius. On that note, I only wish Arius and Marcion could have squared off ... after factionalization, we would have had the Arians versus the Marcians.
)(2) Accepted, as such. Truly, take the time you need. That, at present, I have all day to write huge and frequent posts is a luxury I enjoy. But I well know that others don't always have that luxury. We'll get to it when it becomes absolutely essential (e.g. the debate cannot progress without its discussion), or when we get the chance.
(3) Fair enough; it is an awfully broad question. In that sense, I suppose I should mention that these can be taken rhetorically if you prefer.
(4) We know that individual Christians have some pretty funny notions from time to time, and even some tragic ones. But what happens when those become institutional? I think this has happened a good deal in history; in this case, I can hold up the whole of Protestantism as an example, and you can take that in whichever context you like
(5) Exactly. And many Christians transgress the Bible because it is unappealing to be that devoted. As with the prior consideration; what happens when those notions become institutional? Sola Scriptura Christianity does not have the excuse of being extra-biblical. Catholcism does. But when lawbreaking is institutional, such as McKinley pointed out in the gay Jesus article? Is Catholocism immune to such errors? I don't think its history would describe it as immune.
(6) In science, where we do not have a dualist proscription, sure, if the conclusion is not necessarily true then it is at least partially false. Consider, please: Either Christ suffered genuinely as a human being or he did not. This is what seems to be on the table; it seems quite dualistic. Thus, once you have proven that the statement that the crucifixion is not necessarily a fraud, you will also leave open the possibility that the crucifixion is not necessarily genuine, thus nullifying the truth of the resurection according to the principle you've proposed in its defesne. And then we're back to square one.
But to sum up a couple of larger points affecting the debate:
• Double standard: I'm having trouble putting it politely, but that's not an issue I have with you ... it's just my general disposition--Christians often complain of double-standards, and while in the most basic nature of many issues there does appear to be the double-standard, it is often because Christians oblige themselves to it. Creationists accuse a double-standard when we assume there is no God; it's not a lack of evidence in the observations, but a lack of anything to observe. Blonde Cupid and the finality of death: people have tried and failed to scientifically show life after death. While it's true that a lack of evidence does not equal evidence, what makes the Bible's afterlife any more legitimate than that of, say, Brust's "Deathgate Falls" and "Halls of Judgement" (note: the point is that those latter are fictional places). A lack of evidence toward their falsehood does not make them true. There are other double-standards of conduct we've discussed at Sciforums before, but its best to leave those aside. The larger point is that quite often, when Christians lament a double-standard, it is because they have imposed it on themselves.
• Docetism: Please, when you get a chance, provide a reference on your definition of Docetism. I've never heard it until you offered it.
• Degree of sacrifice: I don't understand why Christians, in an effort to make a point about the nature of sacrifice, wish to open up the possibility of diminishing the degree of sacrifice. After all, isn't that diminishing what is at issue here?
• Perspective: This is key. For instance, I've spent enough time, untrained, counseling psychological trauma that it drives me batty. As a reference point, I won't train for crisis counseling because what instruction I've had is so demonstrably contrary to practical experience that I usually lose my temper and just wing it on my own. This is not to puff my chest, though. It's to make a point: there are certain aspects of what we (as counselor and counseled) went through on which I am perfectly clear, and perfectly correct. But there are a number of aspects of what we went through which I cannot understand. I am not a woman who spent childhood being raped, for instance; I cannot know what that feels like. That both God and Jesus knew that everything would be okay in the end does negate the sense of a sacrifice, or at least a certain degree of sacrifice, except for the formal, priestly sort. What sacrifice? Everything is okay in the end; the world is as corrupt as it was before, Jesus is home with Dad and unblemished .... No human being gets that. For humans, it's Pascal's wager; believe in God, because if you're wrong, you'll be dead and unable to regret it. For Jesus, though, as the Bible tells it ... he knew what was going on. It was part of the plan since creation.
I think if we bear these ideas in mind, we might at least come to some middle ground on our perception of the issue. So many of the details we're discussing revolve around them; in our personal discussion in this topic, and in the general topic as well, these points do seem to come up.
thanx much,
Tiassa
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
tiassa,
***Blonde Cupid
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?
What you're trying to introduce appears to be a side consideration.***
Cris's argument was from the perspective of God the Father. His argument was that the Father did not really sacrifice his son and suffered no real loss because the son resurrected. Since Cris did not address the suffering of Jesus, me thinks it might be tiassa who is attempting to introduce a side consideration.
***So you're separating the analogies and applying the same rule to them: the a priori of resurrection.***
The analogy made by Cris was analogous to the resurrection. If you don't like it, talk to Cris about it.
