One thing I never understood....

[DrFaroohk]

The whole Jesus-Died-For-Our-Sins thing....

as I understand it - Jesus is born, preaches to the masses, some people disagree with his preachings so they kill him.

I don't get where the sacrifice is. To me, a sacrifice is like "Oh look this is my prized goat, i could make a ton of gold from it but instead I'm going to burn it for god." Ok, gave up something you wanted. I don't think a lot of people wanted jesus around back then.

[Kheldarson]

It's a symbolism thing.

Let's start with what the Hebrews sacrificed and why. It was generally a young animal, unblemished, and usually from or bought from the first part of their harvest. So a perfect innocent animal of the best part of their harvest. This symbolizes their focusing on God first and foremost and thanking Him for the gifts that He's given.

The unblemished part is important too, because it symbolizes the state we would like to be in, but can't achieve ourselves. So the Hebrews sacrifice the lamb, the dove, the goat, etc. as a sign of their own failings and desire to be forgiven.

Now, in the Old Testament, we read about any number of patriarchs offering sacrifice to God. There's one that's immensely important. Abraham, the first patriarch, was called by God to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, as a sign of how much he loved God. And Abraham was going to do it until God interceded again and made a new covenant with Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was going to sacrifice his only child, his heir, to make things right with God.

So now, we've got a world full of people who are sinning and trying to make things right with God. But nothing we can do can actually make things right with God unless He says so. So, in order to end the useless sacrifices, and to try to bring His people closer to Himself, He sends His Son to the world to give the most important message of all (love) and to show the greatest love of all (dying so that others may live). Jesus, born without sin or blemish, the firstborn and only child of God, the best of men, is the ultimate Lamb, if you will. He died so to reopen the gates to Heaven.

Looking at it from Jesus' perspective as being solely of this world, yeah, it doesn't make sense. But looking at it from the perspective that he's from God and is God...then it starts to make a bit more sense.

[Mytical]

Just to add to the above, it was not only a sacrifice for God (his only son), but Jesus as well. Being the son of god, he would have been able to call on the angels to come rescue him. So he sacrificed himself, and endured the pain, to try to save humanity. The only question is..are we really worth saving? That is a discussion for another thread I think.

[DrFaroohk]

I kinda see it and I kinda don't :( For some reason I liken it to a little kid smacking themselves in the head when they don't get their way. "LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!"

[Kheldarson]

On whose side? God's or man's? Because, frankly, God is trying to heal the breach between us and Him. That was the point of Jesus's sacrifice. He's the bridge. We made the breach (original sin and all that followed), but couldn't mend it. God can and He did. But man hates being reminded of his mistakes and failings so...yeah.

[bara]

Devils' advocate here:

Seems to be an awful lot of fuss because an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing diety didnt get a baby sitter and planted a tree where the kid could reach it.

Just saying.

[Kheldarson]

Maybe. But that discussion is slightly different than the one brought up.

[Mytical]

I firmly believe that any religion is between a person and whatever deity they believe in. We do not have to understand it, we do not have to believe in it. If it does not affect our lives (ie they are not trying to force us to believe or die, or taking people and killing them) leave them be. :angel:

Back on topic, it is not somebody doing something and then looking at somebody else and telling them 'you made me do this'. A group of people who did not believe Christ, did not like him telling others that their leaders were not chosen by gods, put him on the cross. He just (supposedly) chose not to call down the angels to rescue him. In order to help bridge the gap between human and his father. God did not force them to do anything, even if he knew they would, they had a choice. They chose to kill Jesus. Jesus didn't chose for them to kill him, God didn't, they chose.

Could God have stopped it? Then what of free choice? If he interferes, there would have been no free choice. He might know the future, but he has given mankind the freedom to choose. Can't have both..either he decides what happens, or knows what is going to happen, and lets it because of free choice.

[Andara Bledin]

Could God have stopped it? Then what of free choice? If he interferes, there would have been no free choice. He might know the future, but he has given mankind the freedom to choose. Can't have both..either he decides what happens, or knows what is going to happen, and lets it because of free choice.
Everything is supposed to be about free will.

