Let's imagine that you're given 100% certainty beyond anything attained by faith alone that God exists as per the New Testament and that if you (playing the role of Jesus in this hypothetical scenario) agree to endure three or four days of the most horrific torture and humiliation imaginable, you will afterward spend the rest of eternity in Heaven at the right hand of God. Upon reflecting on the duration of eternity, and how amazing it will most certainly be in Heaven, and how much more amazing it will be to sit in close proximity to God himself, who would turn this offer down? Anyone, and I mean anyone, would start flaying themselves, driving splintering staked through their own forearms, diving into whole robes of thorns with razor wire undergarments in anticipation. Talk about putting the "fun" back in "excruciating pain!"
So my question is, so what's the big deal with Jesus sacrifice? It doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice with a payoff like that. I mean really, this makes trading a pubic hair for all the wealth and power in the world look like a rip-off.
And why should we be impressed that God gave his only begotten son in this way? It seems to me like He just lent him to us for a couple decades so we could torture him to death. Then God gets his boy back, as good as new (or better now that he's got tons of followers and has removed the sins of the world).
So yeah, why all the hubub?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:, sacrifice White Privilege: Destroy economic injustice.
Upon reflecting on the duration of eternity, and how amazing it will most certainly be in Heaven, and how much more amazing it will be to sit in close proximity to God himself, who would turn this offer down?
People don't bother to do "reflecting upon eternity". Quite a number choose to turn the offer down.
I mean really, this makes trading a pubic hair for all the wealth and power in the world look like a rip-off
Exactly. Unfortunately, too many people think that their pubic hair is worth more than all the wealth and power in the world.
People don't bother to do "reflecting upon eternity". Quite a number choose to turn the offer down.
Exactly. Unfortunately, too many people think that their pubic hair is worth more than all the wealth and power in the world.
Rather than assume people with whom you disagree are simply holding an absurd position, I suggest that you try to understand it better.
Not only do we not know whether anything we do in this life will result in an eternity in Heaven, we also don't know whether any particular promise of salvation is deceitful. It could be that Satan or whatever evil anti-deity of your choice has created your entire religion to lure you away from the true and correct religion that could bring you real salvation. Now at first glance, you might consider this an implausible proposition, but this is exactly what is taught by fundamentalist sects of Christianity and Islam about other religions. Are you prepared to say that those others are wrong and that you are right? That the group to which you belong is inherently more attuned to metaphysical mysteries than any other?
Furthermore, if you believe in a God who is "good" by any traditional definition, then it is likely that you also believe this God values the concepts of truth and honesty. Latching on to the first religion you find and proclaiming it to be the truth because you want the reward of salvation it has promised you is a far less honest practice than recognizing:
-that there are many different metaphysical beliefs in this world
-that simply because a belief is the one that you already hold, that doesn't necessarily make it any more likely to be correct than the beliefs that others hold
-that you alone do not possess the faculties to distinguish truth or falsehood from among these countless beliefs, and that only arrogance would lead you to conclude that your own ability to perceive metaphysical truths exceeds that of others
-that emotional experiences can and do mislead many people into believing they have such a capacity, and that you are no less potentially susceptible to such than other people
The honest thing to do is to admit that you simply don't know for sure which if any religion is true. It is my opinion that anyone who fails to do this is either delusional or is stubbornly clinging to beliefs he knows may not be true, for fear that to do otherwise is to breach what is expected of him/her by that belief system.
I think you see where I'm going with this...magic beans might be awesome, but don't trade your cow for them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Horseshoe Hermit »
Karma doesn't exist. You can't depend on it. If you count on it for justice or catharsis, you will find that you have placed your emotions on very unstable ground; and you will either repeat your disappointment in society over and over, or you will engage in a persistent delusion to protect yourself from that feeling.
Talk about putting the "fun" back in "excruciating pain!"
I take it you've never experienced truly excruciating pain. We're tied to a body that makes truly excruciating pain unbearable, and almost a gag reflex to make every attempt to escape.
Anyway, the mystery of the Trinity makes a lot of these kinds of questions hard to answer. I think it's clear, though, from Scripture, that Jesus did not sacrifice himself in anticipation of some reward.