***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.***
Yeah, well, things aren't always what they seem to be.
In his analogy, Cris asserted that he suffered a permanent loss based on a "belief" - the basis of which has not been established . Not only was the validity of that belief not difinitively established in general, it was also contrary to what Cris had stipulated to be true for the sake of his argument.
***Please, Blonde Cupid, provide some scientific evidence showing definitively that death is not the end of the personal human experience.***
When I make such a claim, then I'll be sure to show you the evidence. Since it was Cris comparing himself to God the Father and making the claim (based on his belief) that his loss was permanent while God's was not, the onus is on Cris to establish the facts, which he has not.
***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. ***
Operative words... "seemingly factual". Tiassa, there is no difinitive "scientific" evidence that I know of which either proves or disproves either the finality or transience of death. With the exception of what has been testified to concerning the observation of the resurrection of Christ, for now, what happens after physical death is unobservable. Physical sciences are, for the most part, resistant to the idea of transience and there is not much effort on the part of science in that regard.
Here is a snippet of mine which you took exception to:
***He argues that the truth of the resurrection would negate the sacrifice.***
Your response to me was:
***The truth of the Resurection does not negate the sacrifice. I have to admit, I'm disappointed by this one, Blonde Cupid.***
O.K....??? You and I agree that the truth of the resurrection does not negate the sacrifice. Now, why are you disappointed?
***the transience of death comes through faith in Jesus Christ.***
That's not how I see it. Transience of death would apply to everyone regardless of what they believe.
***By the way, are you still footnoting God* to that whomever/whatever standard? Your argument defeats the asterisk if so.***
What argument was that? That I found Cris's logic to be faulty?
***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.***
I disagree. What Cris attempted to do was to show a logical proof. He failed. The resurrection had to be true in order for him to claim fraud in the sacrifice. If the resurrection is true, then even death is only temporary and there is no such thing as a permanent loss or permanent sacrifice in death for anyone - and all temporal suffering and loss is genuine.
***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.***
The logic is faulty, tiassa. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same argument. If the resurrection is true for the purpose of attempting to prove that there was no sacrifice, then it must remain true throughout the argument for the argument to remain valid. If the resurrection is true, then there can be no relative permanence of loss of life.
***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.***
I'm examining Cris' logic, tiassa.
***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.***
O.K., then. Don't hold Cris to his claim of logical proof. Just give it to him.
***So, what you have in essence, is that you are attempting to make a knowledge refutation of a philosophical examination of faith.***
Why am I not surprised that you want to see it that way? Do you need more writing material?
***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.***
This has nothing to do with Cris's attempt at logical proof.
***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 problem here is with Cris's faulty logic.
There is much more of your post which I do not have the energy to respond to and which have nothing to do with my argument about the faulty logic used in the initial post.
However, there is one thing I would like to ask you:
***You tell us we should believe this on faith without demonstrable proof.***
I do?
***Blonde Cupid
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?
What you're trying to introduce appears to be a side consideration.***
Cris's argument was from the perspective of God the Father. His argument was that the Father did not really sacrifice his son and suffered no real loss because the son resurrected. Since Cris did not address the suffering of Jesus, me thinks it might be tiassa who is attempting to introduce a side consideration.
***So you're separating the analogies and applying the same rule to them: the a priori of resurrection.***
The analogy made by Cris was analogous to the resurrection. If you don't like it, talk to Cris about it.
***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.***
Yeah, well, things aren't always what they seem to be.
In his analogy, Cris asserted that he suffered a permanent loss based on a "belief" - the basis of which has not been established . Not only was the validity of that belief not difinitively established in general, it was also contrary to what Cris had stipulated to be true for the sake of his argument.
***Please, Blonde Cupid, provide some scientific evidence showing definitively that death is not the end of the personal human experience.***
When I make such a claim, then I'll be sure to show you the evidence. Since it was Cris comparing himself to God the Father and making the claim (based on his belief) that his loss was permanent while God's was not, the onus is on Cris to establish the facts, which he has not.
***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. ***
Operative words... "seemingly factual". Tiassa, there is no difinitive "scientific" evidence that I know of which either proves or disproves either the finality or transience of death. With the exception of what has been testified to concerning the observation of the resurrection of Christ, for now, what happens after physical death is unobservable. Physical sciences are, for the most part, resistant to the idea of transience and there is not much effort on the part of science in that regard.