Originally, we were supposed to go it and not have problems. But, we couldn't hack it, so plan 2.0 went into effect with us having an "out" for being unable to be as good as we were supposed to be.

As for why an omniscient guy didn't just flip to the last 5 pages of the mystery to see how it ended, how do we know that we aren't just the result of an all-powerful entity doing just that and while he's taking that "minute" to check the ending, we're all living through the space in between.

^-.-^

[Mishi]

We used our free will, He provided a way out of the mess we'd gotten ourselves into but still left us with the choice to believe or not. *Shrugs* That's why I don't preach at people, I believe that it infringes on their free will and that if someone is curious about my beliefs, they'll ask.


My personal explanation for the 'why' is that God was bored, so created the universe. I think that He just wanted the company, and that He was curious to see what we'd do with free will and whether it was possible that we'd surprise him. After all, forever is a long time to only have yourself, some servants and some very cranky ex-employees for company.

[Andara Bledin]

After all, forever is a long time to only have yourself, some servants and some very cranky ex-employees for company.
Well, technically, the cranky ex-servants came after creating man, but still...

^-.-^

[Mishi]

Well, technically, the cranky ex-servants came after creating man, but still...

I was fairly sure that happened before humans, why else would the serpent tempt Adam and Eve to ignore the rules?

[Hyena Dandy]

I was fairly sure that happened before humans, why else would the serpent tempt Adam and Eve to ignore the rules?

I believe that, in Jewish tradition, Satan's role is sort of as a high prosecutor. He doesn't tempt because he's evil and wants you to fail, he does it to try to see if you WILL fail, but like God he WANTS you to succeed.

[Gravekeeper]

I was fairly sure that happened before humans, why else would the serpent tempt Adam and Eve to ignore the rules?

Technically speaking, the serpent is never actually identified as Satan and may even be metaphorical in nature. The association with Satan came later in history. Much like many things with Christianity, a lot of the meanings and symbolisms are actually late comers. The appearence of Satan for example was completely made up later on. Same with angels.

Angels are actually scary as fark all if you go by their real physical description. -.-

[Kheldarson]

Isaiah can get creepy as hell when he has visions of God and his angels. But I guess that's the point...

[Duelist925]

Technically speaking, the serpent is never actually identified as Satan and may even be metaphorical in nature. The association with Satan came later in history. Much like many things with Christianity, a lot of the meanings and symbolisms are actually late comers. The appearence of Satan for example was completely made up later on. Same with angels.

Angels are actually scary as fark all if you go by their real physical description. -.-

There is a Reason the first thing most angels say to a human is "Fear not!" or some variation there of.

[Ghel]

I agree with Faroohk. There's a number of problems with the concept of Jesus' "sacrifice." I'm going to concentrate on two of them.

The idea of a substitutiary sacrifice is inherently immoral. Killing another person or animal in no way atones for my misdeeds. Making a sacrifice to appease God because burning flesh smells sweet to him doesn't make amends for the things that I supposedly did to offend God. Nor does a sacrifice "take away" the sin, as many Christians claim - it merely removes the punishment.

Additionally, Jesus' masochistic weekend in Hell is not, in any way, a sacrifice. According to the story, he came back to life and now rules the universe as a god. That's not a sacrifice. At least when Elvis died for our sins, he stayed dead.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, yeah, 'cause allowing yourself to be crucified and then die an agonizing death from exposure is just such a cakewalk. :rolleyes:

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

But why did it have to be that way? It all seems like it was God's idea.

It would make more sense if there was Supreme God, God, and then Jesus. Then Supreme God would be like "Your humans suck dude. I'm gonna kill them." Then God says "Wait wait no, let me send Jesus down there to talk to them."

Then Jesus fails, and then Supreme God is like "Ok, time to kill the humans." And then God says "Wait wait wait....I'll let you have Jesus if you let me keep Earth going for a while longer."

Supreme God says "Sure that's fine with me."

That would make sense to me at least.

But when God doesn't have anyone to answer to anyway...so he sends Jesus down, because he decided to, then he decided to kill Jesus to satisfy some rule he made up anyway....

I'm really trying not to dump on the Christians here, its just...this smacks of like an abusive relationship.