Well first I would say God doesn't exist and it's been an exaggerated story, so Jesus' death doesn't really mean anything at all. You did say though that hypothetically we have 100% proof of God's existance, so I guess I have to change my answer.
I guess the big deal that some christians believe is that Jesus' death keep a lot of people from automatically just going to Hell. His death supposedly made it possible for people to go to heaven again. Altough I have to admit, it's a pretty cliche ending. Jesus sacrifices himself, but he comes back to life again! Good guys win! Kinda corny don't you think? In either case, I am not impressed by Jesus' supposed sacrifice.
Rather than assume people with whom you disagree are simply holding an absurd position, I suggest that you try to understand it better.
If you read the first post, it wasn't me who suggested the absurd position. And, take note, I did not disagree with anything.
Not only do we not know whether anything we do in this life will result in an eternity in Heaven, we also don't know whether any particular promise of salvation is deceitful.
Please read the first post.
given 100% certainty
It could be that Satan or whatever evil anti-deity of your choice has created your entire religion to lure you away from the true and correct religion that could bring you real salvation. Now at first glance, you might consider this an implausible proposition, but this is exactly what is taught by fundamentalist sects of Christianity and Islam about other religions. Are you prepared to say that those others are wrong and that you are right? That the group to which you belong is inherently more attuned to metaphysical mysteries than any other?
Everything in your post is moot given the assumption of the initial post.
In the original post, Christianity is 100% correct. Call it Jack Chick universe if you will.
That means there is no "Satan luring you away from the true and correct religion", just a Satan that is clearly marked as the advesary.
All other sects and Islam is wrong.
The person in said universe is prepared to say that he is right and others are wrong. And, yes, they are more attuned to the metaphysics of the universe.
Furthermore, if you believe in a God who is "good" by any traditional definition, then it is likely that you also believe this God values the concepts of truth and honesty. Latching on to the first religion you find and proclaiming it to be the truth because you want the reward of salvation it has promised you is a far less honest practice than recognizing:
There is no latching involved in the original post. It is either the truth, or not, and that everyone can tell which is what.
-that there are many different metaphysical beliefs in this world
-that simply because a belief is the one that you already hold, that doesn't necessarily make it any more likely to be correct than the beliefs that others hold
-that you alone do not possess the faculties to distinguish truth or falsehood from among these countless beliefs, and that only arrogance would lead you to conclude that your own ability to perceive metaphysical truths exceeds that of others
-that emotional experiences can and do mislead many people into believing they have such a capacity, and that you are no less potentially susceptible to such than other people
Given 100% certainty:
- There are no other metaphysical beliefs in the world. All of them are false.
- This is not a belief I hold. It is truth. All others are wrong.
- Given 100% certainty, yes, people can be be arrogant -- because they're right and everyone else is _knowingly_ holding to to something that is wrong.
- emotional experience is pointless as they do not alter the truth
The honest thing to do is to admit that you simply don't know for sure which if any religion is true. It is my opinion that anyone who fails to do this is either delusional or is stubbornly clinging to beliefs he knows may not be true, for fear that to do otherwise is to breach what is expected of him/her by that belief system.
The honest thing for you to admit is that you did not read the assumptions of the first post.
I think you see where I'm going with this...magic beans might be awesome, but don't trade your cow for them.
Answer this: if you were 100% certain that the beans are 1000x more than the cow, why did you not trade the cow?
Now, tell me, you have a person who is 100% certain that what he believes is true (which, oddly enough, exist in real life). What kind of rationalization would he have to when he sees someone whom he also thinks has 100% certainty do something wrong? It becomes a value judgement -- that errant person _chose_ to do what is more important to him.
Why don't you try answering the first post for yourself instead? Why would a person who is 100% certain of what is right and do something wrong?
Altough I have to admit, it's a pretty cliche ending. Jesus sacrifices himself, but he comes back to life again!
If the 100% certainty clause were excluded, then the answer would be simple -- people don't want to be tortured for the promise of paradise because there is no certainty of the reward.