Here is a snippet of mine which you took exception to:
***He argues that the truth of the resurrection would negate the sacrifice.***
Your response to me was:
***The truth of the Resurection does not negate the sacrifice. I have to admit, I'm disappointed by this one, Blonde Cupid.***
O.K....??? You and I agree that the truth of the resurrection does not negate the sacrifice. Now, why are you disappointed?
***the transience of death comes through faith in Jesus Christ.***
That's not how I see it. Transience of death would apply to everyone regardless of what they believe.
***By the way, are you still footnoting God* to that whomever/whatever standard? Your argument defeats the asterisk if so.***
What argument was that? That I found Cris's logic to be faulty?
***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.***
I disagree. What Cris attempted to do was to show a logical proof. He failed. The resurrection had to be true in order for him to claim fraud in the sacrifice. If the resurrection is true, then even death is only temporary and there is no such thing as a permanent loss or permanent sacrifice in death for anyone - and all temporal suffering and loss is genuine.
***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.***
The logic is faulty, tiassa. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same argument. If the resurrection is true for the purpose of attempting to prove that there was no sacrifice, then it must remain true throughout the argument for the argument to remain valid. If the resurrection is true, then there can be no relative permanence of loss of life.
***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.***
I'm examining Cris' logic, tiassa.
***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.***
O.K., then. Don't hold Cris to his claim of logical proof. Just give it to him.
***So, what you have in essence, is that you are attempting to make a knowledge refutation of a philosophical examination of faith.***
Why am I not surprised that you want to see it that way? Do you need more writing material?
***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.***
This has nothing to do with Cris's attempt at logical proof.
***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 problem here is with Cris's faulty logic.
There is much more of your post which I do not have the energy to respond to and which have nothing to do with my argument about the faulty logic used in the initial post.
However, there is one thing I would like to ask you:
***You tell us we should believe this on faith without demonstrable proof.***
I do?
Blonde Cupid
Now, insofar as the broader topic goes, the fraudulence of the crucifixion, I think Jesus' suffering fits in rather better than your claim that the permanence of death is unfounded, which point I shall address momentarily.
Do you understand how to compare ideas? I know that sounds like a low blow, but I have to ask because you're simply not seeing the juxtaposition. The sacrifice described in the Bible does not resemble what it claims to be.
At the core of Christianity is the idea that Jesus Christ suffered, died, and rose. That God gave his only son.
I see no permanent loss on God's part. So when an evangelist comes to Cris or, for that sake, myself, and tells us about the sacrifice made by God and Jesus for us ... can you imagine the sacrifice? ... well, when we read through it, we do not see it that way, and thus are not compelled to believe that it is real.
Death is observable.
The human experience is all that's observable. Scientifically, we can conclude based on what we observe that death is final. Furthermore, your wholly erroneous limitation to the resurrection of Christ overlooks a host of equally weak testaments to the afterlife.
If Jesus lived and died and was raised, it does not negate the sacrifice. But if Jesus, knowing, plotted with the security of knowledge that he would be home and perfect three days after he "died" ... yeah, it does negate the sacrifice.
So I'll give you a quick example. A Christian poster once (well ...) took exception to my assertion that the God lied in Genesis. I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't our round on that subject. But the Serpent said she wouldn't die, and she didn't. God said she would surely die, but she didn't. The Christian poster responded with something about days and years. So, apparently, that Adam and Eve eventually died means God told the truth. Thus, it would seem that, had they not eaten the fruit, they would have lived forever. Yet God kicked them out of the Garden to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and thereby living forever. So now it seems that Adam and Eve wouldn't have lived forever, which seems to indicate .... At any rate, you don't need to guess my conclusion. But that kind of hoop-dancing is what I feel like we're going through here.
Look up through this post to the bit about the asterisk after the word God.
There's an example from the current debate.
In more hostile debates, this is usually where I make my reading-comprehension crack. But I honestly don't know what it is that compels Christians to such strange perspectives while reading. I mean, I know you know the difference between a sentence, paragraph and a written body (e.g. post, book, letter, &c.) But why set that aside? Really, I just don't get it.
Oh ... and since it came up, might I then suggest that you do us all the favor and end the God issue right now by posting the objective proof you have that your faith is correct? After all, you seem to be objecting to the possibility of being included in the ranks of those who evangelize faith and not knowledge. Hell ... I never knew there was objective proof of the Christian God. I'd love to see it. However, given how this topic is running, might I also suggest that you make it its own topic?
thanx,
Tiassa
Notes:
(*) Bible: whatever that may say
Well, Blonde Cupid, if you'll notice, my "side consideration" is actually part of the topic. Within the context of Loone's position, it's part of it. (e.g.-- They are one in the same God. He came to Earth to save mankind, by His Supreme sacrifice, and atone for our sins! And be raised up from the dead.) Thus, as I noted,
However, since you wish to limit the topic to God the Father, I propose that this point is covered. I might refer you to the recent post which I misattributed to you:
And in my next post:
As MatticiousG had asked to have as a given point:
And in my reply to MatticiousG:
And it keeps getting touched on peripherally, as in another response to MatticiousG:
Another to Matt
It even comes up in the post you're responding to:
And again, to Matt
Now, I would hope that little review puts to rest the idea that God made any sacrifice. It seems that the issue has been touched on quite a bit, and very little of it put down by objections.
