How did Jesus dying save us from our sins?

[Throg]

I ask this question as an atheist who finds this question utterly perplexing. I cannot attach a meaningful concept to the statement "Jesus died to save us from our sins". Hopefully, the various Christians, theologists and just good ol' thinkers without an -ian or an -ist can help me with this.

[El Greco]

Look, it's really simple. Pay attention:

Buhmarun arman te Jesus gormonits, alloveou ton akra te Vogin. Gin alla sokuren ? Matran Jesus fuliups asbert!

Hope this helps.

[Throg]

Originally posted by El Greco
Look, it's really simple. Pay attention:

Buhmarun arman te Jesus gormonits, alloveou ton akra te Vogin. Gin alla sokuren ? Matran Jesus fuliups asbert!

Hope this helps.

Made me smile. Not sure it was all that helpful as it just raises the further question asber quiblix mumfle blorg?

Anyway, I really hope there will be some serious attempts to address my question as I really would like to understand the concept if at all possible.

[Bikewer]

I'm sure Christian apologists have written many reams trying to rationalize this essential point of theology.

Lessee... God, cheesed over Adam, gets the nasties for humanity. Many years later (how many depends on how fundie you are), God, a perfectly just and wise being, changes his mind. "Oh, I just can't stay mad at these cute little guys any more."
So he incarnates some bits of himself as a human, gets born in an obscure backwater of the Roman Empire, and gets offed .

Nobody on Earth hears much of this amazing event for about a thousand years.

I dunno.....

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Throg
I ask this question as an atheist who finds this question utterly perplexing. I cannot attach a meaningful concept to the statement "Jesus died to save us from our sins". Hopefully, the various Christians, theologists and just good ol' thinkers without an -ian or an -ist can help me with this. I believe it goes back to the Old Testament concept of an eye for an eye. Humanity, through Adam and Eve, grievously(?) sinned against God by disobeying the "Do Not Press The Shiney Red Button That Flashes" rule. Humanity repayed that horrible, awful debt by Jesus giving 46 million pounds of flesh owed to God.

This much, I kinda understand, in it's own warped, perverted sort of way. What I don't get is (1) how can Jesus pay humanity's debt if He is devine and, thus, not really human, (2) if the sin was automatically carried forth through humanity's successors from Adam and Eve, why is the payment of that debt not also carried forth through humanity's successors and (3) why were other previous "taking a pound of flesh for being naughty" acts not counted as payment in full (i.e. Noah's Flood)?

[Z]

Don't forget the big cheat: He died to save us all, but came back to life three days later.

Does that really count?

Edit: Now that I think about it, though, the story of Jesus descending into Hell, throwing down the gates, freeing all the Damned, kicking out Satan, and setting his own throne up there with the promise that no one would ever go to Hell again is the only way I can reconcile the idea that Jesus saved us all. But most Christians seem to reject this story - since a) it means Jesus is King of Hell, b) NO ONE is damned to hell for their sins, disbelief, etc, and c) EVERYONE on earth is in the same boat, salvation-wise, whether True Believer, Godless Atheist, or Rock-Worshipping Shinto. Even Satanists are Saved.

Not a comforting thought to most Christians.

[Hawk one]

Like other atheists in this thread, I'll allow the existance of God and Jesus for the sake of this argument:

You are no the only one who finds the whole concept rather absurd (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/absurdityofsin.html), Throg. Frankly, the story the way it's told cannot ever make any sense in my eyes.

But maybe there is another explanation of some sort, based on Upchurch's post and that link, that might make a tiny bit more sense: Turning it on on the head, so to speak.

Basically, since God was undeniably directly responsible for sin to happen, he should most definitely be made to pay his debt for it. So instead of Jesus dying for our sins, he - as a divine being - instead died to pay back for his own sins and misdeeds against us humanity. Of course, many would say that God should deserve a much bigger punishment for his transgressions. But at least God would somehow actually have bothered to face the consequences of his actions, and taken the punishment, if only rather temporarily.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I believe it goes back to the Old Testament concept of an eye for an eye. Humanity, through Adam and Eve, grievously(?) sinned against God by disobeying the "Do Not Press The Shiney Red Button That Flashes" rule. Humanity repayed that horrible, awful debt by Jesus giving 46 million pounds of flesh owed to God.

This much, I kinda understand, in it's own warped, perverted sort of way. What I don't get is (1) how can Jesus pay humanity's debt if He is devine and, thus, not really human, (2) if the sin was automatically carried forth through humanity's successors from Adam and Eve, why is the payment of that debt not also carried forth through humanity's successors and (3) why were other previous "taking a pound of flesh for being naughty" acts not counted as payment in full (i.e. Noah's Flood)?

I would have though that loss of immortality, having to till the soil, pain of childbirth and menstruation, getting kicked out of the garden of eden far exceeded the equivalence test of an "eye for an eye" given that the original sin was disobediance and, possibly, the theft of an apple. If a more literal equivalence were necessary then surely a lifetime of obediance to God and an offering of apples would suffice so I don't think it's about justice. Nor do I think it's about the offering of a life since, as you pointed out, many many lives have been offered and taken. I think it must be something special about the offering of Jesus life in particular.

[Throg]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Don't forget the big cheat: He died to save us all, but came back to life three days later.

Does that really count?



Given that he then went up to heaven, I think we can let the very brief period of remission slide.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Hawk one
Like other atheists in this thread, I'll allow the existance of God and Jesus for the sake of this argument:

You are no the only one who finds the whole concept rather absurd (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/absurdityofsin.html), Throg. Frankly, the story the way it's told cannot ever make any sense in my eyes.

But maybe there is another explanation of some sort, based on Upchurch's post and that link, that might make a tiny bit more sense: Turning it on on the head, so to speak.

Basically, since God was undeniably directly responsible for sin to happen, he should most definitely be made to pay his debt for it. So instead of Jesus dying for our sins, he - as a divine being - instead died to pay back for his own sins and misdeeds against us humanity. Of course, many would say that God should deserve a much bigger punishment for his transgressions. But at least God would somehow actually have bothered to face the consequences of his actions, and taken the punishment, if only rather temporarily.

It's a nice try but it smacks more than a little of misdirection, which would make the whole thing a conjuring trick and stop us from discussing it here so I'm going to have to reject that one.

Thanks for the link and thanks to everybody who has tried to help so far. Hope you will keep trying.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Edit: Now that I think about it, though, the story of Jesus descending into Hell, throwing down the gates, freeing all the Damned, kicking out Satan, and setting his own throne up there with the promise that no one would ever go to Hell again is the only way I can reconcile the idea that Jesus saved us all. But most Christians seem to reject this story - since a) it means Jesus is King of Hell, b) NO ONE is damned to hell for their sins, disbelief, etc, and c) EVERYONE on earth is in the same boat, salvation-wise, whether True Believer, Godless Atheist, or Rock-Worshipping Shinto. Even Satanists are Saved.

What would 1inchrist (or others) think about this? I believe I recall that Jesus only saved "the good souls" that were trapped in hell. Which seems strange, this people has been suffering for several thousands of years, and now they are allowed to go to heaven?

Returning to the original question. I believe Jesus have saved all the believers in him, because he sacrificed himself and died for all humans (yet he is still alive?, if he is god and he knows that he cant die anyway, why was that such a big deal?)

[Throg]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
[B
Returning to the original question. I believe Jesus have saved all the believers in him, because he sacrificed himself and died for all humans (yet he is still alive?, if he is god and he knows that he cant die anyway, why was that such a big deal?) [/B]

Yes, but what is it about Jesus sacrificing himself that is both necessary and sufficient to save us from our sins? Is there some metaphysical power in that act of which I am ignorant? Could God, or Jesus who is, himself, God not simply have forgiven our sins? Is that what he was actually doing and his actual life and death were actually some sort of epiphenomenon? Couldn't we have died for our own sins (or the sins of our forebears in the case of original sin). I don't think I even begin to understand the significance of the actual act of dying (as opposed merely to the decision to forgive us).


If any Christians, especially those of a theological bent are looking at this thread and are reticent about posting, please consider this. I am an atheist and a sceptic so even if you answer this question for me I am not suddenly going to convert. For that, I would require evidence that God exists. However, if I cannot understand this conundrum, which seems to me to be at the heart of why Christ should be worshipped, there is no possibility that I will be saved. If you can help me, isn't it your duty to do so? Even if I am being horribly manipulative in pointing this out, I am at least being honest about it and, hey, it's still your duty to do so as a good follower of Christ.

[Z]

You know, it seems that the bit about Jesus' descent into Hell has been interpreted numerous ways. In one example, I see it claims he freed the souls of the saints; in another, of the righteous; in a third, the souls of David's line, while yet a fourth describes freeing the 'Children of God'. In most accounts, he sets his throne in Hell; in nearly every account the gates are torn off. Some accounts simply state that he freed all the souls in hell, others that he freed very few souls.

Does anyone know what the earliest versions of this story actually claim?

[sophia8]

Could the belief that Jesus died doe Humanity's sins be derived from the ancient ME custom of scapegoating?
I believe that was an annual ritual when the collective "sins" of the tribe were ritually transferred onto a goat which was then either killed, or driven out of the city.
Thus, Jesus was the scapegoat to end all scapegoats.

Of course, I could have got it all wrong and be talking out of my bottom....

[Mason]

The way I understood it (and I could be mistaken), it goes back to much older rituals...

When a community needed the blessing of their deity (or deities), they performed sacrifices. Likewise, when the community needed forgiveness, sacrifices were also performed. As times changed, various things were acceptible for sacrifice (such as fruits from harvest, or human blood/death, or an animal, or simply some penitant deed). Individuals/families could do small sacrifices on occasion, but some occasions would arise where an entire community needed some greater sacrifice to please their deities...

The concept of the scapegoat eventually came into play, where an entire community would gather for one great ritual and an animal (apparently the goat was popular, though humans were not unheard of) would be brought forth and sacrificed on behalf of the entire tribe. Basically, every individual present would be a part of the ceremony, and more or less be credited fully for their own sacrifice. Their sins were washed clean by the sacrifice, with the goat taking the actual punishment.

With Jesus, he stepped forward and voluntarily accepted the position of the goat (lamb of god and all that), becoming the sacrifice for all who would accept him as the goat. The one sacrifice was extended from community level to encompass all who had come before him and all who would come after him, so long as they accepted him as the goat and gave their misdeeds to him.

At least, that's more or less the way I have heard it. In the context of ancient tribes run by witchdoctors, it makes perfect sense (helps save on the cost of goats, begins the move from bloody barbarians into semi-civilized sun worshippers....). But modern society should know better.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Throg
Yes, but what is it about Jesus sacrificing himself that is both necessary and sufficient to save us from our sins? Is there some metaphysical power in that act of which I am ignorant? Could God, or Jesus who is, himself, God not simply have forgiven our sins?

No, because according to the tale, god is "infinitely just" and he demands punishment for every sin. I guess then that a violent sacrifice is the best possible punishment humans can offer to god. Scary.

[Throg]

Originally posted by sophia8
Could the belief that Jesus died doe Humanity's sins be derived from the ancient ME custom of scapegoating?
I believe that was an annual ritual when the collective "sins" of the tribe were ritually transferred onto a goat which was then either killed, or driven out of the city.
Thus, Jesus was the scapegoat to end all scapegoats.

Of course, I could have got it all wrong and be talking out of my bottom....

That's a nice historical origin for the idea of Jesus dying for our sins and I had not previously connected the practice of scapegoating with the crucifixion story. Thanks for that. I'm not sure I understand the metaphysics of transferring your sins on to a goat much better than those of the crucifixion. Maybe I'm a bit fuzzy on what sins are as things in themselves and how they can be transferred. With Jesus, of course we have the added problem that He (being God) chose to do it to himself rather than to a goat (and he had been well known for accepting animal sacrifices, famously preferring them to the vegetarian alternative). Surely he had a reason?

[Throg]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
No, because according to the tale, god is "infinitely just" and he demands punishment for every sin. I guess then that a violent sacrifice is the best possible punishment humans can offer to god. Scary.

Doesn't really look like justice to me. Adam and Eve are disobedient and steal an apple so the just punishment for that (in addition to death, forced labour, painful childbirth and exile) is to wait a few thousand years, have God manifest himself as a human baby, grow up for thirty years, preach for three years then get crucified? What sort of a sentencing policy is that? I know He works in mysterious ways and probably has a different understanding of justice in His infinite mercy but still ...

I think I'm going to hold out for a more convincing explanation. I know that you did your best with difficult material, so thanks. In the absence of Christian input, I think the most promising line has been the scapegoat one. Sure, I have to get my head around magic and the concept of sin as some sort of currency but there's something there.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
No, because according to the tale, god is "infinitely just" and he demands punishment for every sin. I guess then that a violent sacrifice is the best possible punishment humans can offer to god. Scary.

Just remembered the "infinitely" clause. Could this be some sort of undefined-result artefact resulting from the use of infinity in redemption equations. : |

Please don't let that put you off, Christians, I really would like to gain a serious understanding of this concept, it's just there's not much to go on so far.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Throg
Yes, but what is it about Jesus sacrificing himself that is both necessary and sufficient to save us from our sins?

It's a protection racket. God needs a sacrifice to save us from him sending us to hell.

Sort of like the Don extorting protection money to prevent him from sending Guido over to torch your place of business.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
No, because according to the tale, god is "infinitely just" and he demands punishment for every sin. I guess then that a violent sacrifice is the best possible punishment humans can offer to god. Scary. ...and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags —Isaiah 64:6

Great thread,

I'd like to participate. Having spent 20 years of my life as a true believer and 2 years as a missionary I'd like to think I could make a cogent argument in support of the concept but I cannot.

It seemed to make sense before but now it does not. I think Upchurch is correct in that the idea of Christ's atonement is best understood by understanding the culture and system of justice at the time the notion took root. When someone commited an offence justice required retribution including both reperations and punishment.

When you try to get below the surface the idea falls apart. I can't help you beyond that. BTW, smilies are allowed in this forum. :)

[Throg]

Originally posted by RandFan
...and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags —Isaiah 64:6

Great thread,


I like it.

I'd like to participate. Having spent 20 years of my life as a true believer and 2 years as a missionary

A missionary? Fantastic. I'm sure I'll have some questions for you about that at some point.

It seemed to make sense before but now it does not.

That's sort of scary. I mean, psychologically I understand that it's quite possible for something to seem to make sense without it actually making sense but to be confronted with a rational person (of course, I haven't had the chance to check out your stuff in the politics forum yet : | ) who has actually experienced this disjunction is a differnt matter. I realise this is probably a foolish question, but does it seem to you now that you were possessed of the same rational faculties then as you posess now?

I think Upchurch is correct in that the idea of Christ's atonement is best understood by understanding the culture and system of justice at the time the notion took root. When someone commited an offence justice required retribution including both reperations and punishment.

Yeah, I'm familiar with various philosophies of justice but the crucifixion doesn't seem a good fit with retribution, reparation or punishment.

Given that it was Jesus (God) who was crucified wouldn't that mean he was exacting retribution against himself (and particularly squeamish onlookers, perhaps). In fact since the act was removing the consequence of sin from those who had sinned against Him, wouldn't that be anti-retributive?

Similarly, can God really mean reparations to Himself? I know He's omnipotent but doesn't that fail the logical impossibility test of omnipotence?

Ditto, punishment. It's pretty clear that the only person God is punishing with the crucifixion is Himself plus close friends and family.

Atonement, maybe? Is it logically possible to atone for another's sins?

When you try to get below the surface the idea falls apart

You may be right but I'm not ready to give up just yet.

BTW, smilies are allowed in this forum.

:cool:

[TragicMonkey]

The traditional way of dealing with awkward questions about the Christian religion is to intone "It is a mystery!", and retreat into prayer and contemplation.

"Cloud of Unknowing", Thomas Merton, all that jazz.

If any of the sensible believers addressed the matter, it would have been Aquinas. I'm sure he did, somewhere, but I haven't a copy of Summa anymore, and even if I did I'm not sure I'd feel like wading through his syntax. I have a lot of respect for Aquinas, since he managed to wed reason to mythology...though since he was working from (what I, anyway, think were) false premises, naturally he's not convincing. Still a damn good try, though. Any Aquinauts in the house?