[Ghel]

...this smacks of like an abusive relationship.
Yes, yes it does. I've heard this comparison before, and I quite agree.

[Mytical]

Here is the thing. Though God 'knows' the ending, I believe he knows 'both endings' ie what will happen depending on the free choices made by humans. There is no twist in the story he does not anticipate. He may hope for the 'optimal' outcome, even if he knows the optimal and not optimal outcome. So he was hoping mankind would use their 'free will' the right way, and pick the right path. He sent his son down to tell people the right way. Not to die, even though he knew it was the most likely outcome.

He had hope. When the outcome that he feared come to pass, he had two choices. Throw away his own rule book, declare free will over, and save his son. Or. Let them kill his son, and keep free will. He sacrificed his son to keep his rules, not to break them.

Just because you are 'all knowing' and can see the future, doesn't mean that there are not many possible futures. He just knows ALL the outcomes. Its like those 'choose your own adventure books' from years and years ago. He's just read every possible ending..and is hoping that humans make it there.

Of course those who do not believe will typically think the worse about it. With a few exceptions. Oh he sent his son to die, etc etc.. when that may not even be close to the case. Only god knows.

Ask him (or her) when you see them :p

[Kheldarson]

First of all, Jesus = God but does not equal the Father. This is the Mystery of the Trinity. And yes, it's one of those Mysteries that we have to take on faith for a large part. But let's leave that for another discussion. So, if Jesus is God, then God himself is saying that he is going to breach the chasm that we humans have created between Himself and us in a very prominent and symbolic way. Because that's all a sacrifice of the lambs, goats, etc. was. A symbol. We were showing that we were sorry for our sins and the lamb represented the best portion of ourselves and our gifts that we were willing to give to the Lord to use. So God took that symbol and performed it to the most perfect degree, rendering all other symbols unnecessary.

So, not an abusive relationship, maybe a little masochistic, but as Christ put it, "No greater love hath he than one who lays down his life for another."

[HYHYBT]

The idea of a substitutiary sacrifice is inherently immoral.How about volunteering to pay a debt for someone who cannot?

[Ghel]

... the lamb represented the best portion of ourselves ...
This is funny, but I have to explain why. There are many types of sacrifice, and many cultures consider self-sacrifice (that is, sacrificing a part of oneself) to be the greatest sacrifice. From what I understand, this is the original reasoning given for circumcision, and circumcision, I imagine, would probably be considered by some to be sacrificing the best portion of oneself.

How about volunteering to pay a debt for someone who cannot?
Paying a debt is not a valid analogy.

The proper analogy is taking some else's place at the gallows. If my brother does something for which the sentence is death (let's assume, for the moment, that this sentence is just), is it moral for me to take his place? Is it justice for me to die and my brother to go free, even if I take his place of my own free will?

Now, let's look at the reason people are sent to Hell (which is what Jesus' sacrifice supposedly saves us from). Most Christians say that the reason people are sent to Hell is because Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating a piece of fruit. So we are being punished for something we didn't even do. Then, instead of sending us to Hell for this supposed crime, God has Jesus killed instead. But Jesus didn't even have to finish the punishment that was intended for us. He just had to spend two days in Hell in place of billions of eternities in Hell (for all those non-believers who have died throughout all of human history). And we only get to benefit from Jesus' "sacrifice" if we believe the story.

[Gravekeeper]

Sigh, can we please not turn this into another "Rawr, Christianity is stupid!" discussion, Ghel? I was hoping we could avoid having that thread yet again. This forum has been so slow lately, can we not discuss something here without turning it into a challenge to see who can piss higher at the sky? Its tiresome, pointless and no one involved is going to change their opinion on anything, so why bother?

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh, great, its this thread again.

Let's not and say we did. :)

[Boozy]

If you don't want to engage in a particular line of debate, don't. We don't force anyone to participate in a discussion they find frustrating.

Making public announcements about why you will not be participating are unnecessary.

With that said, this thread appears to be more about difficult or seemingly contradictory Christian doctrines, and not whether or not those doctrines are true. So let's try to keep it on track.

[Ghel]

Ok, I removed my conclusion from my last post. If anybody has objections to the rest of what I said, I'd be willing to discuss it.