Now, insofar as the broader topic goes, the fraudulence of the crucifixion, I think Jesus' suffering fits in rather better than your claim that the permanence of death is unfounded, which point I shall address momentarily.
I have no problem with the analogies, Blonde Cupid; I believe I expressed displeasure at your poor consideration of them.
You're right things aren't always what they seem to be.
Do you understand how to compare ideas? I know that sounds like a low blow, but I have to ask because you're simply not seeing the juxtaposition. The sacrifice described in the Bible does not resemble what it claims to be.
He gave his Son? When I give something, it means I have no connection to it anymore. It is elsewhere. Jesus is with God. How cool, to give something, get it back, and be owed for the rest of eternity for the favor, even though the hammer I lent was to put the plywood over the window I smashed out.
At the core of Christianity is the idea that Jesus Christ suffered, died, and rose. That God gave his only son.
I see no permanent loss on God's part. So when an evangelist comes to Cris or, for that sake, myself, and tells us about the sacrifice made by God and Jesus for us ... can you imagine the sacrifice? ... well, when we read through it, we do not see it that way, and thus are not compelled to believe that it is real.
Actually, you've made such a claim. By proxy of calling Cris' statement unfounded, you are obliging yourself to demonstrate it. The finality of death is apparent, at least, and here we can flip a coin. Since nobody has built a soul-detector, we can't say that death is final or not ....? Actually, given that scientific inquiry to the afterlife has produced a negative result, and given the observable, objective fact that the dead didn't come home three days later, we can safely conclude that the objective reality in which we live dictates the permanence of death. I think of this like the Creationism debate: you're going to have to provide objective proof for what is not observable.
Death is observable.
What's that? The soul's unobserveable? Just like God?
The human experience is all that's observable. Scientifically, we can conclude based on what we observe that death is final. Furthermore, your wholly erroneous limitation to the resurrection of Christ overlooks a host of equally weak testaments to the afterlife.
I'm disappointed because you completely missed the point. And again, it's worth noting. What's really fun about it is that I get to quote a part of my earlier post that includes a part that overlaps what has already been quoted once already in the present post.
As you see, the truth of the Resurrection does not negate the sacrifice. The conditions described, however, do.
If Jesus lived and died and was raised, it does not negate the sacrifice. But if Jesus, knowing, plotted with the security of knowledge that he would be home and perfect three days after he "died" ... yeah, it does negate the sacrifice.
No, actually, I was referring to where you wrote,
My Goddess would never be so foolish as to make that demonstration publicly. So, yeah ... you're undermining your diversity footnote. We can, in the course of this debate, fairly stick with the God of the Bible*.
I refer you to a post of mine to Matt:
I think that speaks for itself.
I refer you to the above point.
That and a buck-fifty gets you a buck-fifty. I do not feel you are putting aside critical a priori assumptions while examining Cris' logic. How much more of my prior posts would you like me to quote for you, Blonde Cupid? The lucky thing for us both is that I'm so tired, I can't find that one.
So I'll give you a quick example. A Christian poster once (well ...) took exception to my assertion that the God lied in Genesis. I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't our round on that subject. But the Serpent said she wouldn't die, and she didn't. God said she would surely die, but she didn't. The Christian poster responded with something about days and years. So, apparently, that Adam and Eve eventually died means God told the truth. Thus, it would seem that, had they not eaten the fruit, they would have lived forever. Yet God kicked them out of the Garden to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and thereby living forever. So now it seems that Adam and Eve wouldn't have lived forever, which seems to indicate .... At any rate, you don't need to guess my conclusion. But that kind of hoop-dancing is what I feel like we're going through here.
Look up through this post to the bit about the asterisk after the word God.
There's an example from the current debate.