(That gives me an idea for a great scifi movie. The Aquinauts! An order of rationalist monks travel in time and space, attempting to put the universe in order according to the principles of their religion. In the final confrontation between the alien menace and the last surviving monk, played by Russell Crowe, it would emerge that the Aquinauts' religion was really a fraud perpetuated by the alien menace. "All this time, you have been working for US!" Then the monk, in a crisis of faith, throws himself on the self destruct switch and the really cool alien spacestation explodes. The last scene would be of a new religion forming, centered around the monk.)

(Perhaps this is why people don't take my theological discussion contributions seriously. What can I say? I'm a monkey. You have to admit, it sounds like a pretty good movie. Or maybe a miniseries. I wonder if the Scifi Channel would be interested? Only they'd film it cheap in Canada with a bunch of rejected Andromeda actors. Bleccch!)

[Kopji]

I think the basic idea is rather simple:

God demands perfect righteousness and cannot abide any sin. Being in a fallen state we sin.

BUT Abraham had faith counted to him as righteousness when he was about to sacrifice his son.

Since God sacrificed his son for us, as we place faith in that sacrifice, that faith is counted as righteousness. This is not a one time thing, but more of a process. (I think it is called sanctification.)

Anyhoo, it is in this sense that Christ dying on the cross is spoken of as a sacrifice, and having a saving quality.
Without accepting it, we would be held to the 'law' (Old Testament) which demands a perfect righteousness no one can attain, etc.

The descent into hell thing is just theological cleaning up those people who died before the sacrifice was made, and so could not go to heaven.

Yes, you'd probably need to actually believe that the laws written in there had some kind of perfection... but...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Throg
That's sort of scary. I mean, psychologically I understand that it's quite possible for something to seem to make sense without it actually making sense but to be confronted with a rational person (of course, I haven't had the chance to check out your stuff in the politics forum yet : | ) who has actually experienced this disjunction is a differnt matter. I realise this is probably a foolish question, but does it seem to you now that you were possessed of the same rational faculties then as you posess now? I think you err in your understanding of human reasoning. Humans are very adept at compartmentalizing and/or *rationalizing. I think Immanuel Kant is a great example of a person of estimable reason who held unreasonable positions. The ability to be rational comprises the ability to *rationalize.

Yeah, I'm familiar with various philosophies of justice but the crucifixion doesn't seem a good fit with retribution, reparation or punishment. "A good fit"? Perhaps not. It did have elements of retribution, reparation and punishment. The philosophy at the time allowed for an intercessor. The intercessor seems to satisfy both justice and mercy.

Given that it was Jesus (God) who was crucified wouldn't that mean he was exacting retribution against himself (and particularly squeamish onlookers, perhaps). In fact since the act was removing the consequence of sin from those who had sinned against Him, wouldn't that be anti-retributive? Of course. However the idea is that retribution must be met and a price be paid. If my child were convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to die I would be willing to offer myself to satisfy justice and grant mercy for my child.

This notion appeals to our (I believe innate) senses of parental compassion, justice and mercy. And of course God is the ultimate father who loves us and wants us to not be punished. However it doesn't work when analyzed as you do.

Similarly, can God really mean reparations to Himself? I know He's omnipotent but doesn't that fail the logical impossibility test of omnipotence? Obviously, you missed our multi paged discussion on omnipotence.

Ditto, punishment. It's pretty clear that the only person God is punishing with the crucifixion is Himself plus close friends and family. No argument.

Atonement, maybe? Is it logically possible to atone for another's sins? Justice and Mercy are more often than not conflicting goals. Atonement is an attempt to reconcile that which cannot be reconciled. It is specious and allows for the mind to accept that which would other wise not be accepted.

*To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):

[Throg]

Originally posted by Kopji
I think the basic idea is rather simple:

God demands perfect righteousness and cannot abide any sin. Being in a fallen state we sin.

BUT Abraham had faith counted to him as righteousness when he was about to sacrifice his son.

Since God sacrificed his son for us, as we place faith in that sacrifice, that faith is counted as righteousness. This is not a one time thing, but more of a process. (I think it is called sanctification.)

Anyhoo, it is in this sense that Christ dying on the cross is spoken of as a sacrifice, and having a saving quality.
Without accepting it, we would be held to the 'law' (Old Testament) which demands a perfect righteousness no one can attain, etc.

The descent into hell thing is just theological cleaning up those people who died before the sacrifice was made, and so could not go to heaven.

Yes, you'd probably need to actually believe that the laws written in there had some kind of perfection... but...

Are you saying that it is not Christ's sacrifice that sanctifies us but our faith in that sacrifice which sanctifies us? If so then by the example of Abraham which you mention, the sacrifice itself would seem to be unnecessary given that faith such as Abraham's is counted as righteousness. Have I misunderstood; was Abraham consigned to hell despite his righteousness until the crucifixion?

[Throg]

Originally posted by RandFan
I think you err in your understanding of human reasoning. Humans are very adept at compartmentalizing and/or *rationalizing. I think Immanuel Kant is a great example of a person of estimable reason who held unreasonable positions. The ability to be rational comprises the ability to *rationalize.


I would agree with your assessment of Kant but not that being rational comprises or even includes the ability to rationalize. Despite the resemblance of the two words and their common etymology, rationalization and rationality do not necessarily go hand-in-hand at all. To be sure, there are occasions where rationalization is rational from the point of view of the comfort and possibly survival of the individual ("Daddy was cruel and dismissive becaue he had so much work to do"). Equally many instances were rationalization is utterly irrational (I spent £30 000 on this car so it cannot be a heap of **** so I will keep spending money on it until it works). More generally, rationalization works against the ability to reason. Cognative dissonance is a wonderful thing.

"A good fit"? Perhaps not. It did have elements of retribution, reparation and punishment. The philosophy at the time allowed for an intercessor. The intercessor seems to satisfy both justice and mercy

I'm not familiar with the role of the intercessor. I'll have to look into that one.

Of course. However the idea is that retribution must be met and a price be paid. If my child were convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to die I would be willing to offer myself to satisfy justice and grant mercy for my child.

That is understandable but I don't think the act of sacrificing yourself in place of your condemnded child would constitute retribution. Doesn't retribution imply that the person against whom retribution is enacted is the just target of retribution. If the victim is not a just target of retribution isn't the act merely retaliation?

In any case wouldn't it be more than a little bizarre for Jesus to save mankind through an act of "eye for an eye justice" given that he said
"You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye,'...but I tell you, love your enemy." - Matthew 5:38

Obviously, you missed our multi paged discussion on omnipotence

Yeah, I'd have enjoyed that. I'll have to look it up.

Justice and Mercy are more often than not conflicting goals.

Oh, oh. God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful. Looks like we're headed for another mathematical nightmare.

Atonement is an attempt to reconcile that which cannot be reconciled. It is specious and allows for the mind to accept that which would other wise not be accepted.

I was thinking of atonement in the sense it was used in 19th Century penal systems which is somewhat related to the concept of sanctification mentioned by Kopji above. That was pretty obscure of me and I have no idea why I thought it was an appropriate definition to use. I would be interested to hear your definition since you obviously have strong opinions in this regard.

[Kopji]

Are you saying that it is not Christ's sacrifice that sanctifies us but our faith in that sacrifice which sanctifies us?
I'm pretty sure the general idea is that we are sanctified by our faith in Christ. Faith in this sense, is somewhat integrated with the idea of works.

If so then by the example of Abraham which you mention, the sacrifice itself would seem to be unnecessary given that faith such as Abraham's is counted as righteousness.
(Hey, good apologetics question to ask a Christian.)

Abraham was going to perform a human sacrifice and the faith that took was 'pleasing' to God. There is an unmistakable analogy that can be drawn between what Abraham supposedly did with his son, and God did with his son. It is less clear if the idea of human sacrifice itself is pleasing to God, but perhaps the crucifixion answers that.

To be fair, I think the inclusion of human sacrifice could also be simply representative of 'giving all'. Giving everything you have to God is a fairly old and consistent theme.


Have I misunderstood; was Abraham consigned to hell despite his righteousness until the crucifixion?

The implication would be that at least Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness. Much of the theology around heaven and hell seems to be borrowed from the surrounding dualist religions like Zoroastrianism.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Throg
I ask this question as an atheist who finds this question utterly perplexing. I cannot attach a meaningful concept to the statement "Jesus died to save us from our sins". Hopefully, the various Christians, theologists and just good ol' thinkers without an -ian or an -ist can help me with this.

May be worthwhile looking at this page http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm
from the Vatican site (always a good primary site for the "official" position)

[Throg]

Originally posted by Kopji
I'm pretty sure the general idea is that we are sanctified by our faith in Christ. Faith in this sense, is somewhat integrated with the idea of works.


Depending on the particular branch of Christianity. Those branches that believe in an elect or chosen few reject the idea of redemptive works.

Abraham was going to perform a human sacrifice and the faith that took was 'pleasing' to God. There is an unmistakable analogy that can be drawn between what Abraham supposedly did with his son, and God did with his son. It is less clear if the idea of human sacrifice itself is pleasing to God, but perhaps the crucifixion answers that.

To my mind the most revolting scene in the whole bible. The idea that God might be pleased by a sacrifice of Himself to Himself boggles the mind. Actually, it's very Odinesque now I think about it. Of course, Odin wasn't interested in redeeming anybody.

To be fair, I think the inclusion of human sacrifice could also be simply representative of 'giving all'

That has always been my understanding. Still pretty revolting but I am sure God healed all those nasty psychological scars.

The implication would be that at least Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness. Much of the theology around heaven and hell seems to be borrowed from the surrounding dualist religions like Zoroastrianism.

Well I'm getting a lot of good stuff on the historical antecedents and social factors surrounding the concept of redemption through the crucifixion. Which is good, keep it coming.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Darat
May be worthwhile looking at this page http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm
from the Vatican site (always a good primary site for the "official" position)

Thanks. The most pertinent info. I found there was this:

The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin

Skipping right past the mystery bit (I know, I was warned) we get to the idea that the cucifixion was a ransom which fits nicely with what RandFan has been saying about concepts of justice at the time and is bizarrely cosistent with pgwenthold's protection racket model. I'm a little woolly about who exactly the ransom is to be paid to. Are we to take it that God payed a ransom to Himself in His own blood or is there a metaphysical mechanism of sin and redemption over which God Himself does not have power?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Throg
I would agree with your assessment of Kant but not that being rational comprises or even includes the ability to rationalize. Despite the resemblance of the two words and their common etymology, rationalization and rationality do not necessarily go hand-in-hand at all. You are absolutely correct. My mistake. Rational cannot equal (or comprise) the irrational. This will be obscure to you but I was utilizing lifegazer logic.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I distinctly remember reasoning that:
(omnipotence) A = ability + inability.

What I meant is that the means with which we reason and use logic allows for us to be irrational and illogical.

More generally, rationalization works against the ability to reason. Cognative dissonance is a wonderful thing. Agreed.

I'm not familiar with the role of the intercessor. I'll have to look into that one. If I remember correctly the role of intercessor was a civil one. A third party could pay a person's debt to get them out of debtors prison. It's been 20 years since I did any study so I could be wrong.

That is understandable but I don't think the act of sacrificing yourself in place of your condemnded child would constitute retribution. Doesn't retribution imply that the person against whom retribution is enacted is the just target of retribution. If the victim is not a just target of retribution isn't the act merely retaliation? Agreed, and the perpetrator of the crime should ultimately be the person responsible.

In any case wouldn't it be more than a little bizarre for Jesus to save mankind through an act of "eye for an eye justice" given that he said "You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye,'...but I tell you, love your enemy." - Matthew 5:38 Now you want scripture to be consistent. If you are looking for consistent philosophy then I would suggest the science forum. :p

I was thinking of atonement in the sense it was used in 19th Century penal systems which is somewhat related to the concept of sanctification mentioned by Kopji above. That was pretty obscure of me and I have no idea why I thought it was an appropriate definition to use. I would be interested to hear your definition since you obviously have strong opinions in this regard. I had used the word independently from you. Tough question. At-one-ment. At least that was what was drummed into my head. There are three general views of atonement in Christian theology. The Classical, Satisfaction and Moral Justification (IIRC). In the classical god seeks to renew our broken relationship caused by original sin by sacrificing himself via his son. Satisfaction requires the death and sacrifice of a divine but mortal person to compensate for the offence that our sin causes god's honor. Moral influence is god removing our fear of him by offering himself as a sacrifice demonstrating his love and willingness to kill his only begotten child (AKA himself). That's the dogma as I know it. What does all of that mean? I'll have to let someone else give it a go. It's hard to explain that which you don't believe in and find irrational.

[Throg]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are absolutely correct. My mistake. Rational cannot equal (or comprise) the irrational. This will be obscure to you but I was utilizing lifegazer logic.


I'm shocked. I would never write anything obscure. : |

What I meant is that the means with which we reason and use logic allow for us to be irrational and illogical.

Hmm. Maybe I need to see the context. Can you point me to the thread or give me a clue so I can find it myself?

Now you want scripture to be consistent. I would suggest the science forum.

Do they have much consistent scripture in the science forum?
: |
I've been pretty remiss in keeping my scientific knowledge up-to-date so I'll get aclimatised a bit more to this forum before I consider venturing there as well.


I had used the word independently from you. Tough question. At-one-ment. At least that was what was drummed into my head. There are three general views of atonement in Christian theology. The Classical, Satisfaction and Moral Justification (IIRC). In the classical god seeks to renew our broken relationship caused by original sin by sacrificing himself via his son. Satisfaction requires the death and sacrifice of a divine but mortal person to compensate for the offence that our sin causes god's honor. Moral influence is god removing our fear of him by offering himself as a sacrifice demonstrating his love and willingness to kill his only begotten child (AKA himself)

Oh, now that is good stuff. That may be exactly the sort of stuff I was looking for when I started this thread. That's so good I'm going to have to go away and think about it for a while. Nice one.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Throg
Hmm. Maybe I need to see the context. Can you point me to the thread or give me a clue so I can find it myself? Give me some time for some resources.

It is demonstrable that rational humans can act irrationally as you point out, why? In the movie 2001 HAL 9000 becomes schizophrenic due to conflicting instructions. The computers we have today freeze up when they get conflicting instructions. HAL having artificial intelligence had to devise a way to reconcile his contravening goals. He did so by splitting his personality.

Consider the following:

Look before you leap vs. He who hesitates is lost. Trite clichés to be sure but they are truisms. Humans can hold both to be true. We can reconcile them without freezing up.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Do they have much consistent scripture in the science forum? I had corrected before you posted. Sorry.

[Throg]

Originally posted by RandFan
Give me some time for some resources.

It is demonstrable that rational humans can act irrationally as you point out, why? .

Wow. Huge question that deserves it's own thread. If you care to start one, I'll give it some thought and post something tomorrow. If you don't care to start it, I'll try and post a brief response here.

In the movie 2001 HAL 9000 becomes schizophrenic due to conflicting instructions. The computers we have today freeze up when they get conflicting instructions. HAL having artificial intelligence had to devise a way to reconcile his contravening goals. He did so by splitting his personality.

HAL was really just an extension of the old "does not compute" gaffe so popular in Star Trek and was not really a good representation either of human psychology or of the way computers currently work or have worked historically. Given that 2001 clearly show us the dangers of the poor design decisions made in HAL's case, I think it is unlikely that we will follow the HAL route in the development of artificial intelligence. Though he did have a lovely singing voice.

To be tediously pedantic, I have to point out that schizophrenia and split personality are two vastly different psychological disorders. Of the two, HAL most closely resembles a case of multiple personality disorder (the current preferred term equivalent to "split personality"). Interestingly, many psychologists believe that multiple personality disorder is entirely fictional. That means that if we were to analyse HAL's split personality we would be analysing a fictional computer personality based on fictional models of computing and personality in terms of a personality disorder which may not even exist. It might make for an ineresting intellectual exercise but I doubt it would tell us much about human psychology.