As for why Jesus sacrifice was impressive -- if he was God, then it would mean that he gave up his cushy existance to be tortured for 30 odd years for the sake of a couple of billion souls, a lot of which are ungrateful. Sure, he's brought back to life, but then again does that mean everyone who has died for a (less grand) cause isn't impressive? (After all, if he's right everyone will be brought back to life anyway). How many people are willing to undergo that?
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Is it "why was Jesus' suffering and sacrifice considered to be impressive" or "why was it necessary to abrogate the sins of humanity?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
If you read the first post, it wasn't me who suggested the absurd position...
Quote from BenGreen »
given 100% certainty
Everything in your post is moot given the assumption of the initial post.
In the original post, Christianity is 100% correct. Call it Jack Chick universe if you will.
This is not quite a correct interpretation of the given assumption. The complete quote is "your given 100% certainty...." This makes your point about people turning down an enticing offer of torture and death while misjudging the worth of their pubic hair invalid because we're not assuming that those other people have any certainty at all, just you. As Mad Mat said, the reason why people turn down the offer isn't because of a flaw in their reasoning or something, but rather because they don't have the certainty that we're assuming you do. It's also not assumed that the offer even applies to them. I mean, not just anyone would've been allowed to say, "no, it's okay Jesus, I'll go in for the flagellation and crusifixion, you hang back." That wasn't an option.
Quote from Extremestan »
I take it you've never experienced truly excruciating pain. We're tied to a body that makes truly excruciating pain unbearable, and almost a gag reflex to make every attempt to escape.
You're right, I haven't, but I'm well aware of the body's aversion to it. That is however, besides the point because you're not in excruciating pain when you're being asked to make the decision, and once you've made the decision, it's too late to back out, you're stuck with the three days of torture followed by eternity in heaven whether you want it or not. And regardless, 100% beyond faith certainty that you're about to spend eternity in the best possible place of the best possible place would probably help you "roll with the barbed lashes lacerating your groin" so to speak. I'm sure that if the situation was that you were to be tortured a little bit, and then asked if you wanted to continue for three days, blah blah, or stop, it'd be a much harder choice. But that's a different scenario.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symtap:, sacrifice White Privilege: Destroy economic injustice.
This is not quite a correct interpretation of the given assumption. The complete quote is "your given 100% certainty...." This makes your point about people turning down an enticing offer of torture and death while misjudging the worth of their pubic hair invalid because we're not assuming that those other people have any certainty at all, just you.
You also said this:
Upon reflecting on the duration of eternity, and how amazing it will most certainly be in Heaven, and how much more amazing it will be to sit in close proximity to God himself, who would turn this offer down?
This means that the person who is turning down the offer also has been given the choice and have, in fact, turned it down. You were asking why, and I have given the answer: some people choose to. Even if Moses came down and told people how to part their hair, some will still choose not to.
As Mad Mat said, the reason why people turn down the offer isn't because of a flaw in their reasoning or something, but rather because they don't have the certainty that we're assuming you do. It's also not assumed that the offer even applies to them.
I mean, not just anyone would've been allowed to say, "no, it's okay Jesus, I'll go in for the flagellation and crusifixion, you hang back." That wasn't an option.
You gave that option in the intial post:
Anyone, and I mean anyone, would start flaying themselves, driving splintering staked through their own forearms, diving into whole robes of thorns with razor wire undergarments in anticipation.
This would mean that some people had the option to flay themselves, but haven't. You are now asking "why".
And, assuming that Person A knows for certain that Person B is making a mistake (for whatever reason), my first post still stands:
Some people will turn down the offer. They will give higher value to some things than others. Even christianity recognizes this "absurd position" -- gaining the world but losing you soul and all that. Given that existence on earth is fleeting while eternity is a rather long time, "gaining the world" is nothing more than pubic hair.
In any case, its obvious the JCricket's response to my post was a matter of " mondu thinks that non-christians are morons, and only christians are correct ones; what narrow-minded religious bigot" when in fact I'm only saying "Well, if Person A sees Person B making an obvious mistake, what is does Person A think Person B used as a rationale?"