Well, working with what we can observe is a far cry from deciding that reality is what we cannot observe, wouldn't you say? You'll have to be more specific, then, about what I'm not holding Cris to ... and, frankly, if you were a little more exacting in your posts, such as in this case, I wouldn't have to cover so much ground. Don't mind me on that one, it's not any inconvenience to take the time for me. But I keep wondering if the only reason you hold your line the way you do is because you're reading through the arguments, rejecting them, and not telling us why. For instance, there has been much written in support of Cris' topic post, and while you continue to take issue with it, we're not seeing a whole lot of attention given to the rest of the topic. So I apologize, on the one hand, for burying you under so many words, but since I'm not always sure which facet of the fundamental error I'm addressing is at stake. Such as we see here.
I would venture a guess that you're not surprised I say that because you're aware it's what you're doing. Writing material?
It has everything to do with it. The arguments against Cris' proof do not reflect the Bible. They're dogmatic, for whatever that's worth. But they're not particularly Biblical. Thus, for many people who believe Jesus suffered as a human and also believe him to be divine ... well? The value of the crucifixion and what it means to them is undermined by what they believe. That they have no practical need for contiguity of faith speaks volumes of Christian faith.
Do a better job detailing the faulty logic. So far, your objections do seem to be covered in the topic, and reasonably well. Like I said, sorry to requote so much of my own writing, but on the one hand it seems you didn't read it, and on the other, if you did and still find it irrelevant ... well, that's pretty sad.
On the one hand, sure, I'll mark that as an error on my part; however, as the paragraph clearly indicates, that "you" is a collective reference to the body Christian.
In more hostile debates, this is usually where I make my reading-comprehension crack. But I honestly don't know what it is that compels Christians to such strange perspectives while reading. I mean, I know you know the difference between a sentence, paragraph and a written body (e.g. post, book, letter, &c.) But why set that aside? Really, I just don't get it.
Oh ... and since it came up, might I then suggest that you do us all the favor and end the God issue right now by posting the objective proof you have that your faith is correct? After all, you seem to be objecting to the possibility of being included in the ranks of those who evangelize faith and not knowledge. Hell ... I never knew there was objective proof of the Christian God. I'd love to see it. However, given how this topic is running, might I also suggest that you make it its own topic?
thanx,
Tiassa
Notes:
(*) Bible: whatever that may say
matticiousg
Registered Member
Tiassa,
I did not mean to say this larger heresy is docetism. Nor can I find a specific name for the heresy I was refering to. What I meant to do is lump some various heresies into a category by the fact they deal with a specific issue of Catholic Dogma. Perhaps this might help:
And to help clear up any confusion as to what the dogma that St Thomas and I are refering to says, let me reference the Catholic Catechism:
Before I continue I'd like to share something I've learned:
Hasty replies make for sloppy rebuttals.
Your right, accuracy was the wrong terminology. In fact most of the arguments I have been making are being poorly constructed. So I hope you will allow me to start over and revisit the original proofs.
starting with:
I notice that the belief that Jesus is also human is left out as an a priori. Granted from the quote he supplied this was not stated. Still I contend that if Cris wishes to demonstrate that the crucifixion is meaningless then he must include all beliefs that are relevant to the argument. I feel that the belief in Jesus's human nature is entirely relevant because it affects the conclusion drastically.
False dilema. In return I offer an alternative definition that is highly relevant as it refers to exactly the type of sacrifice the crucifixion was meant to be:
As this definition shows there is no need to demonstrate that the sacrifice is a permanent loss of something of immense value. Only that it was:
A. Offered for the atonement of sins
B. immolated(killed)
There is a fallacy of exclusion here. Namely the belief that Jesus was human has been excluded. If it were included then the following conclusions could be drawn.
1. Jesus was both Human and Devine.
2. Jesus' nature had two essenses(one being devine and the other being human)
3. Human's can die.
4. Jesus' human essence can die.
5. Jesus' human essence was killed (I'm assuming this is an unstated assumption made by everyone involved?)
6. Jesus' human essence was offered as atonement for everyone's sins.
7. Jesus by virtue of his human essence was sacrificed.
8. The purpose of the crucifixion was the sacrifice of Jesus for the atonement of our sins.
9. The purpose of the crucifixion was fullfilled.
False dilema...
leads to an invalid conclusion.
Couple of issues:
First a groundless assumption is made that in order for a religious sacrifice to have meaning the suffering must experienced by the entity making the sacrifice.
Second, another assumption is made that the entity making the sacrifice (in this case God. I might also add that Jesus too was making the sacrifice by offering himself willingly)
Third another assumption is made that the suffering experienced must be similar to the suffering a human would experience at the loss of a child.
These amount to another false dilema. They assume that the only meaningful degree of suffering comes from the loss felt as a result of death. What about the suffering that a father experiences as a result of knowing that his child is suffering. Is that not meaningful suffering? If a child was sick with a terminal disease and suffering greatly wouldn't the father experience a decrease in suffering when the child finally died?