Modern computers freeze up for several reasons, including the boringly mechanical and the slightly less boring program errors. The latter are slightly less boring, in my opinion, because they point to the major differences. Firstly, computers use discrete logic at the most fundamental level while our brains use fuzzy logic (which I suspect has interesting consequences for our rationality that I would like to explore further, perhaps in that other thread I suggested) so that the sort of all-or-nothing catastrophic state possible in computers is much less likely to occur in our neural networks. Secondly, computers tend to have a very small number of central processing units (most commonly only one) and if these get tied up in repetetive tasks or otherwise disabled the whole system is locked up; our brains consist of a large (practically impossible to quantify exactly) number of neural nets working in parallel, a large number of which may be tied up or even disabled without seriously compromising our ability to function.

Look before you leap vs. He who hesitates is lost. Trite clichés to be sure but they are truisms. Humans can hold both to be true. We can reconcile them without freezing up

I'm not sure we ever actually reconcile them but we can certainly cope and can, as you suggest, hold both to be true so long as the opposing truisms are not brought into direct conflict. That is likely a result of the fuzzy logic basis of our brain function, though it seems plausible that the parallel processing aspect of our neural structures may also be implicated.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

Much as I like F. Scott Fitzgerald as a writer I simply have to disagree with him here. I don't think this particular feature reflects a first-rate intelligence at all it just represents a robustness of the system through which our intelligence is manifest. It reflects the unhalness of the system, if you like. Personally, I do.

I had corrected before you posted. Sorry.
No need for an apology. Unless it turns out to be outright insulting you'll never find me apologising for a simple unintended meaning. While I found the double-meaning of the phrase amusing, I do not see that it reflects badly on you at all. Mistakes are part of the human condition just as much as finding unintended patterns in words and then finding them amusing. I'm not going to apologise for being human and I don't see any reason that you should.

I look forward to furthering this discussion either here or in another thread.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Throg
Much as I like F. Scott Fitzgerald as a writer I simply have to disagree with him here. You are entitled to an opinion, but Fitzgerald was an authoritative figure. I think on that basis alone you would have to concede that he was correct. :|

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Throg
I ask this question as an atheist who finds this question utterly perplexing. I cannot attach a meaningful concept to the statement "Jesus died to save us from our sins". Hopefully, the various Christians, theologists and just good ol' thinkers without an -ian or an -ist can help me with this.
According to my bible, the commentary under John 3:16 reads (my thoughts in green):
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

3:16 The entire gospel comes to a focus in this verse. God's love is not static or self-centered; Many Christians I know believe that one must have faith in God in order to achieve salvation, for which John 3:16 affirms. However, it seems to me that if one can be punished with unimaginable magnitude for failing to affirm belief in a deity, then that would reveal the enormous vanity of said deity. "I'll have you burn in hell if you dont do everything I command" doesnt sound very selfless to me.

it reaches out and draws others in. Here God sets the pattern of true love, the basis for all love relationships - when you love someone dearly, you are willing to give freely to the point of self-sacrifice. Jesus died to show his love for me - I think that is quite nice of him, but not very profound. Many hundreds of thousands of people died so that I could vote, work in hospitible conditions for reasonable pay, own a home, and have the freedom of my own mind and independent thoughts (which strangely enough, the bible so adamently warns against).


God paid dearly with the life of his Son, the highest price he could pay. I find this idea to be incredibly obscene, that one's sins can be wiped away by sacrificing their children. If such an idea were taken to its logical ends, then one could argue the sins of a rapist can be repaid by killing the child of the victim.

Jesus accepted our punishment, paid the price for our sins, and then offered us the new life that he had bought for us. There are many problems with the idea that Jesus died for our sins, yet we can still go to Hell for the sins that he was supposed to have died for - did he die for our sins, or was his death completely in vain?
I am with you, Throg, there just seems to be logic missing from the statement "Jesus died a violent death, therefore you get eternal life".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Throg
To be tediously pedantic, I have to point out that schizophrenia and split personality are two vastly different psychological disorders. I must confess that this is not the first time that I have made this error on this very forum. It's not the first time that I have been corrected either. Hard habits die hard. I would like to blame my confusion on popular culture but I did take a year of psychology at an institution of higher education. I guess that leaves me with out an excuse. Well it has been 20 years since I left the University.

Interestingly, many psychologists believe that multiple personality disorder is entirely fictional. To the degree that it is detailed I suspect that it is.

That means that if we were to analyze HAL's split personality we would be analyzing a fictional computer personality based on fictional models of computing and personality in terms of a personality disorder which may not even exist. It might make for an interesting intellectual exercise but I doubt it would tell us much about human psychology. Poor choice of comparison but I was only trying to paint a mental image. As was Clarke. He was exploring Human behavior by inventing HAL. I think there is some value to the personification of non-human systems in literature and even in discourse.

Modern computers freeze up for several reasons, including the boringly mechanical and the slightly less boring program errors. The latter are slightly less boring, in my opinion, because they point to the major differences. Firstly, computers use discrete logic at the most fundamental level while our brains use fuzzy logic (which I suspect has interesting consequences for our rationality that I would like to explore further, perhaps in that other thread I suggested) so that the sort of all-or-nothing catastrophic state possible in computers is much less likely to occur in our neural networks. Secondly, computers tend to have a very small number of central processing units (most commonly only one) and if these get tied up in repetitive tasks or otherwise disabled the whole system is locked up; our brains consist of a large (practically impossible to quantify exactly) number of neural nets working in parallel, a large number of which may be tied up or even disabled without seriously compromising our ability to function. Again, not a great comparison. As a programmer I do understand many of the differences.

I'm not sure we ever actually reconcile them but we can certainly cope and can, as you suggest, hold both to be true so long as the opposing truisms are not brought into direct conflict. That is likely a result of the fuzzy logic basis of our brain function, though it seems plausible that the parallel processing aspect of our neural structures may also be implicated. Agreed, and it is the ability regardless of the means that allow us to be different things at different times. To be rational in some circumstances and irrational in others.

I look forward to furthering this discussion either here or in another thread. "Me too" (technical USENET lingo.)

[Throg]

Originally posted by RandFan

I had used the word independently from you. Tough question. At-one-ment. At least that was what was drummed into my head. There are three general views of atonement in Christian theology. The Classical, Satisfaction and Moral Justification (IIRC). In the classical god seeks to renew our broken relationship caused by original sin by sacrificing himself via his son.

Had time to think about this a little now. The classical view just seems bizarre. Can you imagine trying to get back with an ex- that way:
"I know I horribly abused you darling, what with the condemning you, your children and all their children to death but I love you so much that I'm going to have my son put to death for you. Take me back?"

Satisfaction requires the death and sacrifice of a divine but mortal person to compensate for the offence that our sin causes god's honor.

This sounds sort of alchemical to me but it would seem to combine nicely with the scapegoat theory. Obviously the nature of original sin was so awful (still can't quite square that with the "facts" of the actual sin) that a normal goat wouldn't do, it had to be a demigod. Still the bit about compensating for the offence to God's honour makes it sound like it's all about God's pride. Who wouldn't sacrifice honour for love?

Moral influence is god removing our fear of him by offering himself as a sacrifice demonstrating his love and willingness to kill his only begotten child (AKA himself)

That's just about as ludicrous as the classical view: "Hey kids, I know I scared you pretty bad with all the wrath and death and throwing you out the house but I love you really. Watch, I'll kill my only son? Scared of me now? No, wait, look, I'll bring him back to life and look it was me all along. Scared of me now? Are you?"

[lifegazer]

Imo, the act of God being punished and experiencing
death-to-being, through being Jesus, was an act that portrayed two messages:-

(1) I 'God' am to blame for everything. I take away the sins of the world and the guilt of the world because I am responsible for everything.
(2) There is no death. I (God) can cease to experience being somebody, but I cannot cease to be Myself. And I can also renew the experience of being somebody (Jesus... Lazarus).

I think that 'Christianity' misrepresents God and The Christ through which God both spoke and acted. That's why I'm not a Christian.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Imo, the act of God being punished and experiencing
death-to-being, through being Jesus, was an act that portrayed two messages:-

(1) I 'God' am to blame for everything. I take away the sins of the world and the guilt of the world because I am responsible for everything.
(2) There is no death. I (God) can cease to experience being somebody, but I cannot cease to be Myself. And I can also renew the experience of being somebody (Jesus... Lazarus).

I think that 'Christianity' misrepresents God and The Christ through which God both spoke and acted. That's why I'm not a Christian.

But you buy into the story, so you are a Christian of sorts.

IMO, it never happened. It's a fairy tale that tells us as much about reality and God as 'Lord of the Rings' does.

[Bikewer]

I find the idea of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient god creating such fractious, emotional, easily deluded creatures as human beings to be an example of really poor research/development.

What's the motivation for creating us anyway? Does God need it's ego propped up by having cute little critters to worship it?

If God wanted to "share the love", (the usual catechism line) why wouldn't we have just been popped into Heaven to begin with?

Oh, that didn't work out too well with the angels, did it?

[Throg]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Imo, the act of God being punished and experiencing
death-to-being, through being Jesus, was an act that portrayed two messages:-

(1) I 'God' am to blame for everything. I take away the sins of the world and the guilt of the world because I am responsible for everything.
(2) There is no death. I (God) can cease to experience being somebody, but I cannot cease to be Myself. And I can also renew the experience of being somebody (Jesus... Lazarus).

I think that 'Christianity' misrepresents God and The Christ through which God both spoke and acted. That's why I'm not a Christian.

Well, as it's a Christian myth I'm asking about, it's really the Christian God I was asking about in this thread but I do appreciate the attempt to provide me with an explanation. It's a cogent explanation but it entails that Jesus death was irrelevant as an act in itself and nothing more than a sideshow by an omnipotent God who could have wiped the slate clean at any time without the theatrics. I was hoping for something a little more edifying. One can always hope I suppose.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Bikewer
I find the idea of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient god creating such fractious, emotional, easily deluded creatures as human beings to be an example of really poor research/development.


I find the idea that we created such an inconsistent, wrathful and incomprehensible model of perfection to be an example of really poor research/development.

What's the motivation for creating us anyway? Does God need it's ego propped up by having cute little critters to worship it?

Boredom? When you know the outcome of absolutely everything you're ever going to do where do you go for excitement. Maybe you can get a vicarious thrill by watching cluless little people fumble around for a bit.

If God wanted to "share the love", (the usual catechism line) why wouldn't we have just been popped into Heaven to begin with?

Maybe he was looking for that special, unhealthy kind of love that leads to recriminations and the Jerry Springer show?

[Throg]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
But you buy into the story, so you are a Christian of sorts.

IMO, it never happened. It's a fairy tale that tells us as much about reality and God as 'Lord of the Rings' does.

I'm new around here. I've gathered that lifegazer believes in something he refers to as God but has he ever actually identified this with the Christian God?

[Kumar]

Let us first check observations & practical experiances related to 'topic's main question.

How did Jesus dying save us from our sins?

I have an another question to it;

Whether we have lost or benefited somewhat, by Jesus's dying--spritually, religiously, socially or otherwise?

[Skeptical Greg]

One might suggest that the sacrifice ( a whole nother topic is whether there was a sacrifice, since nothing was given up ) is simply a " Get Out of Hell Free " card..

There is no limit to the amount of evil you can do as long as you believe in the end.

However, the saintlyest life you can imagine will only earn you a place on the ' well-done ' side of the grill, if you don't say " I believe. "..

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Throg
Well, as it's a Christian myth I'm asking about,

How do you know it's a myth? Shouldn't make labels for things unless you know what you're talking about.

it's really the Christian God I was asking about in this thread but I do appreciate the attempt to provide me with an explanation.

My explanation was with regards to that God. How does one reconcile Jesus' death on the cross, for our sins, to Christian belief?
- By explaining that Christians have misrepresented that God, both in his actions and his words.
One can still believe in God; Jesus; the cruxifiction; the fact that Jesus died for our sins - and yet not be 'Christian'.

It's a cogent explanation but it entails that Jesus death was irrelevant as an act in itself

No it wasn't irrelevant. The fact - if you were to believe it as a fact - that God is responsible for everything, is a very profound and potentially world-transforming piece of news.
Unfortunately, the Christians botched it up and nothing changed except that we were given a new idol to worship to on our knees.

and nothing more than a sideshow by an omnipotent God who could have wiped the slate clean at any time without the theatrics.

"Wiping the slate clean" is a misrepresentation of what I said. Imo, the slate was never dirtied by anyone. Like I said, God is - and always was - responsible for everything.

I was hoping for something a little more edifying. One can always hope I suppose.
Believe me, nothing could be more edifying than understanding that God is existence.

[Throg]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How do you know it's a myth? Shouldn't make labels for things unless you know what you're talking about.


As securely as I know that the tales of the Greek gods, the Norse gods, the Egyptian gods are myths. There can be no absolute knowlege, except perhaps through logical tautology, so all knowledge is provisional and based on the best available information. I disagree with your priorities: a story is a myth unless there is sufficient evidence to support it as factual not factual unless there it can be proved beyond all doubt that it could not be true. Given that there can be no absolute knowledge that would be a foolish position for me to take since I would be compelled to believe everything.

- By explaining that Christians have misrepresented that God, both in his actions and his words.

Yes and I appreciate that this is indeed a possibility but once you do that we're not discussing the Christian God or Jesus anymore (i.e. the versions of those figures upon which their faith rests). It's a technical point, and I am interested in discussing your God also, it's just they are different Gods. From your perspective they have misrepresented God and therefore what they describe is not in fact your God but a fable which is based on your God. From the Christian point of view you are doing the same.

No it wasn't irrelevant. The fact - if you were to believe it as a fact - that God is responsible for everything, is a very profound and potentially world-transforming piece of news

I'm not saying that God being responsible for everything wouldn't be relevant to life in general I am saying that if God is responsible for everything including sin, the act of crucifixion as an act in itself relevant. What was is it then, according to your relgious view that was accomplish by the crucifixion that could not be accomplished in some other way, e.g. God just decreeing "you are all saved"?

"Wiping the slate clean" is a misrepresentation of what I said. Imo, the slate was never dirtied by anyone. Like I said, God is - and always was - responsible for everything.

Then what exactly is it that we were saved from?

Believe me, nothing could be more edifying than understanding that God is existence

I didn't mean to imply that your post was unedifying or that that particular piece of information, once you have explained what it means, might not be edifying. I meant that I had been hoping for a more edifying explanation of the significance of the act of Christ's crucifixion as an act.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Diogenes
One might suggest that the sacrifice ( a whole nother topic is whether there was a sacrifice, since nothing was given up ) is simply a " Get Out of Hell Free " card..

There is no limit to the amount of evil you can do as long as you believe in the end.

However, the saintlyest life you can imagine will only earn you a place on the ' well-done ' side of the grill, if you don't say " I believe. "..

Yes, I understand that bit. Doesn't strike me that it's very nice or reflects well on God but I understand it. It was the whole Christ's crucifixion saved us and the implication that it was only by His going through this that we could be saved, that I couldn't get a handle on. It's looking to me like tribal magic involving a semi-divine goat surrogate is my best bet for a metaphysical explanation while the contemporary model of justice fills in the historical explanation for why that ever seemed plausible to anybody.

[clarsct]

It's been a while since I read the bible, but it seems to have run something like this:

god: If you believe in Christ and have faith in him, when you die I will not judge you by your actions. I will judge you as I would judge Christ, himself. When you sit before my seat of judgement, I will instead look towards Christ.
The assumption is that Christ is the only perfectly godly human to have lived.

Hmmm....human? doesn't seem right...maybe it's just me.

As for the crucifixition, it reads somewhat like this:
You are all BAD! REAL BAD! You could NEVER atone for all YOUR sins. So, in My Mercy, Infinite, donthya know, I will have my One and Only Son take the burden for all your sins. It is a terrible burden. He will take the Sins of all of you Nasty Little Monkeys for all Eternity. Then He will atone for them. And a gruesome atonement it will be, for he will be crucified. A gruesome death for my Son so that you Nasty Little Monkeys can even get into my Heaven. Worship and kneel!

Better biblical scholars may be able to put quotes to it, but I am at work and have no reference material handy. I am also going by memory, which is never a good thing. I also read the Koran and Aleister Crowley's Book of the Law during the same time period...

I sometimes have trouble when it comes to different flavors of nonsense, they all taste like Bulls**t to me.

If anyone else can add/subtract to this, I am always happy to learn.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Throg
Had time to think about this a little now. The classical view just seems bizarre. Can you imagine trying to get back with an ex- that way: "I know I horribly abused you darling, what with the condemning you, your children and all their children to death but I love you so much that I'm going to have my son put to death for you. Take me back?"