And in that, my answer stands: Person A (who is 100% certain) would likely think that Person B is giving more value to something else than eternity. Smart choice? Like not, in Person A's viewpoint, but then Person A has always considered people who do no agree with him, well, wrong (or, at best, quite mistaken/misinformed), and person B's choice to choose the wrong thing doesn't really surprise him.
As Mad Mat said, the reason why people turn down the offer isn't because of a flaw in their reasoning or something, but rather because they don't have the certainty that we're assuming you do. It's also not assumed that the offer even applies to them.
Mad Mat also said this:
I think about anyone with brains would do so
In Person A's viewpoint, not many people have that kind of brains, since that is the only rationale he can possibly make for Person B to make the wrong choice.
To be fair, Person C (who is 100% that Person A is wrong) thinks the same thing about Person A -- someone who is willing to undergo suffering for no reward at all is pretty dumb.
In regards to the OP, I think you've have to take a deep look at the nature of who Jesus was, which, of course, can bring us into the much heated (at least among Christians I'e talked to) debate about whether He is God or not, or at least, how much he was God and how much he was human.
I'd say that, Him probably being 100% certain that the reward was great would probably be the only way that he was gonna do what He was gonna do.
Personally, I'm not troubled too much by the whole premise though. I believe that the whole sacrifice was for our benefit, not to save us from some place called 'hell' (of which I'd like to debate the existence of (or at least definition of) anyways), but in order to give us hope so we can persevere through adversity. Cause I believe that, if He exists, He's got everything planned out anywho. I mean, how cruel would it be to leave to salvation of people up to chance or luck?
If someone claims that they are an unlynchable, unkillable, octa-voter, with 4 daykills and 6 doc-protects, then technically lynching that person solely based on his claim would be gaming the mod, but I would be just fine doing that.
You're right, I haven't, but I'm well aware of the body's aversion to it. That is however, besides the point because you're not in excruciating pain when you're being asked to make the decision, and once you've made the decision, it's too late to back out, you're stuck with the three days of torture followed by eternity in heaven whether you want it or not. And regardless, 100% beyond faith certainty that you're about to spend eternity in the best possible place of the best possible place would probably help you "roll with the barbed lashes lacerating your groin" so to speak. I'm sure that if the situation was that you were to be tortured a little bit, and then asked if you wanted to continue for three days, blah blah, or stop, it'd be a much harder choice. But that's a different scenario.
Huh. I dunno. Sure, another human could willingly become a martyr. Peter did it, for instance; was crucified upside-down.
why, you ask? I'll answer that, but first, I have to point some things out, that you must not know anything about the christian faith. theres alot more to it than "Jesus died, were all saved."
Quote from BenGreen »
Upon reflecting on the duration of eternity, and how amazing it will most certainly be in Heaven, and how much more amazing it will be to sit in close proximity to God himself, who would turn this offer down? Anyone, and I mean anyone, would start flaying themselves, driving splintering staked through their own forearms, diving into whole robes of thorns with razor wire undergarments in anticipation.
there is a problem with that. if they did that, they would go to hell anyways, seeing as greed is one of the seven deadly sins, and I certainly see that as beeing greedy.
Quote from dre2dee2 »
Well first I would say God doesn't exist and it's been an exaggerated story, so Jesus' death doesn't really mean anything at all.
I hear this from aethiest all the time.."do you have proof god exist? well, hmmm?" and I respond like this..."do you have proof god doesn't exist?" and the answer is no, it comes down to faith, not fact. you should never assume something, as you end up making an ass of yourself.
Furthermore, I must say that the picture shown in post 2 is WAYYYY off from the christian religion. Jesus is not the same as god, just as the anti-christ is not the same as Satan. they are the "sons"( I use this term losely, as acording to the bible we are all the sons of god.) of those beings.
one other flawed thing, is that you think Jesus killed himself, well he didn't. if I remember correctly, the Jewish people wanted him crucified, as they seen him as a false prophet. Pontus Pilot, the Roman Leader of Jeruselem, did not want to Crucify Jesus, but also did not want a riot, so he condemned jesus to a crucifiction. Jesus just didn't "throw himself" onto the cross and "sling" a crown of thorns on his head.
now, this is where I answer your question.