It still hasn't been proven that God did not suffer.
Moving on to address some other points.
quoting myself:
I was addressing the idea that his exclusion of the belief in Jesus's full humanity (the docetism heresy) in his proof amounts to a fallacy of exclusion. In other words I found that his conclusions (specifically in proof 1) force me to reject that specific belief if I am to accept them, for no other reason than it makes those conclusions valid. I hope that clarified it for you.
continuing:
I was attempting to create an analogy to help illustrate and therefore add to the impact of what I was saying. I was hoping to put it into a meaningfull context by comparing it to a hypothetical argument that I might make where I expect you to reject the notion that the material world is not an illusion simply because it would prove my point.
I hope this has occured.
Yeah I wasn't acctually making an argument. If I did I would attempt to show the real world isn't illusory before anything else.
But now that you mentioned it, it does bring up a philosophical quandry I managed to get myself mixed up in. Specifically I wonder how I might prove that the real world is in fact real and not some illusion brought on (to refernce another post in a different area) by some alien race like the googols. Or to use a different model (which I like because it's fiendishly possible) how do I prove I'm not experiencing some sort of scisophrenic dillusion. Of course I realize that you might already consider me diluded because of my beliefs and therefore my jumping to this new form of dillusion doesn't require much of a stretch of the imagination on your behalf. Also the irony of my philosophical bent leaning towards sceptisism, considering my religious inclinations, doesn't escape me either. But maybe that should be the topic of another thread as it seems to get pretty far off topic.
In Augustine's defence he did live in a time waaaaay before Newton began pondering apples and planets. Still I've read some of his stuff and his arrogance is readily apparent yet rather amusing. However, I particularly enjoyed his Ontological Proof of God's existence and I would be interested in hearing your criticisms of it.
Well, that's it for now. I'm going out of town for the weekend so I probably won't be able to post for a couple days. So until then
-matt
There in lies what I was missing before.
I did not mean to say this larger heresy is docetism. Nor can I find a specific name for the heresy I was refering to. What I meant to do is lump some various heresies into a category by the fact they deal with a specific issue of Catholic Dogma. Perhaps this might help:
And to help clear up any confusion as to what the dogma that St Thomas and I are refering to says, let me reference the Catholic Catechism:
Before I continue I'd like to share something I've learned:
Hasty replies make for sloppy rebuttals.
Your right, accuracy was the wrong terminology. In fact most of the arguments I have been making are being poorly constructed. So I hope you will allow me to start over and revisit the original proofs.
starting with:
I notice that the belief that Jesus is also human is left out as an a priori. Granted from the quote he supplied this was not stated. Still I contend that if Cris wishes to demonstrate that the crucifixion is meaningless then he must include all beliefs that are relevant to the argument. I feel that the belief in Jesus's human nature is entirely relevant because it affects the conclusion drastically.
False dilema. In return I offer an alternative definition that is highly relevant as it refers to exactly the type of sacrifice the crucifixion was meant to be:
As this definition shows there is no need to demonstrate that the sacrifice is a permanent loss of something of immense value. Only that it was:
A. Offered for the atonement of sins
B. immolated(killed)
There is a fallacy of exclusion here. Namely the belief that Jesus was human has been excluded. If it were included then the following conclusions could be drawn.
1. Jesus was both Human and Devine.
2. Jesus' nature had two essenses(one being devine and the other being human)
3. Human's can die.
4. Jesus' human essence can die.
5. Jesus' human essence was killed (I'm assuming this is an unstated assumption made by everyone involved?)
6. Jesus' human essence was offered as atonement for everyone's sins.
7. Jesus by virtue of his human essence was sacrificed.
8. The purpose of the crucifixion was the sacrifice of Jesus for the atonement of our sins.
9. The purpose of the crucifixion was fullfilled.
False dilema...
leads to an invalid conclusion.
Couple of issues:
First a groundless assumption is made that in order for a religious sacrifice to have meaning the suffering must experienced by the entity making the sacrifice.
Second, another assumption is made that the entity making the sacrifice (in this case God. I might also add that Jesus too was making the sacrifice by offering himself willingly)
Third another assumption is made that the suffering experienced must be similar to the suffering a human would experience at the loss of a child.
These amount to another false dilema. They assume that the only meaningful degree of suffering comes from the loss felt as a result of death. What about the suffering that a father experiences as a result of knowing that his child is suffering. Is that not meaningful suffering? If a child was sick with a terminal disease and suffering greatly wouldn't the father experience a decrease in suffering when the child finally died?