This sounds sort of alchemical to me but it would seem to combine nicely with the scapegoat theory. Obviously the nature of original sin was so awful (still can't quite square that with the "facts" of the actual sin) that a normal goat wouldn't do, it had to be a demigod. Still the bit about compensating for the offence to God's honour makes it sound like it's all about God's pride. Who wouldn't sacrifice honour for love?

That's just about as ludicrous as the classical view: "Hey kids, I know I scared you pretty bad with all the wrath and death and throwing you out the house but I love you really. Watch, I'll kill my only son? Scared of me now? No, wait, look, I'll bring him back to life and look it was me all along. Scared of me now? Are you?" Great commentary. If my ego where invested in Christian dogma I might be able to further the discussion. I never quite grasped the concepts as it was (as if they could be grasped). Ask most ministers or priests pointed questions about atonement and you will get "it's a mystery". Though to be fair there has been a lot of Catholic study and research into the concept. I'll have to do some follow-up on the net.

[jmercer]

Sorry I missed this fascinating thread, but between teaching, family, and this weekend I've been away from the computer. :)

Ok - here's the deal:

In order to gain forgiveness from God pre-Christ, Jews offered holocausts (sacrifices). These were usually lambs, but oxen and other livestock were occasionally used, as were doves, etc. Mankind is supposedly born sinful - or at least, everybody sins at some point, apparently - and a holocaust was the only way to make up for that.

God decided that there was no way mankind was ever going to provide the "perfect" holocaust so he could forgive mankinds original screw-up. So, God incarnated Himself in such a way that He was not born sinful; then spent His entire life sinless and rejecting temptation.

His crucifixion was the "ultimate holocaust", washing away all sin. At the same time, God's avatar declared that there were a couple of new rules that replaced all of the old ones. (Apparently, this was another part of God's forgiveness through this action):

1) Believe in me and you will be forgiven your sins
2) Love each other as you love yourself

Basically, God came to earth sinless, died as a holocaust for all sins, and gave us a new set of simple (and fundamentally binary) rules that He felt even WE could follow. :D

Or that's how I understand it, anyway...

[username]

Originally posted by Throg
I ask this question as an atheist who finds this question utterly perplexing. I cannot attach a meaningful concept to the statement "Jesus died to save us from our sins". Hopefully, the various Christians, theologists and just good ol' thinkers without an -ian or an -ist can help me with this.

Well, it is helpful to ask those who say they are 'saved', what it is they have been saved from. The typical answer is from hell. That isn't really the right answer though. The correct answer is they have been saved from God's wrath.

So, we are created by god. God then puts us in this place where we are told we can't do something. God then sends Satan in the form of a snake to persuade us it's OK if we do, so we do. God then gets really pissed and damns us, curses us and the land etc.

So, we are all now SOL.

But wait, there is a fix. God takes the form of a man or becomes a man, whatever. God in manflesh doesn't sin. Man god is killed for sinning against the Jews. Actually killed for crimes against Rome, but...

So, man god gets killed in our place.

How does this make things OK for us? Well, apparently this same god who gets really pissed off when we eat from trees that snakes tell us to eat from also gets really chillaxed when we have faith that he got himself killed for us.

Of course this belief isn't enough. You also have to sing really slow, boring old songs, be against abortion, think Terry Shiavo should be kept alive forever and vote for anyone whose last name ends with Bush.

Honestly there is no point asking why when it comes to religion. The answer is 'because'. If you don't like that answer then you lack faith, aren't one of the chosen and are going to HELL!!!!

[Throg]

Originally posted by clarsct It's been a while since I read the bible, but it seems to have run something like this:

god: If you believe in Christ and have faith in him, when you die I will not judge you by your actions. I will judge you as I would judge Christ, himself. When you sit before my seat of judgement, I will instead look towards Christ.


So ... given that Christ is God, He's saying "have faith in me and I will judge you as I would judge myself ... I will look at myself".

I'm not so sure I want to be judged as if I were an omnipotent, omniscient being with an apparent identity crisis.

, even if the biological difference is trivial. [/QUOTE]

Hmmm....human? doesn't seem right...maybe it's just me.

It's not just you.


I will have my One and Only Son take the burden for all your sins

"I will have my One and Only Me take the burden for all your sins"

I sometimes have trouble when it comes to different flavors of nonsense, they all taste like Bulls**t to me

eeew!

[Throg]

Originally posted by username

Honestly there is no point asking why when it comes to religion. The answer is 'because'. If you don't like that answer then you lack faith, aren't one of the chosen and are going to HELL!!!!

Actually there's a long tradition of asking questions within the Catholic church at least (I'm not familiar enough with the history of other instantiations of Christianity to comment) though it has generally been confined to the clergy. We common folk were too liable to confusion/taking our custom elsewhere and faith was orignially about being open to God not about unthinking exceptance. What we call faith these days used to be characterised as blind faith. Besides, even if I've not had a really convincing answer about how the crucifixion was supposed to achieve it's purpose, I've learned a lot of interesting stuff and it's always good to step out of your native paradigm now and then.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by username
Well, it is helpful to ask those who say they are 'saved', what it is they have been saved from. The typical answer is from hell. That isn't really the right answer though. The correct answer is they have been saved from God's wrath.


Correct. :)

Originally posted by username

So, we are created by god. God then puts us in this place where we are told we can't do something. God then sends Satan in the form of a snake to persuade us it's OK if we do, so we do. God then gets really pissed and damns us, curses us and the land etc.

So, we are all now SOL.


Partially correct. God didn't put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden - that would imply that they existed elsewhere prior to this. Adam and Eve were created in the Garden, with Adam preceding Eve.

Also, depending on the version of Genesis you prefer, Satan had already been cast out of heaven and decided to corrupt Adam and Eve to strike at God... or Satan's deliberate temptation and corruption of Adam and Eve was the first act of defiance that got Satan cast out of heaven. So God didn't put Satan into the the Garden... Satan either entered the Garden on his own hook, or was already in the Garden and was planning to betray God.

Which raises all sorts of interesting questions about omniscience and omnipotence, doesn't it? :D

Anyway - to continue - God didn't curse the land, nor did he literally curse mankind, according to Genesis. Supposedly we cursed ourselves for taking forbidden knowledge in violation of God's command - in other words, just like Satan, Adam and Eve defied God. God then cast Adam and Eve out of paradise and removed their immortality.

This is pretty similar to the Prometheus myth, where Prometeus is eternally punished and mankind becomes a target of the Gods for knowing about fire. Of course, in the Judaeo-Christian version, it's Satan (or Lucifer, which means "light-giver", "light-bringer", "daystar", etc.) who is condemned to eternal torment for bringing forbidden knowledge to mankind. The myth similarity breaks down after that - Satan supposedly continues his efforts, while Prometheus was pretty much out of the picture afterwards. And, of course, Prometheus was venerated by mankind, unlike Satan.

And we weren't totally SOL. Judaism indicated that sacrifices and rightousness (sp?) were a way for individuals to redeem themselves and regain a state of grace with God. Essentially, you had to make sacrifices and live a saintly life to die and be forgiven by God.

Originally posted by username

But wait, there is a fix. God takes the form of a man or becomes a man, whatever. God in manflesh doesn't sin. Man god is killed for sinning against the Jews. Actually killed for crimes against Rome, but...

So, man god gets killed in our place.



Jesus was arrested for insurrection in the Roman Empire, true - but see my post about holocausts and sacrifice above to get the context for the logic regarding the crucifixion and forgiveness, etc. :)

Good post.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Throg
"I will have my One and Only Me take the burden for all your sins"


Uh-uh... you're forgetting about the Trinity. God is three in one somehow. :) God, Holy Spirit, Jesus... or if you prefer, Godhood, ??? and Avatar.

Nobody's ever defined the Holy Spirit for me so far, though. :)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jmercer
Anyway - to continue - God didn't curse the land, nor did he literally curse mankind, according to Genesis. Supposedly we cursed ourselves for taking forbidden knowledge in violation of God's command - in other words, just like Satan, Adam and Eve defied God. God then cast Adam and Eve out of paradise and removed their immortality.

Yeah but God created the rules that says that doing action A causes us to be cursed. There is no logical basis for cursing mankind for violating god's command. That was God's rule, and it was completely arbitrary. He could have just shaved Adam's head as a punishment if he wanted.

Claiming that "we cursed ourselves" makes about as much sense as claiming that a kid who brought a gun to class kicked himself out of school. No, it was the _school authorities_ who kicked him out for violating their rules. Anything else is word games.

People didn't "curse themselves." If you want to get technical, you could say that they brought the curse on themselves by violating God's command. But it was still God who delivered the curse based on his rules.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Yeah but God created the rules that says that doing action A causes us to be cursed. There is no logical basis for cursing mankind for violating god's command. That was God's rule, and it was completely arbitrary. He could have just shaved Adam's head as a punishment if he wanted.


Agreed. Of course, if you take this stuff seriously, you have to consider the question about why God would kick out Satan for defying Him, and not A&E for essentially doing the same thing. :)

This seems to be one of the few times where God was pretty consistent in his penalities...

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Claiming that "we cursed ourselves" makes about as much sense as claiming that a kid who brought a gun to class kicked himself out of school. No, it was the _school authorities_ who kicked him out for violating their rules. Anything else is word games.


I have to disagree with you. One of the things I've emphasized with my own kids over the years is that the decisions they make carry consequences. A&E (or the kid who brings a gun to school) are no different in that regard - it's their actions that bring about the consequences. In the case of the kid, the school authorities are the mechanism by which that consequence is delivered - but it's the action of the kid that invoked those consequences.

You can hold the school responsible for the content of the rules - but once the rules exist and are known to everyone, it's the individual's actions that dictate what happens. (Or doesn't happen, for that matter.)

Originally posted by pgwenthold

People didn't "curse themselves." If you want to get technical, you could say that they brought the curse on themselves by violating God's command. But it was still God who delivered the curse based on his rules.

100% in agreement here. :)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jmercer

I have to disagree with you. One of the things I've emphasized with my own kids over the years is that the decisions they make carry consequences. A&E (or the kid who brings a gun to school) are no different in that regard - it's their actions that bring about the consequences. In the case of the kid, the school authorities are the mechanism by which that consequence is delivered - but it's the action of the kid that invoked those consequences.

You can hold the school responsible for the content of the rules - but once the rules exist and are known to everyone, it's the individual's actions that dictate what happens.



But the actions themselves have no inherent properties to them, at least when it comes to breaking rules (just to distinguish them from things like touching a hot burner, which does have an intrinsic result).

The conseqeunces of bringing a gun to class are determined at the discretion of those in charge. It's their rules, and that is why we attribute the consequences to their actions.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
But the actions themselves have no inherent properties to them, at least when it comes to breaking rules (just to distinguish them from things like touching a hot burner, which does have an intrinsic result).

The conseqeunces of bringing a gun to class are determined at the discretion of those in charge. It's their rules, and that is why we attribute the consequences to their actions.

Agreed about the inherent properties, but there are intrinsic properties which are assigned to the action by law (or rules, if you prefer.) When cause and effect are clearly linked, then the actions have intrinsic results even if they're delayed. :)

However, regarding the "discretion" issue... since the Columbine incident, there has been a zero-tolerance policy in most schools. The majority of school administrations have no choice in the matter when a student is caught on the premises with a gun anymore...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jmercer
Agreed about the inherent properties, but there are intrinsic properties which are assigned to the action by law (or rules, if you prefer.) When cause and effect are clearly linked, then the actions have intrinsic results even if they're delayed. :)

However, regarding the "discretion" issue... since the Columbine incident, there has been a zero-tolerance policy in most schools. The majority of school administrations have no choice in the matter when a student is caught on the premises with a gun anymore...

But that really just moves the discretion back a level, to society, who insist upon a no-tolerance rule. If you want to say that the admin kicks out the student on the behalf of society, I don't argue. But bringing a gun to school does not inherently bring about expulsion. Brian Johnson in The Breakfast Club only got detention for having a gun in his locker (albeit a flare gun), so that gives us an idea of the standards as they were 20 years ago.

The fact that the standards have changed over time just goes to show that it is not an absolute standard to which we have no choice to adhere. Contrast that with touching a hot stove, which has had a consistent consequence since the day the stove was invented.

Ultimately, the punishment for violating those rules are administered by the rulemakers.

Just consider the language difference. You touch the stove, and we ask, "Did you burn yourself?"

When you lose your apartment because you didn't pay rent, we say "The landlord evicted you."

That's the distinction I am making.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
But that really just moves the discretion back a level, to society, who insist upon a no-tolerance rule. If you want to say that the admin kicks out the student on the behalf of society, I don't argue. But bringing a gun to school does not inherently bring about expulsion. Brian Johnson in The Breakfast Club only got detention for having a gun in his locker (albeit a flare gun), so that gives us an idea of the standards as they were 20 years ago.

The fact that the standards have changed over time just goes to show that it is not an absolute standard to which we have no choice to adhere. Contrast that with touching a hot stove, which has had a consistent consequence since the day the stove was invented.

Ultimately, the punishment for violating those rules are administered by the rulemakers.

Just consider the language difference. You touch the stove, and we ask, "Did you burn yourself?"

When you lose your apartment because you didn't pay rent, we say "The landlord evicted you."

That's the distinction I am making.

I understand the distinction - I just don't consider the two a valid comparison, even if they belong in the same loose genre of "cause and effect".

If I reach out and touch a stove and burn myself, the consequence is that I get burned. If I fall down and touch a hot stove involuntarily, I get burned. The cause for the burn is touching the hot stove - personal choice is utterly irrelevant to the consequence.

The examples we're kickinga around (gun carrying, apple-eating) all contain an element of choice that determines the consequence. A child cannot involuntarily bring a gun into school... and if they were forced somehow to do so, they wouldn't get expelled or punished. The person forcing them to violate the rules would be considered the guilty party.

Same thing goes with A&E and the fruit of knowledge. If Satan had forced Eve and Adam to eat the fruit, the crime would have been the forcing of the action, and not the wrongful action itself. Instead, Satan persuaded them to do the deed (well, actually he persuaded Eve, who then persuaded Adam). That made it their choice, which made them guilty of the action.

Good discussion, I'm absolutely enjoying it!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jmercer
I understand the distinction - I just don't consider the two a valid comparison, even if they belong in the same loose genre of "cause and effect".

If I reach out and touch a stove and burn myself, the consequence is that I get burned. If I fall down and touch a hot stove involuntarily, I get burned. The cause for the burn is touching the hot stove - personal choice is utterly irrelevant to the consequence.

The examples we're kickinga around (gun carrying, apple-eating) all contain an element of choice that determines the consequence. A child cannot involuntarily bring a gun into school... and if they were forced somehow to do so, they wouldn't get expelled or punished. The person forcing them to violate the rules would be considered the guilty party.

Same thing goes with A&E and the fruit of knowledge. If Satan had forced Eve and Adam to eat the fruit, the crime would have been the forcing of the action, and not the wrongful action itself. Instead, Satan persuaded them to do the deed (well, actually he persuaded Eve, who then persuaded Adam). That made it their choice, which made them guilty of the action.

Good discussion, I'm absolutely enjoying it! I am in lurk mode in this thread but I am really enjoying it.

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
So God didn't put Satan into the the Garden... Satan either entered the Garden on his own hook, or was already in the Garden and was planning to betray God.


Just as a point of order, are we sure the serpent was Satan. I can't find it being called anything but "serpent" in my Bible. I know Milton said it was Satan, but do we have confirmation from the serpent's mouth so to speak?

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
Uh-uh... you're forgetting about the Trinity. God is three in one somehow. :) God, Holy Spirit, Jesus... or if you prefer, Godhood, ??? and Avatar.

Nobody's ever defined the Holy Spirit for me so far, though. :)

I didn't forget him but he's kind of the Ringo of the holy trinity. We know he's there and it wouldn't be quite right without him but he just doesn't seem to have much impact on anything.

[Throg]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Yeah but God created the rules that says that doing action A causes us to be cursed. There is no logical basis for cursing mankind for violating god's command. That was God's rule, and it was completely arbitrary. He could have just shaved Adam's head as a punishment if he wanted.

I'd like to play Devil's advocate again, if only because it seem wonderfully ironic when I'm trying to represent God's position.