Did it ever occur to you that God sent his only son down to the people of earth to show that if you Believe in god, and ask for forgiveness for your sins, then you will go to heaven, and have eternal life.
"For god so loved the world, he gave his only begotton son, and who soever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life"-Jon 3:16.
Now, please don't confuse me with those christians who believe what they hear, and are so stubborn, that they won't listen to any body elses theorys, because as of right now, thats all it is is a theory, as is aethiesim. I also have different views on some things in the bible(such as no eating pork), but I believe that god does exist, and that Jesus died for a reason.
there is a problem with that. if they did that, they would go to hell anyways, seeing as greed is one of the seven deadly sins, and I certainly see that as beeing greedy.
Then wouldn't that make a lot of Christians greedy for the same reason? How many time I have heard in church "Believe in God and you will be saved from the fiery pits of hell (or insert any other description of an eternal place of doom)" How many people are 'saved' merely because they don't want to go to hell? How is that any different from torturing oneself in order to live eternally?
one other flawed thing, is that you think Jesus killed himself, well he didn't. if I remember correctly, the Jewish people wanted him crucified, as they seen him as a false prophet. Pontus Pilot, the Roman Leader of Jeruselem, did not want to Crucify Jesus, but also did not want a riot, so he condemned jesus to a crucifiction. Jesus just didn't "throw himself" onto the cross and "sling" a crown of thorns on his head.
That's sort of missing the point, though. Jesus could easily have done something about it if He wanted to...but He didn't. He might not have 'actively' killed himself, but it's not like He didn't know what was going to happen...
now, this is where I answer your question.
Did it ever occur to you that God sent his only son down to the people of earth to show that if you Believe in god, and ask for forgiveness for your sins, then you will go to heaven, and have eternal life.
"For god so loved the world, he gave his only begotton son, and who soever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life"-Jon 3:16.
It might answer the question in a way, but it isn't a very descriptive answer, and doesn't really do much to specifically answer the questions that were originally posed at the beginning of the thread.
If someone claims that they are an unlynchable, unkillable, octa-voter, with 4 daykills and 6 doc-protects, then technically lynching that person solely based on his claim would be gaming the mod, but I would be just fine doing that.
Since I don't beleive in the supernatural, nor do I think that the Jesus of the bible was a real historical figure, my short answer is I don't think there is a big deal.
Merged double post.
I hear this from aethiest all the time.."do you have proof god exist? well, hmmm?" and I respond like this..."do you have proof god doesn't exist?" and the answer is no, it comes down to faith, not fact. you should never assume something, as you end up making an ass of yourself.
Even if I wasn't an atheist I would look at you like you were speaking another language if you presented that argument. It doesn't "come down to faith". If you assert that any deity exists if someone says " I don't believe you." You do not stand on equal footing on that argument. You could claim invisible, massless, six foot tall elves exist. No one is obliged out of "faith" or the desire to not assume to agree with you. You have to show why your ascertation should be considered believable. If you can't, don't be suprised if people don't agree with you. I don't feel like getting into a huge religious debate, but Christianity has no more properly defined in intelligable terms what a "god" is nor have they shown any more than other religions, wether still in practice or not, that it's supernatural claims are any more a reality then it's enemies.
As quant as it was to live in a world of manticores, where people turn to salt pillars, bears tear children apart at the commands of deities, angels massacre babies, and jealous omnipotent beings drown entire worlds was. We thankfully don't (mostly) live in a world where the boogie man is taken at face value.
Because the premise of your post is wrong. Jesus didn't have a guarantee. He tought he would burn the rest of eternity in hell, but save all other people.
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Because the premise of your post is wrong. Jesus didn't have a guarantee. He tought he would burn the rest of eternity in hell, but save all other people.
Because the premise of your post is wrong. Jesus didn't have a guarantee. He tought he would burn the rest of eternity in hell, but save all other people.
Actually, he repeatedly mentioned "the temple" being destroyed and rebuilt in a three day span. If you follow the teachings of Christ throughout the Bible, you can see that he is teaching that he himself is the temple. So, yes, he did know he would not spend eternity in hell.