[SkullKing]

I always thought that Jesus' sacrifice was a show of faith in humanity.

we have a saying "to put your hand in the fire for someone". It means to sacrifice something of your so that someone will give someone else a chance.

It wasn´t about being sacrificed to clean our sins. It was something more along the lines of.

"Father, I am being crucified, and yet ask you not to interfere. I do this to show you how much I believe humanity has the potential to learn, and how important it is that they are given this chance. I undergo this trial of pain to show you my resolve, to show how much I believe in what I believe."

that was my understanding.

The whole "sacrifice to clean our sins" makes it sound(to me) like sin is a currency. Adan and Eve had a debt of sin to pay off and so their descendants are still paying. You can make payments by suffering yourself(fasting and stuff) or by making others suffer, and this others have values ranging from small(lambs) to huge(Jesus, the ultimate lamb). And hell is some sort of debtor's prison.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't think Hell had much to directly do with Adam & Eve? The burden they took on was essentially the suffering of living. Disease, pain, aging, childbirth, etc. Original Sin, Hell, all that stuff came in, in the New Testament didn't it? There's no concept of Original Sin before that or outside of Christianity. Its not present in Judaism or Islam.

Hell is basically the punishment for sin in general, and God doesn't interfere because, basically "I gave you free will, you choose to be a dick, thems the consequences". To interfere would be to deny you free will, or so the argument goes.

[Andara Bledin]

The idea of Original Sin is that Man was in a state of constant salvation prior to disobeying God, and now Man lives in a state of mortality. Adam's sin (written from that patriarchal standpoint, as always) brought death into the world, and now Man works against what is believed to be a tendency towards being weak to temptation. Kind of like a hereditary defect that is always passed down to the children.

And Free Will actually factors a lot into whether or not a person can get themselves saved. They must honestly repent of their sins. They must honestly accept that God gave Man Christ's life and that Christ gave up that life so that Man could have salvation. And they must act to not sin again.

The whole Original Sin just posits that Man will sin because it's in Man's nature to do so and Christ's sacrifice was to provide a means of salvation for those who work for it.

Personally, I don't believe that is the only path to salvation. Just the path for those who profess to be Christian. However, the whole "be sorry for screwing up and do your best to not screw up again" part is just good sense all around.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

One idea I like is that, regardless of technical necessity, Jesus's death serves as a demonstration of love, and would at least be seen to the initial audience and many to fulfill the principles of their animal sacrifices. And I believe the most important *event* of the incarnation is resurrection, which of course cannot happen without death first.

[Kheldarson]

^ This. Without Christ's Resurrection, Christianity would be nonexistent.

[Gravekeeper]

^ This. Without Christ's Resurrection, Christianity would be nonexistent.

More precisely, without the deification of Christ, Christianity would not be where it is today. Up until that moment he was mortal and from a historical perspective, being mortal made it difficult to compete in the religion market. He needed to be made more awesome if he was going to compete with crazy stuff like the original Greek and Roman Gods. He needed some PR and from a historical perspective, many creative liberties were taken to get it.

[Kheldarson]

That is assuming that Bible is not accurate in that respect. But I know we disagree on that one so, from a purely historical argument, you are correct on that. Can't have a new religion without an awesome leader, right?

[Gravekeeper]

That is assuming that Bible is not accurate in that respect. But I know we disagree on that one so, from a purely historical argument, you are correct on that. Can't have a new religion without an awesome leader, right?

Yes, attempting to combine Bible and "accurate" would be a dangerous path. >.>

From a historical perpective, Christianity is a great plagarist and lends a lot of its success to said plagarism. Need to muscle out the local religion? Villify its qualities in your own religion or absorb it by adjusting it bit so you can go "Look! We have the same thing!". Morality of the tactic aside, it was a fantastic strategy back when everyone was killing each other over religion and not just some of us. Religion was very much about power back then and you needed to have the most awesome god on the block to back you up. So Jesus was most certainly beefed up in divine power, especially by ye old Roman Catholics. Christianity's wide spread nature is due to effective strategy more than anything else.