Since God is perfectly just He will always choose to make rules which are perfectly just. Thus the rules which God creates are not arbitrary, they are the rules He has to make if He wants to be just and He always does. He would never create an unjust rule (He could but He never would, for you omnipotence fans). The rule which God created - do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... or you shall die - is the only perfectly just rule which could be decreed regarding the act and consequence of eating that fruit thereof. God decreed it so.

edited for gibberish.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Throg
Just as a point of order, are we sure the serpent was Satan. I can't find it being called anything but "serpent" in my Bible. I know Milton said it was Satan, but do we have confirmation from the serpent's mouth so to speak?

Y'know, that's a fine question... to which I don't have an immediate answer, other than I seem to remember later writings in the OT (and possibly the NT) that claimed they were one and the same... anyone know?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Throg
I didn't forget him but he's kind of the Ringo of the holy trinity. We know he's there and it wouldn't be quite right without him but he just doesn't seem to have much impact on anything.

Yeah, that bugs me quite a bit. The HS seems to be utterly irrelevant, but so much religious stuff centers around that aspect of Godhead that it's very odd there's not much material about ... it? Him? Her? ARGH! ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jmercer
Same thing goes with A&E and the fruit of knowledge. If Satan had forced Eve and Adam to eat the fruit, the crime would have been the forcing of the action, and not the wrongful action itself. Instead, Satan persuaded them to do the deed (well, actually he persuaded Eve, who then persuaded Adam). That made it their choice, which made them guilty of the action.



But the problem I have is not with the guilt of the action, but the consequences of it. Why does "eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge" mean getting kicked out of the garden? That's God's rule, not inherent to the action. There is nothing outside of God's choice to punish them that makes eating the fruit to be a wrong action punishable by expulsion.

Similarly, nothing about bringing a gun to school requires that we expel a student. The act itself is neutral. It is our _imposed_ consequences that lead to expulsion. OTOH, touching a hot stove is not a neutral act, because it will naturally lead to a burn.

The only reason a student is punished for bringing a gun to school is that WE chose to punish such action in the given manner. Students don't punish themselves for it. Now that I think of it, we know this is the case because they only get expelled _if they get caught!_ You can't pull that off with the stove.

Now, I guess the counter argument is that God is omnipotent and therefore will know if you violate the rule, but then again, read Genesis and his omnipotence is not so obvious. Of course, if God is really omnipotent then the whole thing is a setup.

[Throg]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
[
Now, I guess the counter argument is that God is omnipotent and therefore will know if you violate the rule, but then again, read Genesis and his omnipotence is not so obvious.

That's a good point. "Cain, where is thy brother?" always made me wonder what was going on, given that He is supposed to be omniscient.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
But the problem I have is not with the guilt of the action, but the consequences of it. Why does "eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge" mean getting kicked out of the garden? That's God's rule, not inherent to the action. There is nothing outside of God's choice to punish them that makes eating the fruit to be a wrong action punishable by expulsion.

Similarly, nothing about bringing a gun to school requires that we expel a student. The act itself is neutral. It is our _imposed_ consequences that lead to expulsion. OTOH, touching a hot stove is not a neutral act, because it will naturally lead to a burn.

The only reason a student is punished for bringing a gun to school is that WE chose to punish such action in the given manner. Students don't punish themselves for it. Now that I think of it, we know this is the case because they only get expelled _if they get caught!_ You can't pull that off with the stove.

Now, I guess the counter argument is that God is omnipotent and therefore will know if you violate the rule, but then again, read Genesis and his omnipotence is not so obvious. Of course, if God is really omnipotent then the whole thing is a setup.

I'm going to answer this - and then I'm going to switch gears and present my thoughts on why Genesis condemns God, IMHO. :) (In a separate post, though.)

Regardless of whether we agree that a law (or rule) is arbitrary, once created, the law is in force unless revoked. It's utterly immaterial if there were different or lesser options in assigning the penalty for violating the law; in fact, it's immaterial if we feel that the penalty is too severe, or too light.

Asking "why" such a severe penalty was assigned to the rule in the case of A&E is a pretty darned good question. But - regarding God's actions post-violation - it's irrelevant. All that matters is that both the law and the penalty were understood by the violating party(s). That's it.

(As an aside, the vast majority of schools now have a mandatory rule that forces the administration to contact the police if any student brings a weapon to school - including knives, in fact.)

[jmercer]

Genesis... presents several problems for an omnipotent, omniscient and "merciful" deity, doesn't it? :D

God - who can do anything - creates Adam, and then Eve - in paradise. They're immortal, they're innocent, they're all that and a bag of chips, too. But... this omniscient deity sticks a tree full of forbidden fruit somewhere in this entire paradise. Then he proceeds to show the tree to Adam and Eve... and warns them not to eat of this fruit. Some time later, a serpent talks Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and then Eve tempts Adam, who likewise eats of it.

A bit later, God goes looking for A&E, and gets them to come out of hiding. He spots their fig leaf; questions them; discovers what's happened, and tosses them all out into the cold, cruel world. He even takes their Immortality Union Cards away.

So.

First off, if God is omnipotent, then He could have easily put the tree somewhere out of reach of A&E. Even better, he could have put a guard on the tree to prevent poachers! (After all, he's got that big 'ol Angel with the flaming sword at the front gate, remember?) Instead, He exposes A&E to temptation, and forbids them from eating this fruit. Yeah. That shows a lot of omniscience - He created A&E, then turned around and showed absolute ignorance of their basic psychology.

Further, His omniscience seemed to have waned even further when it didn't warn him about the serpent's plans... or Eve's danger of being tempted and succumbing to it... or Eve's later seduction of Adam. In fact, God seems to have lost track of A&E entirely, doesn't even know what's going on in his own Garden of Eden (so much for omnipresence as well!) and has to go searching for them after the dirty deed is done!

So much for omniscience... back to omnipotence. Forget about hiding the tree, or guarding it. If God knew that the serpent as trouble, why didn't He keep him out of Eden in the first place?

So, perhaps God isn't omniscient or omnipotent, hmm?? :) Or perhaps He's simply incompetent? ;)

Alternatively, perhaps God is omnpotent and omniscient. In that case... then God deliberately placed the tree where it could be found; deliberately introduced A&E to the forbidden fruit; deliberately left the tree unguarded; deliberately let the serpent have free access to Eve; deliberately permitted Eve to fall to temptation; ignored the situation when Adam was seduced into eating the fruit by Eve; pretended ignorance when trying to find A&E, and also with the initial questioning; then booted A&E out the door like so much refuse.

Well, this paints a pretty ugly picture of God. He takes two innocents and puts them in a position where He knows they'll be corrupted. He lies to them about knowing where they are, and what they've done... and then he kicks them out and condemns them - and all their kids - to death.

And what does he do to the serpent? Sends him out AFTER A&E, and declares them mortal enemies. THAT'S the serpent's punishment? Go out there and screw with mankind? Heh. :D

So, no matter how you look at it, Genesis is not kind to God.

(Edited to fix a couple of spelling errors.)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Christian apologetics: Hard.

~~ Paul

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Throg
So ... given that Christ is God, He's saying "have faith in me and I will judge you as I would judge myself ... I will look at myself".

I'm not so sure I want to be judged as if I were an omnipotent, omniscient being with an apparent identity crisis.





"I will have my One and Only Me take the burden for all your sins"



eeew! [/QUOTE]

Hrm...that is interesting and takes me in a new direction. So God is all-knowing, all-seeing, all-present, and all-good. Right?

I know there was another post by jmercer about the genesis story and how it relates to god.

What we know: god apparently has an identity problem, possibly MPD. (Multiple Personality Disorder, whose existence is just about as elusive as god himself, if you talk to a psychologist. but hey, we ARE talking about god as if he exists, so bear with.)

SO...god had to have known about the serpent. UNLESS....God=Satan!
Could Satan be just another splinter of the god personality complex? (pun intended..god...complex......oh nevermind!)

Or should this be another thread?

As far as the Bulls**t comment, I was speaking intellectually, not literally....:D :p

[jmercer]

Well, you know, you have the Trinity. So God may literally be an MPD. Regarding Satan... probably not. Just about every aspect of God that's presented in the bible has to do with him being the top god... erm... dog, that is. ;)

If you believe the bible, Satan isn't even in third place. If anything, God might have created Satan to make Himself look good. (Or maybe he needed a "left hand" to do all the dirty work.)

Or you can play some really painful head games, like

God=Order and Satan=Entropy. :D

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Kumar
Let us first check observations & practical experiances related to 'topic's main question.

How did Jesus dying save us from our sins?

I have an another question to it;

Whether we have lost or benefited somewhat, by Jesus's dying--spritually, religiously, socially or otherwise?

If benefited/benifitting--we had been & are getting saved from our sins, if lost/losing--we had added & are adding to more sins. It is alike any good/healthful or bad/harming food/substance experiance. If HIS life is a lesson, good teaching to us & a diversion of destructive atmosphere prevalent at any time, means we had benefited & still benifiting a lot--so "Jesus dying save us from our sins".

[clarsct]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well, you know, you have the Trinity. So God may literally be an MPD. Regarding Satan... probably not. Just about every aspect of God that's presented in the bible has to do with him being the top god... erm... dog, that is. ;)

If you believe the bible, Satan isn't even in third place. If anything, God might have created Satan to make Himself look good. (Or maybe he needed a "left hand" to do all the dirty work.)

Or you can play some really painful head games, like

God=Order and Satan=Entropy. :D

It wouldn't be the first time one 'personality' downplayed another. Besides, what better 'left hand' than your own, when you're not watching? God, as a whole would still be all-knowing and all-powerful, but each facet of the core personality wouldn't necessarily know what the other is doing. And the christian part of god could still be all-good. It would explain a lot, I think. Especially if the 'Satan' personality took over without us being the wiser, sometimes. I'm just trying to come up with a theory to fit the evidence, such as it is. This is off topic from the OP, though. We could move this to a different thread, if you all agree. I'm still pretty new to the whole forum thing and am not sure if it is worthy of a new thread, yet I do not wish to hijack someone else's excellent thread. If I do create a new thread, I would like to ask to include jmercer's genesis interpretation, with proper accredation, of course. Any thoughts?

[Throg]

Originally posted by clarsct
It wouldn't be the first time one 'personality' downplayed another. Besides, what better 'left hand' than your own, when you're not watching? God, as a whole would still be all-knowing and all-powerful, but each facet of the core personality wouldn't necessarily know what the other is doing. And the christian part of god could still be all-good. It would explain a lot, I think. Especially if the 'Satan' personality took over without us being the wiser, sometimes. I'm just trying to come up with a theory to fit the evidence, such as it is. This is off topic from the OP, though. We could move this to a different thread, if you all agree. I'm still pretty new to the whole forum thing and am not sure if it is worthy of a new thread, yet I do not wish to hijack someone else's excellent thread. If I do create a new thread, I would like to ask to include jmercer's genesis interpretation, with proper accredation, of course. Any thoughts?


I actually think what we've been discussing has some bearing on the quetion I orginally posed, even if it is not directly answering it. After all the personalities of God have direct bearing on why and how he does things. That said, there are so many hugely complicated aspects of the question being considered in this thread that a new thread for this particular hugely complicated question is probably a good idea. If you can think of a nice one line hook for the thread title, start it up and I'll see you there.

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well, you know, you have the Trinity. So God may literally be an MPD. Regarding Satan... probably not. Just about every aspect of God that's presented in the bible has to do with him being the top god... erm... dog, that is. ;)


Except for Ringo, the holy ghost that is.

Actually, looking at the Bible there's really not a lot about Satan as a personality and it's not even clear that when the term Satan (meaning "the adversary", I believe) is used it's always talking about the same person. A lot of what we have come to identify with Satan appears to have originated with the early church fathers rather than have a direct Biblical origin. There is mention of a Dragon leading the opposing team in the war in heaven, for instance, and it was decided by the early church fathers that this was Satan; and much to my surprise the identification of Lucifer with Satan and as an ex-angel is also nowhere to be found in the Bible.

[clarsct]

Just a quick bit, I'm almost out of time here...

I've been informed by a christian friend that it is Jesus, himself who equates Satan with "that old serpent". We debate matter of theology from time to time. It is, obviously, NT, but I don't have a bible on me, for I am at work. Any scholars out there that can come up with the chapter/verse? I'll try to look for it.

I'll see about posting that new thread....as long a jmercer doesn't mind me using his brains. It's a damned good argument, I'm not sure I can do better.

[LW]

Originally posted by clarsct
I've been informed by a christian friend that it is Jesus, himself who equates Satan with "that old serpent". We debate matter of theology from time to time. It is, obviously, NT, but I don't have a bible on me, for I am at work. Any scholars out there that can come up with the chapter/verse? I'll try to look for it.

Revelation 20:2:
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

And about that falling from heavens:

Revelation 12:8-9:
8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Luke also contains a statement attributed to Jesus: Luke 10:17-19:
17The seventytwo returned with joy and said, 'Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.'

18He replied, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

The http://www.biblegateway.com contains most of the English Bible translations as well as a search engine.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by clarsct
It wouldn't be the first time one 'personality' downplayed another. Besides, what better 'left hand' than your own, when you're not watching? God, as a whole would still be all-knowing and all-powerful, but each facet of the core personality wouldn't necessarily know what the other is doing. And the christian part of god could still be all-good. It would explain a lot, I think. Especially if the 'Satan' personality took over without us being the wiser, sometimes. I'm just trying to come up with a theory to fit the evidence, such as it is. This is off topic from the OP, though. We could move this to a different thread, if you all agree. I'm still pretty new to the whole forum thing and am not sure if it is worthy of a new thread, yet I do not wish to hijack someone else's excellent thread. If I do create a new thread, I would like to ask to include jmercer's genesis interpretation, with proper accredation, of course. Any thoughts?

Well, an MPS where one personality takes over - without the other ones being aware - certainly shoots omniscience in the butt. :) But in all honesty, it's probably a more complex scenario than is needed. Given God's actions in Eden, it's a lot simpler to assume that He made Satan so He would have a fall guy around to make Him look good.

As far as my interpretation of Genesis goes, please feel free to use it if you wish. :)

(Edited for spelling)

[Ossai]

Jmercer
Supposedly we cursed ourselves for taking forbidden knowledge in violation of God's command - in other words, just like Satan, Adam and Eve defied God. Not quiet. Prior to eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.

And we weren't totally SOL. Judaism indicated that sacrifices and rightousness (sp?) were a way for individuals to redeem themselves and regain a state of grace with God. Essentially, you had to make sacrifices and live a saintly life to die and be forgiven by God. But at that time the Jews didn’t have a heaven or hell, all the dead went to shoel (sp?) so what was the point of being forgiven?

Pgwenthold
Yeah but God created the rules that says that doing action A causes us to be cursed. There is no logical basis for cursing mankind for violating god's command. That was God's rule, and it was completely arbitrary. He could have just shaved Adam's head as a punishment if he wanted. But in the old testament, when god punished someone it’s a real kicker. He punishes the whole family for 4 or 5 generations not just the sinner.

Jmercer
Agreed. Of course, if you take this stuff seriously, you have to consider the question about why God would kick out Satan for defying Him, and not A&E for essentially doing the same thing. :)

This seems to be one of the few times where God was pretty consistent in his penalities... Again you’re skipping bits. God didn’t kick out Satan because Satan was following god’s orders at that point. Remember he shows up in heaven later and reports to god and they appear to be on cordial terms.

Throg
Just as a point of order, are we sure the serpent was Satan. I can't find it being called anything but "serpent" in my Bible. I know Milton said it was Satan, but do we have confirmation from the serpent's mouth so to speak? From memory – at some point in the new testament one of the passages goes something like ‘…that old serpent, Satan’. A fundy pointed it out to me at one time so I’m not sure even which book it’s from.

Ossai

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Ossai
Jmercer
Not quiet. Prior to eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.


Sure they did:

Genesis, King James Version
003:001 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea,
hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

003:002 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit
of the trees of the garden:

003:003 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall
ye touch it, lest ye die.

003:004 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

003:005 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your
eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good
and evil.



Originally posted by Ossai
But at that time the Jews didn’t have a heaven or hell, all the dead went to shoel (sp?) so what was the point of being forgiven?