Let's imagine that you're given 100% certainty beyond anything attained by faith alone that God exists as per the New Testament and that if you (playing the role of Jesus in this hypothetical scenario) agree to endure three or four days of the most horrific torture and humiliation imaginable, you will afterward spend the rest of eternity in Heaven at the right hand of God.
Upon reflecting on the duration of eternity, and how amazing it will most certainly be in Heaven, and how much more amazing it will be to sit in close proximity to God himself, who would turn this offer down?
If God exists exactly as described by the New Testament, then this is not even close to being what happened and the question becomes pointless. The New Testament gives us many ideas about God and Jesus, but nowhere among them is the idea that Jesus - second person of the trinity - had to be "bribed" into doing what he did, much less be told to do it by someone else - not least because that someone else was himself (more on this below).
However, taking your challenge at its inaccurate word, there are nevertheless some things to consider.
First, on a purely narrative level, the idea of the crucifixion is not so much for the benefit of God as it is for the beneft of Man. In subjecting the most honorable man in existence to the most shameful of degradations possible (for the world was an agonistic one, and crucifixion was as low as you could get), the race of man finally got to kill the God they hated so. Three days later they discovered to their delighted horror that the thing couldn't be done, and the rest, as we have seen, followed.
Next, it is worth noting that the seeming insignificance of three days compared to eternity is exactly what makes it potent. Jesus very much lived his life as a sort of template for his followers and their students to emulate. It is not for nothing that his sermons are laced with sentiments to the effect of "do as I have done" and "do this in remembrance of me." With regard to his crucifixion, then, we may see a parallel in his temptation. Asking the question, "could Satan have actually succeeded in tempting Jesus," the answer is simply "no." What, then, was the point? To demonstrate the futile irrelevancy of Satan to the Christ-like human. What, then, was the point of the three days in Hell? To demonstrate the futile irrelevancy of death to those who would embrace the life everlasting. That "so what" factor is actually essential rather than some sort of absent-minded flaw.
That the Christ himself did this is doubly impressive because it is not typically God's business to go about humbling himself. If I may say so without seeming flippant (for the circumstances are different), we may compare it to Henry II's ragged pilgrimage and flogging in atonement for the death of Becket.
So, three things, then:
1. Demonstrates the futility of death for the righteous
2. Demonstrates the futility of man's railing against his God
3. Instance of God doing something unprecedented and neat
Anyone, and I mean anyone, would start flaying themselves, driving splintering staked through their own forearms, diving into whole robes of thorns with razor wire undergarments in anticipation. Talk about putting the "fun" back in "excruciating pain!"
You know, you can say that with great comfort in the modern west, where capitalism and individualism have set us on guard for always getting "the best deal" when we can. In the Ancient Near East, however, a land whose customs are divorced from our own by considerable degrees, it is not likely that many people at all would have taken this deal.
(Here I am discussing the real world, not the weird fictional world you were relying on to make your point)
For the Jews, there would be a number of things against the proposition. First among them was the fact that this Jesus was a recognized heretic - likely, in fact, a demoniac. His claims could not be trusted, and his miracles (which contemporary Jewish sources did not dispute, intriguingly) were the result of dark powers rather than divine might. Even if it were not Jesus himself, but rather God, delivering this information to a given Jew by way of a dream, sign, or some other revelation, there's no reason to think that the man in question would have trusted this information. The great romance of the tribes of Israel is studded with countless instances of God's chosen people being lured away by false promises, easier gods and "get [endowed in some way] quick" schemes. Impatience was a frequent problem, and one that the Jewish people had long ago and with perfect rectitude come to suspect.
An observant Jew would quickly note that he could be quite well assured of being eventually "clasped to the bosom of Abraham" by simply upholding the Law as he had been doing rather than taking a faster but exceedingly more painful route. Quite apart even from the pain was the question of personal honor, which was of monumental significance in the Ancient Near East (it being an agonistic culture). Whatever one's internal state of righteousness, to die in the same fashion as a slave or thief would have a very real impact upon their righteousness as a whole. The Jewish worldview did not place the same emphasis on internal purity that the later Christian one would, and external factors, even those beyond your control, played an important part.
What would a devout Jew have to gain from such action that he could not already achieve through a life of careful observance?