Jesus, as a historical figure, was basically an apocolyptic prophet whose life has been bookended with some divine awesomesauce to create the theological Jesus. Many of his ethical teachings were Buddhist like for example ( Which is, historically speaking, completely possible as Buddhist monks were around at the same time and place as Jesus ). Jesus's birth story co-ops Buddha's as well. Which all things considered, probably co-ops another previous divine birth story. Much like many of the morality tales in the Bible are imported from previous stories and fables. In fact there was actually a religion that combined Buddhism and Christianity around at the time, but it was of course, snuffed out. >.>

It should be noted that Jesus is a figure in all three Abrahamic religions and they differ on who he was so its important to look at what the three do agree on: All 3 agree he was a prophet and a teacher, but Judaism does not agree he was the messiah, and most curiously of the three: Islam rejects the crucifixion story and that he was cruficied at all historically or theologically.

From a purely scholarly perspective, modern Christianity is fascinating how its evolved and from where. Albeit admittedly frustrating at how many people take the end result without looking at the origins.

[Mytical]

Recently watched a history channel program that brought up some interesting questions...but since I am unsure of how much faith to put into claims by some people..will for now leave it.

Most of the sacrificing of animals/etc went to other gods, it would really make sense for 'God' to put a stop to it. Also, think of it this way..which would farmers rather follow..somebody who made them give up their best creatures...or somebody who said ..Hey keep them, eat them..I've taken care of it."

[Skunkle]

I've also heard/read claims that hell, too, has been mis-represented - that it is a place between earth and heaven, where you atone for your sins before ascending. Don't know if this is true. I do find it interesting that Andrew Schlafly's project of a new translation of the Bible claims, among the things they think need clarifying, that it must contain satan and hell as we think of them today: a corrupt being working ceaselessly with an army of assistants to tempt us away from salvation by any means necessary, and a literal lake of fire and torment-without-end into which satan and all unrepentant sinners will be cast and locked at Judgment. I would guess that this also involves modern-day thoughts on the "antichrist". I admit I haven't yet read the Bible in any depth, but I've been told that neither of these concepts is presented as such there: that satan, while a fallen angel, is not (directly) given as a tireless anti-salvation worker, and that there is something about satan and his demons being cast into a lake of fire but no representation of a hell-for-the-sinner as thought today. Can anyone clarify? Hyena? I've also been told that there is not - and I've been told that there IS - a Biblical description of the "antichrist" as a single person who will unite all nations against God or somesuch. Again, people who claim to have read the Bible in depth have given me opposing views on whether this is in there as such.

I' also like to state here that I agree wholeheartedly with two other comments. Mishi's remark about not preaching. I'll add to this by stating that, as far as I understand it, the command is to preach the gospel to those who have not heard the good news. Most people in the Western world HAVE heard. So I'm under no obligation to say it again and, in fact, doing so (considering others, many[I] others, are surely repeating it too) eventually comes across as being pushy and egotistical and actually only drives people [I]away from Faith. Christians haven't gained a reputation for being pushy for nothing. On that note, I also believe that the only sins I have to worry about are mine. I have neither right nor justification to do what I see many others doing: calling people on their sins, and covering it with, "But...but I'm only doing you a favor!" In a way, yes in intention, but I think you're both overstepping bounds and coming across as holier-than-thou. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't usually come across as love. It comes across as bare tolerance, if that. "You're a filthy sinner and, as a Christian I shouldn't even associate with you, but I'll step in long enough to tell you what to quit doing and maybe, if you follow my directions, you can be where I am." I don't preach, but neither do I hide my faith, and if someone wants to know, they'll ask - at which point I'll happily talk to them.

Which brings me to Mytical's comments. I stand by 'em. Faith, for me, indeed does come down to believing in something for which I have no concrete scientific evidence. That's what makes it faith. I don't have to explain myself to others to be allowed to believe. As long as I keep it to myself, since it IS very personal to me, I shouldn't have to argue my point to anti-theists before they'll let me stop having to hear their claims that I'm a deluded, egotistical idiot. Honestly, I meet just as many haughty, condescending Christians as I do anti-theists. And both drive me nuts.