Good question. :)

The point was to avoid direct and immediate punishment by God in this life by gaining forgiveness. Granted, it wasn't to save themselves for an afterlife (although there have been Rabbinic debates that there are different levels of comfort in Sheol). But my point was that there is a long-standing mechanism in the OT for gaining forgiveness from God.

Originally posted by Ossai
Jmercer
Again you’re skipping bits. God didn’t kick out Satan because Satan was following god’s orders at that point. Remember he shows up in heaven later and reports to god and they appear to be on cordial terms.
Ossai

Hmm... I don't remember anything like that, except in Dante. Still, I don't have the bible memorized, so perhaps I missed it. (It's not in Genesis, though, I'm sure of that.)

Where's that from?

[LW]

Originally posted by jmercer
Sure they did:

Well, there's just one final question left (I think I'm channeling Columbo): why was Eve supposed to know that not following the God's orders is bad before eating the fruit that gave her the knowledge about good and bad?

Where's that from?

Job.

[Throg]

Originally posted by clarsct
Just a quick bit, I'm almost out of time here...

I've been informed by a christian friend that it is Jesus, himself who equates Satan with "that old serpent". We debate matter of theology from time to time. It is, obviously, NT, but I don't have a bible on me, for I am at work. Any scholars out there that can come up with the chapter/verse? I'll try to look for it.



I've searched for it in the lovely cross-indexed bible some Jehova's witnesses once gave me and in an on-line bible and I can't find where Jesus says that. "that old serpent" appears to be from Revelations -

"The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray" - Revelation 12:9

and

"He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" - Revelation 20:2.

Is that enough to identify Satan with the serpent? Do we think that it was a dragon that talked Eve into taking the apple. It would certainly change my mental picture of the scene.


edit: just notice LW already posted the Revelations stuff. Thanks LW

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Throg
I've searched for it in the lovely cross-indexed bible some Jehova's witnesses once gave me and in an on-line bible and I can't find where Jesus says that. "that old serpent" appears to be from Revelations -

"The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray" - Revelation 12:9

and

"He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" - Revelation 20:2.

Is that enough to identify Satan with the serpent? Do we think that it was a dragon that talked Eve into taking the apple. It would certainly change my mental picture of the scene.

Works for me. :)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Throg
Is that enough to identify Satan with the serpent? Do we think that it was a dragon that talked Eve into taking the apple. It would certainly change my mental picture of the scene.


Well, it may have been a dragon that talked to Eve, but he was eventually turned into a snake (or a legless dragon, I guess)

In principle, this is an incorrect image that most people have regarding the serpent. Note that he is not condemned to crawl on his belly until AFTER the whole deal. Therefore, when he tempts Eve, there is no reason to assume that he is a snake.

[LW]

Originally posted by Throg
Is that enough to identify Satan with the serpent? Do we think that it was a dragon that talked Eve into taking the apple. It would certainly ch

Here are actually two different issues: what the authors of Genesis (J in particular, the Fall is his (or her) text) thought about the matter, and what is the theological option now and how it may be supported.

Whether J thought that the serpent was Devil who is Satan or just a lying snake is in the end unknowable, but my own opinion is that he probably didn't. IIRC, the doctrine of Devil as an adversary of God wasn't really developed before the Babel captivity (where the Hebrews were influenced by Zorastrism) that happened a couple of hundreds years later than J lived. (Leviticus 17:7 contains a reference to "devils of desert" so the ancient Hebrews did have the general concept of evil supernatural beings and the serpent might have been one of those).

However, by the time when books of NT were written, the serpent was already considered to be Satan. The most clear reference to it is in the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon:
Wis 2:24:
Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the
world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.


The canonical texts contain references that are not as unambigous but can still be used to support the connection between serpent and Devil, such as 1John:3:8
He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

This verse can be taken as to imply that Devil was present when the first sin was made.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by LW
Well, there's just one final question left (I think I'm channeling Columbo): why was Eve supposed to know that not following the God's orders is bad before eating the fruit that gave her the knowledge about good and bad?


Well, she was told not to eat it or touch it, or she would die. That's a pretty darned good indication that it wasn't a good idea and that God didn't want anyone messing with the tree. :)

By the way - "good and bad" are not the same as "good and evil" - at least, I don't look at them this way. To me "good and bad" have to do with relative values, such as "touching a hot stove is bad", or "eating healthy is good". There's no value assigned to them other than the inherent ones.

"Good and evil" are different in that they describe philosophies and absolute concepts. As in "child pornography is evil" and "protecting the innocent is good." These terms - to me - represent much more complex concepts.

Originally posted by LW
Job.
[/B]

Yep - thanks. Here's the King James (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all) version.

I wouldn't read this as Satan being "chummy" with God or reporting to him, though. The relationship and exchange in this is clearly adversarial, with God boasting about Job and Satan challenging God about it:

Book of Job, King James
6: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7: And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
8: And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
9: Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
10: Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
11: But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
12: And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.


God seems surprised to see Satan, and pretty much wants to know why he's bugging him in this staff meeting that Satan apparently showed up to uninvited. Satan's reply is vague and rather odd, but I take it to mean "Well, unlike you, God, I've been active in the world and made my mark."

God seems to boast that Job is an example of His involvement, and praises Job for fearing Him and being upstanding, etc. Satan more or less says "Sure he praises You. You've coddled and protected him. Stop doing that, take away his privileges, and he'll start cursing You, just wait and see."

God pretty much says to Satan "You wanna play hardball? Ok, sure, I'll play. Tell you what - do what you want with Job's stuff, but don't ask Me to touch a hair on Job's head."

Chapter two clarifies the adversarial relationship between God and Satan a bit further:

Book of Job, King James
1: Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
2: And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
3: And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
4: And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
5: But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.
6: And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
7: So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.


Once again, God wants to know what Satan's been up to, and again, he throws Job up in his face. (Not very imaginative, is He?)

Only this time, God says "See? He kept to his faith in Me, in spite of the fact that you got me to withdraw my protection from him and you took all that good stuff away."

Satan says "Yeah, sure, but You wouldn't let me touch HIM. Worldly goods are easy to lose and not curse You over, but if You let me make him sick, let's see what he does then!"

So God once again lets Satan have his way, etc. When you look at Chapter two, it seems that God's not doing it Himself so much as he's no longer preventing Satan from doing things to Job.

Oddly enough, it appears that Satan is goading God to do something stupid that will prove God is fallible. But there's no way I'd look at this as if Satan were "reporting" to God, or being particularly chummy with him.

(In fact, the whole exchange reminds me of two teenage boys in a testosterone-fueled p*ssing contest. :D)

(edited to change a couple of words to make the point better.)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Well, it may have been a dragon that talked to Eve, but he was eventually turned into a snake (or a legless dragon, I guess)

In principle, this is an incorrect image that most people have regarding the serpent. Note that he is not condemned to crawl on his belly until AFTER the whole deal. Therefore, when he tempts Eve, there is no reason to assume that he is a snake.

Y'know, that's kind of interesting when you think it through. Now, if one has a serpent with legs that changes into a serpent without legs when it's environment changes... what would you call that? Evolution? :D

Whoa - did I just spot evidence from Genesis that supports Evolution!??? Why, yeah, I think that maybe I did! Thanks, pgw! ;)

(Edited to add the last paragraph)

[Ossai]

jmercer
Not quiet. Prior to eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.
Sure they did:
Nope, Eve was merely repeating what had been told to here without understanding.
And if they were immortal up until that point, they didn’t even have a concept of their own death so the threat of punishment was also meaningless.


Again you’re skipping bits. God didn’t kick out Satan because Satan was following god’s orders at that point. Remember he shows up in heaven later and reports to god and they appear to be on cordial terms.
Hmm... I don't remember anything like that, except in Dante. Still, I don't have the bible memorized, so perhaps I missed it. (It's not in Genesis, though, I'm sure of that.)

Where's that from? Job. Satan shows up in heaven and he and god have a little chat then Satan and god make a bet concerning Job.

Chapter two clarifies the adversarial relationship between God and Satan a bit further: Not very adversarial when Satan has free rein to wander through heaven along with god’s sons, not just one but twice.

Ossai

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Ossai

Nope, Eve was merely repeating what had been told to here without understanding.
And if they were immortal up until that point, they didn’t even have a concept of their own death so the threat of punishment was also meaningless.
Ossai

Sorry, Ossai - I don't agree. If Eve didn't know it was wrong, why would the serpent have to persuade her with such a sophisticated argument? "Hey, God doesn't want you to eat this fruit, not because you'll die, but because you'll become like Him!"

That's a pretty big carrot to dangle in front of someone, just to get them to do something that they don't understand they shouldn't do. My take on it is that the serpent needed something really persuasive to get Eve to disobey God, since she knew she'd be punished for it.

Innocent is not the same as stupid. Even if Eve didn't understand the "why" of it, she clearly understood it was forbidden, and something bad would happen if she did it. Heck, even toddlers understand the word "no", and Eve - innocent or not - was an adult. :)

Originally posted by Ossai
Job. Satan shows up in heaven and he and god have a little chat then Satan and god make a bet concerning Job.

Not very adversarial when Satan has free rein to wander through heaven along with god’s sons, not just one but twice.

Ossai

Not that I want to quibble, but the Book of Job doesn't state that the meeting took place in heaven... it could have happened at the local bar, for all we know. ;)

It does appear that God and Satan are at least on speaking terms. But that's a heck of a long way from being buddies. :D

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
Y'know, that's kind of interesting when you think it through. Now, if one has a serpent with legs that changes into a serpent without legs when it's environment changes... what would you call that? Evolution? :D

Whoa - did I just spot evidence from Genesis that supports Evolution!??? Why, yeah, I think that maybe I did! Thanks, pgw! ;)

(Edited to add the last paragraph)

Well, intragenerational evolution. Do we really want to open that can of wyrms?

[Throg]

Originally posted by LW

The canonical texts contain references that are not as unambigous but can still be used to support the connection between serpent and Devil, such as 1John:3:8


This verse can be taken as to imply that Devil was present when the first sin was made.

Agreed but it does not imply that the Devil was there when the first human sin was made. If the Devil/Dragon/Serpent sinned against god prior to Adam and Eve - and I think it's generally accepted that the war in heaven preceded them, isn't it? - then Orginal Sin wasn't particularly original.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Throg
Well, intragenerational evolution. Do we really want to open that can of wyrms?

Heheheh... no, not really. :) OTOH, perhaps we could discuss surgical alterations and gene manipulation to ensure future generations followed suit... ;)

All teasing aside, we can either take Genesis seriously, or not. Personally, I think it's a rather poorly written fictional story - but Fundie's don't, of course. And it would be interesting to point out to a Fundie that God himself forced the serpents to "evolve" into snakes.

(I wouldn't bother confusing them with mentions of intragenerational evolution or anything like that - they already have enough confusing things in their minds to begin with. :D)

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
Heheheh... no, not really. :) OTOH, perhaps we could discuss surgical alterations and gene manipulation to ensure future generations followed suit... ;)

All teasing aside, we can either take Genesis seriously, or not. Personally, I think it's a rather poorly written fictional story - but Fundie's don't, of course. And it would be interesting to point out to a Fundie that God himself forced the serpents to "evolve" into snakes.

(I wouldn't bother confusing them with mentions of intragenerational evolution or anything like that - they already have enough confusing things in their minds to begin with. :D)

Actually, it's been my experience that a a lot of people who only vaguely understand evolution seem to assume intragenerational evolution. It usually takes me a great deal of time and patience to make them understand that it is an intergenerational process. Ocassionally I even get them to understand it's not teliological.

Here's a thought: prior to the fall there were no genes, they came as a package deal with death and menses. Do I get to start my own religion now?

In my view, of course it is a fiction but I like my fiction to have internal logic. Am I just trying to make a silk-purse out of a serpent's legs?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Throg
In my view, of course it is a fiction but I like my fiction to have internal logic. Am I just trying to make a silk-purse out of a serpent's legs?

You might as well, the serpent doesn't need them...

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Throg
Actually, it's been my experience that a a lot of people who only vaguely understand evolution seem to assume intragenerational evolution. It usually takes me a great deal of time and patience to make them understand that it is an intergenerational process. Ocassionally I even get them to understand it's not teliological.


Really? They don't understand that changes happen over long spans of time, and that all changes happen to the offspring, and not the parents?? That's depressing... but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Some of the comments I make about things I consider to be basic understanding of the world around us become topics of debate with my own family.

As far as the teliological aspect goes, that's understandable, given the tenets of ID and how popular it's become. It's the cool thing to believe in these days. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Throg

Here's a thought: prior to the fall there were no genes, they came as a package deal with death and menses. Do I get to start my own religion now?

In my view, of course it is a fiction but I like my fiction to have internal logic. Am I just trying to make a silk-purse out of a serpent's legs?


Hmm... death and menses... death and menses... there's gotta be a hymnal in there somewhere. ;) Let's see...

Death and menses, Death and menses
They go together like a god and incense
If you want some offspring
You can't have one without the other!

How's that for your first hymnal? ;)

Also, if I get you a Komodo's legs, can you forget about the silk-purse and make me a nice luggage set?

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
Really? They don't understand that changes happen over long spans of time, and that all changes happen to the offspring, and not the parents?? That's depressing... but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Some of the comments I make about things I consider to be basic understanding of the world around us become topics of debate with my own family.


On the other hand it's uplifting to know that people can understand and despite the fact we may have come to take natural selection for granted, I don't think it's an obvious concept by any means.


As far as the teliological aspect goes, that's understandable, given the tenets of ID and how popular it's become. It's the cool thing to believe in these days. :rolleyes:


ID really hasn't made much of an impression in this country. I think it's more about the sloppy way we use language. I still see nature programs where phrases like "evolved to take advantage of ..." are used without further explanation. That sounds like teliology if you don't already understand evolution.


As far as the teliological aspect goes, that's understandable, given the tenets of ID and how popular it's become. It's the cool thing to believe in these days. :rolleyes:



Hmm... death and menses... death and menses... there's gotta be a hymnal in there somewhere. ;) Let's see...

Death and menses, Death and menses
They go together like a god and incense
If you want some offspring
You can't have one without the other!

How's that for your first hymnal? ;)

Also, if I get you a Komodo's legs, can you forget about the silk-purse and make me a nice luggage set?

It was always thus: we begin with a quest for spiritual enlightenment and descend into bad puns and lizard legs.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Throg
On the other hand it's uplifting to know that people can understand and despite the fact we may have come to take natural selection for granted, I don't think it's an obvious concept by any means.

ID really hasn't made much of an impression in this country. I think it's more about the sloppy way we use language. I still see nature programs where phrases like "evolved to take advantage of ..." are used without further explanation. That sounds like teliology if you don't already understand evolution.


Now that you put it that way... :) In fact, I've fallen into that trap myself at times... trying to figure out why a particular trait would enhance survival, when in reality, some traits simply ride the coat-tails of a successful one. It is really easy to fall into that pattern.

Originally posted by Throg

It was always thus: we begin with a quest for spiritual enlightenment and descend into bad puns and lizard legs.

Oh? Damn. And here I thought that bad puns and lizard legs were the meaning of life. :D

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
Now that you put it that way... :) In fact, I've fallen into that trap myself at times... trying to figure out why a particular trait would enhance survival, when in reality, some traits simply ride the coat-tails of a successful one.

Yes, that's a really tough one to get across. I remember spending about an hour trying to explain this to a psychology professor many years ago. He never did get it.

Oh? Damn. And here I thought that bad puns and lizard legs were the meaning of life

No mearly the amuse bouches that make the lack of meaning palatable.

I think I may be disapperaing up my own analogy now.

[The Mighty Thor]

Great thread, folks.

I am wary of dipping my toe in a pool with such worthies.

I noticed that "atonement" was earlier related to the "scapegoat". This concept was used by Jesus in the casting out of the demons who were "Legion".

But what about the possible Osiris or Mithras connection? Jesus then becomes another "dying then rising" nature god in the agrarian tradition of the revolution of the seasons.

Is it possible that this idea was being put forward by some early Christians -- as, kind of, "Judaism -- the Sequel"?

Am I correct that many other philosophies (Cynicism) and belief systems (more familiar to Greco-Roman tradition) were incorporated by early Christians, as well as Judaism?