It still hasn't been proven that God did not suffer.
Moving on to address some other points.
quoting myself:
I was addressing the idea that his exclusion of the belief in Jesus's full humanity (the docetism heresy) in his proof amounts to a fallacy of exclusion. In other words I found that his conclusions (specifically in proof 1) force me to reject that specific belief if I am to accept them, for no other reason than it makes those conclusions valid. I hope that clarified it for you.
continuing:
I was attempting to create an analogy to help illustrate and therefore add to the impact of what I was saying. I was hoping to put it into a meaningfull context by comparing it to a hypothetical argument that I might make where I expect you to reject the notion that the material world is not an illusion simply because it would prove my point.
I hope this has occured.
Yeah I wasn't acctually making an argument. If I did I would attempt to show the real world isn't illusory before anything else.
But now that you mentioned it, it does bring up a philosophical quandry I managed to get myself mixed up in. Specifically I wonder how I might prove that the real world is in fact real and not some illusion brought on (to refernce another post in a different area) by some alien race like the googols. Or to use a different model (which I like because it's fiendishly possible) how do I prove I'm not experiencing some sort of scisophrenic dillusion. Of course I realize that you might already consider me diluded because of my beliefs and therefore my jumping to this new form of dillusion doesn't require much of a stretch of the imagination on your behalf.
Also the irony of my philosophical bent leaning towards sceptisism, considering my religious inclinations, doesn't escape me either. But maybe that should be the topic of another thread as it seems to get pretty far off topic.In Augustine's defence he did live in a time waaaaay before Newton began pondering apples and planets. Still I've read some of his stuff and his arrogance is readily apparent yet rather amusing. However, I particularly enjoyed his Ontological Proof of God's existence and I would be interested in hearing your criticisms of it.
Well, that's it for now. I'm going out of town for the weekend so I probably won't be able to post for a couple days. So until then
-matt
quotequote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jesus is God (from “They are one in the same God”).
2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead
-----------------------------------
Jesus denying he is God in the Bible
John 8 54-59
"If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing.
My Father, whom you claim as your God,
is the one who glorfies me"
Luke 24 25,26
"How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Did not Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?"
Jesus telling us how foolish it is to believe everything the prophets have taught and written(the Bible)
Mark 7 6,7
"Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocritesm as it is written:
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, their teachings are but rules taught by men,"
Jesus telling us the Bible is mans perspective and not his..
If you believe God created the heavens and the earth than you have to believe he loves us all and doesn't discriminate therefore almost every word in the Bible offers teachings by men and not God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jesus is God (from “They are one in the same God”).
2. Jesus was sacrificed.
3. Jesus was raised from the dead
-----------------------------------
Jesus denying he is God in the Bible
John 8 54-59
"If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing.
My Father, whom you claim as your God,
is the one who glorfies me"
Luke 24 25,26
"How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Did not Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?"
Jesus telling us how foolish it is to believe everything the prophets have taught and written(the Bible)
Mark 7 6,7
"Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocritesm as it is written:
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, their teachings are but rules taught by men,"
Jesus telling us the Bible is mans perspective and not his..
If you believe God created the heavens and the earth than you have to believe he loves us all and doesn't discriminate therefore almost every word in the Bible offers teachings by men and not God.
I enjoy your frustration. It is normal for you. I understand. It just shows how handicap you are when it comes to logic. But that is also ok, let me explain it to you again.
Hmm.....so Jesus was in the belly of earth for three days??? Can you give me account?? Friday night? saturday night? and he was not in the grave on sunday morning correct???..... Unless you can't count. I tell you that makes only 2 nights and one day.
Now, was Jonah alive when he was in the belly of whale??? YES he was. Was Jesus alive in the belly of earth?. NO he wasn't. Why you christians try to manupilate the truth??
** Yes he did. Jonah was PART of an image of what was to come. Just because Jonah didn't die, didn't mean Jesus wasn't going to **
What language do you understand?? Jesus said no sign but this one. Just like jonah. Now you are telling me Jesus didn't have to die??. Then how is he going to be like Jonah?
It is so funny when you christans try to tell every one that it was Just an Image?? What kind of bull shit is that?
Every thing that won't meet your criteria is Image and rest is fact??...... Even if Jonah was part the so called image, then jesus failed to meet his own prophecy. Jonah was alive and jesus was dead. Please tell me these two means the same?????