I can see, honestly, why anti-theists get so nasty. And I can see why one regular here whose name I forget (lives in Utah) is anti-theist in a way, though he's politely anti-theist - you really have to meet some of the good ones to relax about it, whether or not you choose to believe, and many people never do run into the nice ones, which saddens me. Even if people choose not to believe, I at least hope that everyone eventually meets some kind, loving Christians and realizes that the stereotype doesn't belong to all of us.

[jackfaire]

The Sacrifice was neither ours nor God's

We didn't sacrifice anything because as was pointed out most people were like screw that guy.

God didn't sacrifice anything because unless he condemned Jesus to Hell then Jesus returned to Heaven upon his death.

Jesus however sacrificed his life before his time.

I have thought of it in two ways. Personally I prefer to think of it in the way that doesn't mean he is in hell. His sacrifice was to teach us how to get to god. He wasn't saving our souls by dying for our sins, since that would seem to indicate he is in hell in our places so that any of us that agree can have him take on our sin.

But rather by teaching us what kind of people to be to get to Heaven that was the point.

We aren't supposed to be just running around saying, "Whoops I did bad shit sorry Jesus" we are supposed to be acting and being good people.

That's the way I see it anyway.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, I'm not an expert on Satan, entirely. But I can provide an answer for the Antichrist.

The word antichrist only appears in the Bible a couple times, and usually its pluralized. Its used as a synonym for false-prophet... People who come and SAY they're Jesus, but aren't really. You'll see it singular in newer American Bibles, especially Schofield.

What is usually referred to if someone talks about 'THE' antichrist is the Beast of Revelations. Revelations is one pretty fucking trippy book, but you'll get people who claim that they give it a 'common sense, literal interpretation' which is an absolutely ridiculous prospect.

[Kheldarson]

Revelations should never be taken at face value. Frankly, best interpretation is that John (the guy writing it) was trying to give the various churches instruction while keeping it from the Romans, who were currently persecuting the church. So a completely non-literal interpretation using historical context is necessary.

[Gravekeeper]

Frankly, best interpretation is that John-

The best interpretation is that John was tripping bawls to be perfectly honest. <cough>. Revelations is pretty crazy and really it was basically included to give an awesome ending to the Bible. Its inclusion was controversial even at the time, but it was such a good grand finale I guess they couldn't resist. -.-

Back to Jesus, though. Looking at it from a historical perspective, there's technically no sacrifice involved at all. He was basically executed for being a shit disturber. So I'm guessing its another creative liberty around his life and death. Of which there are an annoying amount to be honest. I think his original, unaltered teachings would have been a fascinating read.

But there's been so much interference over the centuries in the interest of power and politics.

[Skunkle]

I have a suspicion, though without evidence, that Jesus' unadulterated teachings would be far too friendly, kind and, well, peaceful than many people would like. The biggest messages I get are, "God wants us to be good people, both because it makes Him happy about His creation and because it makes life better for us. Love your neighbor and treat him with respect, and get the same in return. Be good because it's the right and just thing to do."

[Gravekeeper]

I have a suspicion, though without evidence, that Jesus' unadulterated teachings would be far too friendly, kind and, well, peaceful than many people would like.

Probably, especially if it was Buddhistish. The Gospel of Thomas for example was full of not particularly church friendly teachings was it not? Things like you didn't need a church to worship and you should experience everything for yourself instead of having anyone tell you what to believe, etc?

Hence it got buried >.>

[Andara Bledin]

Probably, especially if it was Buddhistish. The Gospel of Thomas for example was full of not particularly church friendly teachings was it not? Things like you didn't need a church to worship and you should experience everything for yourself instead of having anyone tell you what to believe, etc?

Hence it got buried >.>
No joke, there.

I've never had any trust for anyone who tries to position themselves between me and God. I don't need an interpreter, thanks. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the Bible it says to not have an interpreter.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

If you are good with whatever deity you worship, it really doesn't matter what 'man' says now does it? I don't care if you worship a flying invisible cat..if you are happy, and believe you are doing what you should..as long as it is not hurting people..then heck with anybody else.

[jackfaire]

I don't care if you worship a flying invisible cat..

Who told you about the great god Mittens!!!:p

[HYHYBT]

That's *Mister* Mittens. :)