If the Osiris or Mithras or other Mystery traditions were being syncretised by the early Church, then the "blood of Jesus" flowing into the earth is regarded as a soteriological "food".

I often feel that some factions in early Christianity wished they could "get rid of" that darned Old Testament. :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Great thread, folks.

...snip...

I often feel that some factions in early Christianity wished they could "get rid of" that darned Old Testament. :)

The various Gnostic texts found at Nag Hammadi give us an insight into the profoundly different views that existed when Christianity was becoming established in a form that we would recognise today as "Christianity".

I don’t think it is pejorative to say that early Christianity was a complete mishmash of very different philosophies, who and what Christ was and is, the meaning of his teachings, the significance of the OT and so on. I think it would be hard to say categorically that other myths and religions religious teachings weren't incorporated into the early Christian movement. However by the time of the establishment of a "Church of Christianity" (around the time of the Roman conversion) Christianity had become quite self sufficient in respect of its own mythology and "reasons" for its doctrines and faith, from that point on I think it is wrong to try and interpret Christianity or view its teachings as “reworks� of either older or contemporary rival religions.

[Ossai]

Jmercer
Sorry, Ossai - I don't agree. If Eve didn't know it was wrong, why would the serpent have to persuade her with such a sophisticated argument? "Hey, God doesn't want you to eat this fruit, not because you'll die, but because you'll become like Him!" So you’re saying that Adam and Eve already had knowledge of good and evil prior to eating of the fruit. Sorry, but if that were so then why did they suddenly realize that they were naked and covered themselves?

That's a pretty big carrot to dangle in front of someone, just to get them to do something that they don't understand they shouldn't do. My take on it is that the serpent needed something really persuasive to get Eve to disobey God, since she knew she'd be punished for it. Again, up until the point where god cursed them, they were immortal and would not have know what death was.

Heck, even toddlers understand the word "no", and Eve - innocent or not - was an adult. Physically adult, mentally it’s unclear as to how mature they were.

It does appear that God and Satan are at least on speaking terms. But that's a heck of a long way from being buddies. The new testament is where Satan takes on the evil aspect, up until then Satan is merely a stumbling block, used by god to test his followers.

All teasing aside, we can either take Genesis seriously, or not. Personally, I think it's a rather poorly written fictional story - but Fundie's don't, of course.
Isn’t current academic though that there were five authors to Genesis?

And it would be interesting to point out to a Fundie that God himself forced the serpents to "evolve" into snakes. Another fun thing is to then point out serpents with legs i.e. the komodo dragons – apparently god’s curse wasn’t up to snuff.

As far as the teliological aspect goes, that's understandable, given the tenets of ID and how popular it's become. It's the cool thing to believe in these days.
Actually most proponents of ID are YEC. Just point out that there would have had to be a type of ‘super-evolution’ to populate the world after the flood – especially if the world is only 6000 years old.

Ossai

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ossai
Again, up until the point where god cursed them, they were immortal and would not have know what death was.


Then why was God worried that they would eat from the tree of eternal life and become like the gods?

Remember, that's the reason God kicked them out of the Garden - so that they wouldn't eat from the tree of eternal life, too.

[Bikewer]

In reading Lost Christianities, it was interesting to learn that some of the early sects maintained that the OT god was some sort of insane, rogue type who created the Earth out of spite and malevolence.
Else why all that smiting and such?

[Throg]

Originally posted by Ossai
Jmercer
Isn’t current academic though that there were five authors to Genesis?


Is it five now. It is clearly writing committee, hence Eve getting created twice (they need to fire the proof-reading staff.


Just point out that there would have had to be a type of ‘super-evolution’ to populate the world after the flood – especially if the world is only 6000 years old.


God moves in mysterious ways and possibly close to the speed of light. With the time dilation effect, he has literally all the time in the world.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Bikewer
In reading Lost Christianities, it was interesting to learn that some of the early sects maintained that the OT god was some sort of insane, rogue type who created the Earth out of spite and malevolence.
Else why all that smiting and such?

Are we talking about the demiurge? If so he was not actually God, the good perfect God who didn't get involved in dirty materialistic business, he was another God who, like all material things corript. If not then I've just spouted a load of irrelevant rubbish. Sorry.

By the way, I've not come across Lost Christianites. Who is the author?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Ossai

So you’re saying that Adam and Eve already had knowledge of good and evil prior to eating of the fruit. Sorry, but if that were so then why did they suddenly realize that they were naked and covered themselves?


I guess we're going to just end up disagreeing on this point. A child doesn't need to understand the concept of good and evil to understand the concept of "No" from an authority figure. And most children (except for the very, very young) also realize that disobeying a parent (or other authority figure) will get them into trouble. (Time-outs, sit in the corner, sit on the rug, etc.)

Even dogs know when they're not supposed to do something... and when they do it, they act guilty, often hiding until called or coaxed out of their hidey-hole. They may not understand why we don't want them to ... ahem ... perform certain necessary biological functions in the house, for example - but they do understand that we don't want them to do such things once they've been "told" of our "rule".

I certainly hope that A&E were a bit more intelligent than a dog. ;)

However, I think I'm going to post something after this about A&E's status before and after the fruit eating episode... it's something that's always puzzled me, anyway. Maybe a good focused discussion will help clear it up.

Originally posted by Ossai

Again, up until the point where god cursed them, they were immortal and would not have know what death was.


Actually, no - they were NOT immortal. Both you and I have been wrong about this all along. God kicked them out at the end to prevent them from eating from the tree of life, which WOULD have made them immortal. They also supposedly understood sex and procreation, since God commanded them prior to all of this to be fruitful and multiply, etc.

Originally posted by Ossai

Physically adult, mentally it’s unclear as to how mature they were.


See comments above. :)

Originally posted by Ossai

The new testament is where Satan takes on the evil aspect, up until then Satan is merely a stumbling block, used by god to test his followers.


That's certainly one interpretation; my take on it is that the relationship between God and Satan was adversarial, but not openly hostile at the time. Sort of like two countries rattling their sabers, but not shooting yet.

By the time of Christ, however, it appears that things had escalated. Perhaps God simply got tired of Satan playing headgames with Him all the time.

Originally posted by Ossai

Isn’t current academic though that there were five authors to Genesis?


In some circles. And it makes sense to me as well. But frankly, I view most of the bible as storytelling - but with a purpose... and I believe it had many authors.

(edited to correct grammar and because I missed responding to the "immortality" bit.)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Then why was God worried that they would eat from the tree of eternal life and become like the gods?

Remember, that's the reason God kicked them out of the Garden - so that they wouldn't eat from the tree of eternal life, too.

Ah! Thank you for the segway, pg! :)

This has always puzzled me. A&E ate from the tree of knowledge, which gave them an understanding of good and evil. So obviously, they didn't understand the difference between the two prior to this. As a result, their first action was to cover up their genitals. So clearly, seeing sexual organs is considered evil. Procreation isn't, because prior to this, God told A&E to be fruitful and multiple PRIOR to the tree incident.

Genesis from the King James bible
001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.

001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.

001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Now, there's probably more to "good and evil" than seeing someone's sex organs. (At least one would hope so.) Of course, Genesis apparently says otherwise:

Genesis from the King James bible
002:023 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
Man.

002:024 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

002:025 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not
ashamed.


So... things become a bit more clear later on:

Genesis from the King James bible
003:007 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they
were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made
themselves aprons.

003:008 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden
in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves
from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the
garden.

003:009 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where
art thou?

003:010 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

003:011 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou
eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou
shouldest not eat?

003:012 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,
she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

003:013 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou
hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I
did eat.


Oh - and I apologize. God did indeed curse the ground as well as A&E. My bad. :)

Back to nekkid people.

Genesis from the King James bible
003:020 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the
mother of all living.

003:021 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of
skins, and clothed them.

003:022 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,
to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

003:023 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken.

003:024 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the
garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned
every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


Oh, great. Just GREAT!

Evil is knowing you're naked? Or is it being ashamed of it? And knowing you're naked makes you the same as God? Well, that's a pretty low entrance examination criteria, if you ask me!

Comments, anyone? :D

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jmercer
Evil is knowing you're naked? Or is it being ashamed of it? And knowing you're naked makes you the same as God? Well, that's a pretty low entrance examination criteria, if you ask me!

Comments, anyone? :D

It's not just knowing you are naked. It is also living forever.

So that means the thing that makes God a god is that 1) he lives forever, and 2) he knows when he is naked.

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
A child doesn't need to understand the concept of good and evil to understand the concept of "No" from an authority figure. And most children (except for the very, very young) also realize that disobeying a parent (or other authority figure) will get them into trouble. (Time-outs, sit in the corner, sit on the rug, etc.)

Surely a child only learns this by getting into trouble. The whole apple business was a first offence. One strike and you're out.

[jmercer]

Wow... so if I live forever and know when I'm naked, I can control the universe! ;)

[Ossai]

pgwenthold
Then why was God worried that they would eat from the tree of eternal life and become like the gods?
Hey we’re arguing religion here, logic doesn’t enter into it. ;)

Actually I posted that in response to what jmercer wrote.
Anyway - to continue - God didn't curse the land, nor did he literally curse mankind, according to Genesis. Supposedly we cursed ourselves for taking forbidden knowledge in violation of God's command - in other words, just like Satan, Adam and Eve defied God. God then cast Adam and Eve out of paradise and removed their immortality.
But then he posted Actually, no - they were NOT immortal. Both you and I have been wrong about this all along.

Throg
Surely a child only learns this by getting into trouble. The whole apple business was a first offence. One strike and you're out. Exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Unless A&E had been running around the garden doing all sorts of things to get in trouble and god punishing them for each incident, they had nothing to base the order ‘look but don’t eat or else’. They didn’t have experience, and they couldn’t reference others experience.

Ossai

[jmercer]

Oh, yeah, if you're suggesting that the God of Genesis is unfair, etc., heck yes! If Genesis were true, I'd have to go with the idea that He did all of it on purpose... which is a much worse accusation than unfair. :) OTOH, they were only forbidden ONE thing... and were given complete control over everything else. Human nature dictates, of course, that they would eventually want the only thing they couldn't have. ;)

The other thing is that God stated that A&E "have become like us" to (I assume) the heavenly host. Then he kicked them out so they wouldn't also become immortal. So I guess immortality isn't needed to be Godlike - just knowledge.

And just to be clear:

1) I was wrong about the cursed earth
2) We were both wrong about A&E's immortality status

That'll larn me!:D

[Throg]

Originally posted by Ossai
pgwenthold
Exactly what I’ve been trying to say.
Ossai

Yes, I know. I let you do all the hard work then thought I'd jump on one little sentence to try and make myself look clever. I'll probably do it again in a page or two.

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer


The other thing is that God stated that A&E "have become like us" to (I assume) the heavenly host. Then he kicked them out so they wouldn't also become immortal. So I guess immortality isn't needed to be Godlike - just knowledge.


I take "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" to mean that man has become as one of the heavenly host - and possibly the Serpent, who is, I think, still present - only insofar as he knows good and evil. I don't think it is meant to imply that man had achieved godhood, angelhood or serpenthood.

[jmercer]

Granted - which is why I specified "Godlike" rather than "Godhood". :)

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
Granted - which is why I specified "Godlike" rather than "Godhood". :)

I think even that is an inference too far given the context. He does after all say "like unto us" rather than "like unto me". If I were in a group of people who make unnecessary references to Spiderman and I said to some person who was not a member of the group "hey you're just like us", I would be suggesting that they made unnecessary references to Spiderman, not that they were Throglike.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Throg
I think even that is an inference too far given the context. He does after all say "like unto us" rather than "like unto me". If I were in a group of people who make unnecessary references to Spiderman and I said to some person who was not a member of the group "hey you're just like us", I would be suggesting that they made unnecessary references to Spiderman, not that they were Throglike.

Good point... still, there's some pretty strong wording before this that kind of points in that direction. "Made in his own image", sorta thing.

However, your POV on this is just as likely as mine. :) In which case, one wonders what the danger to God was by having mankind able to tell the difference between Good and Evil. Hmm....

[Throg]

Originally posted by jmercer
In which case, one wonders what the danger to God was by having mankind able to tell the difference between Good and Evil. Hmm....

Perhaps like many selfish parents he wanted them to keep their childish innocence forever. Giggly babies are much more fun than rebelious teenagers.

[chococat0116]

I am really glad that you asked this question. It is wonderful that you are exploring spirituality. Jesus is perfect (without sin). Jesus died on the cross to offer us forgiveness of our sins. The only way to get to heaven before Jesus’ sacrifice was to be perfect. Sins are what keep us from heaven. All humans are sinful by nature and sin on a daily basis. If we believe in Jesus, repent, and ask for forgiveness we will be forgiven of our sins. Jesus’ death eliminates the barrier between us and God and saves us from an eternity in Hell. I hope this helps, if not I will try to better explain it. Also, I strongly encourage you read these pieces of scripture, they might help you with your question: 1 Peter 1:18-21, 1 Peter 2:22-25, 1 John 1:5-2:2, Ephesians 5:2, Romans 3:21-27, Mark 10:45, 1 Peter 2:22-25, Revelation 5:9, 1 Timothy 2:5,6, John 10:11,14-18, Isaiah 53:4-12. Also, reading the words in red in the bible (Jesus’ words) is a good place to start exploring. I will keep you in my prayers. I hope God leads you to Him and shows you His love.

[ImaginalDisc]

I am really glad that you asked this question. It is wonderful that you are exploring spirituality. Jesus is perfect (without sin). Jesus died on the cross to offer us forgiveness of our sins. The only way to get to heaven before Jesus’ sacrifice was to be perfect. Sins are what keep us from heaven. All humans are sinful by nature and sin on a daily basis. If we believe in Jesus, repent, and ask for forgiveness we will be forgiven of our sins. Jesus’ death eliminates the barrier between us and God and saves us from an eternity in Hell. I hope this helps, if not I will try to better explain it. Also, I strongly encourage you read these pieces of scripture, they might help you with your question: 1 Peter 1:18-21, 1 Peter 2:22-25, 1 John 1:5-2:2, Ephesians 5:2, Romans 3:21-27, Mark 10:45, 1 Peter 2:22-25, Revelation 5:9, 1 Timothy 2:5,6, John 10:11,14-18, Isaiah 53:4-12. Also, reading the words in red in the bible (Jesus’ words) is a good place to start exploring. I will keep you in my prayers. I hope God leads you to Him and shows you His love.

That's really convoluted. Boy, I'm sure glad God figured out a way to set it up so we could play with puppies and eat cake in his magical happy land in the sky, but I have just one question.

Why couldn't god just forgive us?

[Paulhoff]

Jesus is perfect (without sin).
Well there is no sin, so the so-called perfect thing means nothing.

Paul

:) :) :)

[chococat0116]

God will forgive us once we believe in Jesus, ask for forgiveness, and repent. God wants us to repent so that we recognize our sins which will cause us to strive to be less sinful. What God is asking of us is not very much at all, considering the gift he is offering to us (eternal life in Heaven). Heaven is a real place and God is willing to let us in if we believe in Jesus and try to obey his commands.

[pgwenthold]

God will forgive us once we believe in Jesus, ask for forgiveness, and repent. God wants us to repent so that we recognize our sins which will cause us to strive to be less sinful. What God is asking of us is not very much at all, considering the gift he is offering to us (eternal life in Heaven). Heaven is a real place and God is willing to let us in if we believe in Jesus and try to obey his commands.

Nice and all, but I don't see the answer to the question that was asked above:

Why couldn't God just forgive us?

[Foster Zygote]

At least we know that threads can come back from the dead.

God will forgive us once we believe in Jesus, ask for forgiveness, and repent. God wants us to repent so that we recognize our sins which will cause us to strive to be less sinful. What God is asking of us is not very much at all, considering the gift he is offering to us (eternal life in Heaven). Heaven is a real place and God is willing to let us in if we believe in Jesus and try to obey his commands.

This God person will also, according to most Christians, condemn the vast majority of his beloved children to eternal damnation for the crime of not believing in Jesus as their savior. This despite the fact that most of these damned people were simply doing what seemed natural and right to them. A person's belief in, for example, Hinduism is as normal and natural to someone growing up in a Hindu community as Christianity is to someone growing up in a Christian community. Why doesn't your god make it plain to people? Why doesn't he appear in the sky and say "Hi, it's me. Look I just wanted you to know that Christianity is the correct religion. Specifically X version of Christianity. Now you're all really despicable for existing as I made you, but if you want my forgiveness and a free ticket to eternal bliss you need to do the following..."?