Jesus was in grave for two nights and one day. Bible said when mary went to his tomb he wasn't in the grave and it was before sunrise sunday. Now please tell me that 2 nights and one day is same as three days and three nights.........Please tell they means the same?? Since you are not a teenager I expect you to do some serious math here??.......Now please don't start banging your head since you can't prove any of the above. You miss the whole prophecy. I hope english is your mother language. Other wise I can understand that you are having hard time understanding Bible.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
The Bible is one Big Contradiction
blonde_cupid,
So let’s turn this around. I’ll quote John 3:16 again, for God so loved the world that he gave his only son.
This is usually seen by Christians as an emotive statement because they can relate to it in human terms. They are drawn to the intended conclusion that the loss of one’s loved one is a terrible event. And it is this invocation of emotion that is the essence of the crucifixion.
But in human terms there is no certainty that a loved one will ever return or can be ever seen again, whether there is an afterlife or not is irrelevant in this context. Whereas for God who is allegedly omniscient there is no doubt that he will see his son again. The comparison in human terms is invalid. And John 3:16 is correspondingly deceitful as a result.
It is Christianity that is trying to make a big deal out of a death (the supreme sacrifice, to quote Loone) in order to evoke a human emotional response. And our emotions stem from being able to relate our potential pain with that of Gods pain. The bible quote tries to humanize Gods experience of a loss with the human equivalent.
But what my proofs show is that the comparison is invalid. God cannot have suffered in any way comparable to a human since he knew exactly what was going to happen. The pain that humans suffer at the loss of a loved one is significantly compounded by having little confidence that they will ever see their loved one again.
And in respect of Jesus’ suffering: If you knew with absolute certainty that you were going to be able live for eternity in paradise after a very short period of pain, then what would you choose? Seems like a no-brainer to me. But did Jesus know? He knew he was God, didn’t he; he performed miracles didn’t he? But it really doesn’t matter if he knew or not, God would have known that his son’s suffering would have been extremely temporary, and surely his son would have understood after he arrived in paradise.
So the whole, crucifixion, suffering, story, is an entirely contrived fairy tale to evoke human emotions and pretend that God can suffer in the same way. It just doesn’t fly.
Cris
I avoided introducing the term ‘death’ because based on other threads there has been little agreement on what is meant by death. And here you are trying to tie down your perspective to a particular definition of death, and argue that I am wrong because of your perspective.
So let’s turn this around. I’ll quote John 3:16 again, for God so loved the world that he gave his only son.
This is usually seen by Christians as an emotive statement because they can relate to it in human terms. They are drawn to the intended conclusion that the loss of one’s loved one is a terrible event. And it is this invocation of emotion that is the essence of the crucifixion.
But in human terms there is no certainty that a loved one will ever return or can be ever seen again, whether there is an afterlife or not is irrelevant in this context. Whereas for God who is allegedly omniscient there is no doubt that he will see his son again. The comparison in human terms is invalid. And John 3:16 is correspondingly deceitful as a result.
It is Christianity that is trying to make a big deal out of a death (the supreme sacrifice, to quote Loone) in order to evoke a human emotional response. And our emotions stem from being able to relate our potential pain with that of Gods pain. The bible quote tries to humanize Gods experience of a loss with the human equivalent.
But what my proofs show is that the comparison is invalid. God cannot have suffered in any way comparable to a human since he knew exactly what was going to happen. The pain that humans suffer at the loss of a loved one is significantly compounded by having little confidence that they will ever see their loved one again.
And in respect of Jesus’ suffering: If you knew with absolute certainty that you were going to be able live for eternity in paradise after a very short period of pain, then what would you choose? Seems like a no-brainer to me. But did Jesus know? He knew he was God, didn’t he; he performed miracles didn’t he? But it really doesn’t matter if he knew or not, God would have known that his son’s suffering would have been extremely temporary, and surely his son would have understood after he arrived in paradise.
So the whole, crucifixion, suffering, story, is an entirely contrived fairy tale to evoke human emotions and pretend that God can suffer in the same way. It just doesn’t fly.
Cris
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
I don't see what the debate is about. According to the Christians, Jesus is Alive and well. So "God" did not give his only begotten Son as a sacrifice. "God" did not loose anything. Therefore "God" did not suffer. Yet Christians feel sympathy for "God" and from this they feel that "God" loves everyone.......Even you Cris
But realize, there was no Sacrifice.
Peace
But realize, there was no Sacrifice.
Peace
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
Also, According to the Bible, Jesus was not willing to make this sacrifice.
Very true lightbeeing........... Exactly my point. Infact he was ready to fight, If you notice that in my above post. Two lines of defense and person is going to sacrifice himself?? Like Cris said it just doesn't fly. So in other words we can say that it was cruci-fiction not cruci-fixion.