[articulett]

At least we know that threads can come back from the dead.



This thread was resurrected for your sins.

[Beerina]

I am really glad that you asked this question. It is wonderful that you are exploring spirituality. Jesus is perfect (without sin). Jesus died on the cross to offer us forgiveness of our sins. The only way to get to heaven before Jesus’ sacrifice was to be perfect.

Hold on just a sec.

Is leaving people dead because they have minor flaws the behavior of a perfectly good being?

Does "perfection" entail helping people, when the reward for this involves going to a realm where helping the poor and sick are 100% useless skills and attitudes?

Sins are what keep us from heaven. All humans are sinful by nature and sin on a daily basis. If we believe in Jesus, repent, and ask for forgiveness we will be forgiven of our sins. Jesus’ death eliminates the barrier between us and God and saves us from an eternity in Hell.

Being dead for ever and ever sounds a darn sight better than being resurrected and then cast into Hell for ever and ever.

Is this the behavior of a creature that can even remotely be called "good"?

Dawkins suggests (after many before, like Mark Twain) that God, as such, is the most evil fictional character ever created. I suggest he only just misses being the worst character possible, only in that he will torture, for ever and ever, merely almost everybody who ever lived, rather than everybody who ever lived.

To Christians: Please design a more evil fictional character than a being who tortures almost everybody who ever lives, for ever and ever.

[Paulhoff]

God will forgive us once we believe in Jesus, ask for forgiveness, and repent. God wants us to repent so that we recognize our sins which will cause us to strive to be less sinful. What God is asking of us is not very much at all, considering the gift he is offering to us (eternal life in Heaven). Heaven is a real place and God is willing to let us in if we believe in Jesus and try to obey his commands.
Which god, there are so many, everyone I know has a different one, no two people agree all everything about their so-called god.

Also your so-called god makes beings that are imperfect, knows that they are imperfect, so-called knows what they are going to do anyway, so why doesn't he just cut to the chase and just dump us all into hell or heaven and get it all done with.

Paul

:) :) :)

[six7s]

God wants us to repent

@ chococat0116:

On a skeptics forum, it is expected that extraordinary claims are supported by extraordinarily detailed evidence

Please provide evidence for:

A god

[Alice Shortcake]

Come on, kurious kathy - a believer is in urgent need of your moral support! :D

[Darth Rotor]

Nice and all, but I don't see the answer to the question that was asked above:

Why couldn't God just forgive us?
Why don't you ask God? I don't think Choco poster is going to give you a satisfactory answer.

Of course, you could grok that He didn't feel like doing it that way, since if He did, He would have.

Watcha gonna do, kick His ass because you disagree with His method?

Perhaps not. You seem a reasonable person.

Not believe in Him? OK, your choice.

Why does your opinion of how things "ought to be done" matter to a deity? (Assumed, for purposes of discussion, to be real rather than imaginary.) As I understand the general principle, communication tends to be one way in that regard, on "how it ought to be."

So, if your distaste for the method leads you to rejecting said deity, what's the big deal?

DR

[ChristineR]

Hold on just a sec.

Is leaving people dead because they have minor flaws the behavior of a perfectly good being?

Does "perfection" entail helping people, when the reward for this involves going to a realm where helping the poor and sick are 100% useless skills and attitudes?



Being dead for ever and ever sounds a darn sight better than being resurrected and then cast into Hell for ever and ever.

Is this the behavior of a creature that can even remotely be called "good"?

Dawkins suggests (after many before, like Mark Twain) that God, as such, is the most evil fictional character ever created. I suggest he only just misses being the worst character possible, only in that he will torture, for ever and ever, merely almost everybody who ever lived, rather than everybody who ever lived.

To Christians: Please design a more evil fictional character than a being who tortures almost everybody who ever lives, for ever and ever.

A being who has sex with almost everybody who ever lives, forever and ever.

Presumably not the kind of guy who asks if you'd like to try something else next time, either.

[Darth Rotor]

A being who has sex with almost everybody who ever lives, forever and ever.

Presumably not the kind of guy who asks if you'd like to try something else next time, either.

If said being was incredibly good at this sex thing, and good at getting all partners off rioutously during said sex events, I think your opinion of the 'evil' aspect of said being might be favorable.

DR

[ChristineR]

If said being was incredibly good at this sex thing, and good at getting all partners off rioutously during said sex events, I think your opinion of the 'evil' aspect of said being might be favorable.

DR

No, no he's a slam-bam, thank you m'am (or sir) kind of a guy. Remember, he's fictional, so I can make him as evil as I want.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

It's quite simple.

Humans are not that bright. What I mean is that mankind is still heavily dependent upon beliefs. Beliefs are not directly connected to truths. This therefore leaves a GAP between man and complete truths. This also means that truth is beyond the limited capacity of a belief, and therefore truth is beyond belief.

Thus this leaves a door open for the Satan character to deceive mankind and direct them in the wrong directions, the negative directions.

And so the poor Jesus character has to come to this earth and protect the truth that Satan wished to bury permanently beyond man's reach. Jesus has this truth upon his shoulders. Call it a huge burden, or a huge letter " t " that he always has upon his shoulders. Satan keeps trying to destroy Jesus and the truth that he carries. But Jesus even when knocked down, must get back up onto his feet and support that truth once again.

He is even willing to give his life rather than give in to the destruction of truths, no matter what this Satan character does to him.

He defends the truth.

As the result of this, the axis of reality, which includes within it all of mankind, is kept pointing toward truths rather than toward lies and deceit.

Mankind is therefore kept mostly in line with truths, rather than Satan having flipped everything into the opposite direction, and to then take advantage of mankind to favor himself.

As I said, the cross itself represent the letter " t " for truth.

See end of the bible code web page for verification. CLICK HERE (http://www.outersecrets.com/real/bible_numbers3.htm)

[ImaginalDisc]

It's quite simple.

Humans are not that bright. What I mean is that mankind is still heavily dependent upon beliefs. Beliefs are not directly connected to truths. This therefore leaves a GAP between man and complete truths. This also means that truth is beyond the limited capacity of a belief, and therefore truth is beyond belief.

Thus this leaves a door open for the Satan character to deceive mankind and direct them in the wrong directions, the negative directions.

And so the poor Jesus character has to come to this earth and protect the truth that Satan wished to bury permanently beyond man's reach. Jesus has this truth upon his shoulders. Call it a huge burden, or a huge letter " t " that he always has upon his shoulders. Satan keeps trying to destroy Jesus and the truth that he carries. But Jesus even when knocked down, must get back up onto his feet and support that truth once again.

He is even willing to give his life rather than give in to the destruction of truths, no matter what this Satan character does to him.

He defends the truth.

As the result of this, the axis of reality, which includes within it all of mankind, is kept pointing toward truths rather than toward lies and deceit.

Mankind is therefore kept mostly in line with truths, rather than Satan having flipped everything into the opposite direction, and to then take advantage of mankind to favor himself.

As I said, the cross itself represent the letter " t " for truth.

See end of the bible code web page for verification. CLICK HERE (http://www.outersecrets.com/real/bible_numbers3.htm)

Yes, I'm sure the Romans went about crucifying thousands upon thousands of people just to be sure that when they crucified some dirty rabbi in Iudea they were anticipating the development of the English language.

But, I digress. Your argument is that god deliberately made humans incapable of telling Satan's lies from God's truth by keeping out of the business of providing convincing evidence, and thus knowingly condemns billions of people to ceaseless burning torment.

What a great guy!

[Foster Zygote]

As I said, the cross itself represent the letter " t " for truth.

See end of the bible code web page for verification. CLICK HERE (http://www.outersecrets.com/real/bible_numbers3.htm)

I though that "t" was for "turtle".

[Myriad]

Interesting. A whole thread, nearly four whole pages, about how "died for your sins" doesn't make sense. And everyone, skeptics and Christians alike, leaves out one of the most important parts of the equation. It's like asking, what logical sense is there in sitting in a wheeled metal box and pushing on pedals?... without considering that said box contains a motor connected to said wheels and pedals.

The motor, in this case, is the part about eating God.

To understand the importance of this, you have to start way back before Christianity. Start here:

To gain the strength of a bear, kill a bear and eat it.

Got it? It's a simple enough concept, and pretty well documented as a prevalent type of belief (with different details) throughout primitive societies. It's not even completely false: in certain dietary environments, people who regularly eat some extra protein will indeed be stronger than those who do not.

Note that the killing part is largely pragmatic. It doesn't take much experimentation to discover the unwisdom of attempting to eat a bear's flesh while it's still alive. Nonetheless, the killing becomes an integral part of the practice. For the strength to pass to you, the bear has to give it up in death.

Naturally no one believes such nonsense today. No; kids prefer to eat breakfast cereals shaped like their favorite superheroes (or their logos) because it's fun. And people swallow remedies that mimick an illness to "energize" their bodies' ability to fight that illness because of well-established homeopathic principles. And what Christians (literally) swallow in chuch comes from... well, let's look at that.

(I'm leaving out a few steps, about how some people who eat the bear, instead of gaining strength, get struck down by terrible diseases curses, showing that one must be careful to be worthy of eating the bear in the eyes of the bear-spirit or bear-god, and the repercussions of that. Fast forward: from this and other roots, religion gets varied and complicated. But in a good many of those religions, you will still find people eating something sacred, and gaining some kind of power or protection thereby.)

So, we come to a banquet hall in Jerusalem circa AD 29, where thirteen men, one of them reuptedly God, sat down (all on the same side of the table, according to one well-known depiction) to a meal.

Even without the reputed physical presence of God at the table, this was no ordinary meal. It was a Passover Seder, a profoundly meaningful ritual observance focusing (to greatly simplify, with apologies to the Jewish faith) on the remembrance of two things that happened thousands of years (even then) ago: a nation's faithful being spared a divine deadly threat (the Angel of Death) by having marked their homes with blood, and having been thereby delivered out of slavery by the power of God. Remember these themes. They're going to appear again very soon. (And, according to most Christians, there will be a quiz.)

Then, in the middle of the ritual (which features cups of wine and the breaking of a piece of matzoh, among many other steps), Mr. God departs from the expected "script" in a very strange way:

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.


Fortunately our man-god had explained the meaning of this to the other twelve, in advance, in Capernaum:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.


Fast forward again over the development of Catholic Church doctrine, which took these tasty morsels and cooked them up into a fusion cusine of faith, sympathetic magic, and necromancy.

The basic idea remains simple.

To gain the purity/sanctity/heaven-ticket of a god, kill a god and eat it.

But the trappings, the practice, have become rather more sophisticated. A human incarnation of God can do what a bear (or even a bear-god) cannot: the magic to assure that His flesh and blood, from a single sacrifice, can be eaten again and again over the centuries.

So, in churches all over the world, Christians gather together and perform this magic spell. The Roman Catholics take it quite literally (officially, at least); the doctrine of transubstantiation maintains that the consecrated bread and wine used in the ritual really, really do turn into the flesh and blood of Christ (while retaining all the outward semblances of bread and wine, so don't bother bringing your mass spectrometers to Mass). Protestants are more inclinded to view the physical bread and wine as symbolic tokens in remembrance of the Christ's sacrifice. But in either case the core magic is that the participant's soul is purified by the act.

What does that mean, exactly? You'll get many different answers, but most of them have connections back to that Passover seder. Christ's blood marks your soul the way the blood of I-forget-what-animal marked the Hebrews' houses in Egypt, and protects you from sin or from Satan or from spiritual death just like the blood on the door lintels protected from the Angel of Death. And Christ's flesh and blood allows the power of God to ransom, redeem, or rescue you from the burden of sin and its consequences, the way the God of Israel brought the Hebrews out of bondage in Egypt.

Because it's magic, especially in Roman Catholicism, the rules of magic must be in force. Most notably, magic doesn't work if the components of the spell are corrupted -- and nothing corrupts magic quite like sex. So, for instance, the priest who performs the spell must be celibate. (It goes without saying that he must be male!) He must also be in good standing with his hierarchy, for he gains his magic juju partly from the sanction of the hierarchy above him. If he's excommunicated, he can still go through the motions, but the magic doesn't work even if the results might outwardly appear exactly the same.

Also, the Christ must be pure as well. To be able to acquire purity by eating him, Christ must obviously have that quality in the first place, as surely as a bear is strong. Hence, the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth.

Protestants don't follow all those doctrines. They seem to think their ritual works anyhow. (The Pope appears to disagree.) Hence, many Protestants have concluded that there is no literal magic in the ritual, but instead it's a way to express belief in the redeeming power of Jesus, and it's that belief rather than the tasty tidbits that does the sin-absolving trick. Not everyone shares that view, and note that they still do the ritual; they still go to the trouble to pass out actual bread and (pathetically) grape juice to the congregation. And, of course, the beliefs in the perfection of Christ must be all the stronger, to make the magic work at even farther remove.

Also keep in mind that relative to the history of Christian practice, the idea that belief alone will bring about redemption through Christ, is (despite some direct scriptural support) a newfangled innovation. As the second passage above spells out, the belief goes back to the body and blood. For most Christains (though there are now many exceptions), "faith in Jesus" is not belief that Jesus existed or was a nice guy or was the son of God, but belief in the redemptive power of the body and blood.

So, to summarize an answer to the OP: By dying, Christ gives up His body and blood to be magically distributed through the world and through time, to people who by consuming it, magically acquire His characteristic sanctified state which is necessary (apparently inherently, in the nature of things, God's omnipotence notwithstanding) to enter into the presence of God.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[six7s]

One fascinating thing about the 'bible code technique', where a seemingly random or arbitrary editing/selection process is applied to a body of text to reveal an altogether different message, is that examples of evidence that illustrate its efficacy can be found all over the place

For example:

To those familiar with binary, the decimal numbers 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc represent a familiar pattern

The decimal number 64 being one of the most recognisable due to its significance today, with 64-bit CPUs being found in a significant number of contemporary personal computers

Taking into consideration the decimal number 3, which represents the trinity to another significant number of humans on the planet, then the decimal number 61 is also significant

The first 61 {64 - 3 (for the trinity)} and last 64 characters in the above post by MINISTERofTRUTH spell out a spookily accurate message:

The first 61 characters:
It's quite simple. Humans are not that bright. What I mean is that

The last 64 characters:

See end of the bible code web page for verification. CLICK HERE

Surely clear and unambiguous evidence of yet another spam from a self-deluding and self-promoting whacko

[skeptic griggsy]

Salvation is the divine protection rackett!

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

How did Jesus dying save us from our sins?

It quite simple. Humans are weak and are like six7s. They can easily be deceived, and they would also give in if exposed to infinite eternal power, even though this would also cause the remaining not so geedy innocent people to suffer for eternity. And so Christ had to protect mankind from this by taking on the devil by himself.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2.htm (http://www.outersecrets.com/real/biblecode2.htm)

[Jeremy]

Interesting. A whole thread, nearly four whole pages, about how "died for your sins" doesn't make sense. And everyone, skeptics and Christians alike, leaves out one of the most important parts of the equation. It's like asking, what logical sense is there in sitting in a wheeled metal box and pushing on pedals?... without considering that said box contains a motor connected to said wheels and pedals.

The motor, in this case, is the part about eating God.

Thank you for posting such an interesting essay on the mythical origins of transubstantiation. Are there any books or articles you would suggest on the subject, or is it original work?

God could only stay dead for three days before coming back, but this thread is much more rot-resistant.

[Paulhoff]

It quite simple. Humans are weak and are like six7s.
And according to you, what bozo made humans.

Paul

:) :) :)

[skeptic griggsy]

That Yeshua had to die reflects irrationality.We have no need of such salvation whatsoever! That refelcts the divine protection rackett!
Rather we try to amend our errors. We ask for human forgivness as divine is irrelevant and non-existent.
We are not sinners nor saints. As Dr. Albert Ellis notesin "The Myth of Self-Esteem,", we do good and bad things which we evaluate individually but not overall to make us sinners or saints.Furthermore, we err,not sin.The latter is not makiing the mark toward God. But any god is irrelevant, for as Plato shows in the Euthyphro, morality is independent of any god.