As for gentiles, there are some similar questions. The same suspicion fell upon Jesus and his ideas, if for more varied reasons than rabbinic opinion, and in fact the ultimately Jewish provenance of his message was itself a source of concern for the more generally pagan world. The same agonistic concerns also applied; crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and its meaning was utterly clear. Finally, much as with the Jews, what incentive would there be for the gentile to forego the reward offered by careful adherence to his own system in favour of what you have rightly called "excruciating pain" at the behest of a god you don't recognize, and who could (for such were the pagan gods) simply be one of your own playing a trick on you?
So my question is, so what's the big deal with Jesus sacrifice? It doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice with a payoff like that. I mean really, this makes trading a pubic hair for all the wealth and power in the world look like a rip-off.
In addition to what I've already said, it makes this exquisite trade-off an attainable reality for the average person. I think that's pretty good.
And why should we be impressed that God gave his only begotten son in this way? It seems to me like He just lent him to us for a couple decades so we could torture him to death. Then God gets his boy back, as good as new (or better now that he's got tons of followers and has removed the sins of the world).
Though you are being needlessly vulgar (this particular thread runs through your post in general), you seem to have answered your own question, more or less, with your final parenthetical comment.
Now, moving on to other considerations:
Quote from Einsteinmonkey »
Image
Framing the issue like that sure makes it sound laughable, but it remains inaccurate. God is not sacrificing himself to anything, least of all himself. What's more, he's not changing any rules beyond the unspoken one that God can not be humbled.
What the crucifixion does is pay a debt that humans can not pay on their own. It takes care of the insult to divine honor that sin constitutes (which insult can not be atoned-for in a non-divine way, unfortunately), and frees up the average person to atone for the substantive rather than the abstract.
Quote from JCricket »
Not only do we not know whether anything we do in this life will result in an eternity in Heaven, we also don't know whether any particular promise of salvation is deceitful. It could be that Satan or whatever evil anti-deity of your choice has created your entire religion to lure you away from the true and correct religion that could bring you real salvation.
Quite so, but this is not within the bounds of the question this thread is asking. Certainty is presupposed by the original post. Mondu's point is worth considering within those bounds, even if it is ultimately dismissed.
Now at first glance, you might consider this an implausible proposition, but this is exactly what is taught by fundamentalist sects of Christianity and Islam about other religions. Are you prepared to say that those others are wrong and that you are right? That the group to which you belong is inherently more attuned to metaphysical mysteries than any other?
Why shouldn't he, if he believes them to be wrong?
Also, why are you insisting he assume a fundamentalist mindset? Is he a fundamentalist? Ought he to be?
Furthermore, if you believe in a God who is "good" by any traditional definition, then it is likely that you also believe this God values the concepts of truth and honesty. Latching on to the first religion you find and proclaiming it to be the truth because you want the reward of salvation it has promised you is a far less honest practice than recognizing:
Again, this is quite a noble sentiment, but it is not applicable to the circumstances provided by the original post. I repeat, certainty is presupposed in this case.
However:
-that there are many different metaphysical beliefs in this world
Multiplicity of potential is meaningless to truth.
-that simply because a belief is the one that you already hold, that doesn't necessarily make it any more likely to be correct than the beliefs that others hold
You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who argues this. Why bother refuting it?
-that you alone do not possess the faculties to distinguish truth or falsehood from among these countless beliefs, and that only arrogance would lead you to conclude that your own ability to perceive metaphysical truths exceeds that of others
This is needlessly inflammatory. To say that not he alone possesses the faculties to distinguish truth and falsehood is true; the practical upshot of your sentiments here, though, is the implicit accusation that he doesn't possess those faculties at all. Otherwise, why criticize his choice?
Furthermore, it is not "only arrogance" that could lead one to suspect the perceptiveness of others. Is it arrogance that makes one feel dubious about a flat-earther? Is it arrogance that makes us incredulous of the scientologist? Of the psychic healer?
And, finally, I hope I don't need to point out that lambasting Mondu for what you seem to be suggesting is his certainty in his own creed (which he has nowhere stated, described, or attested to) seems to be a very real suggestion that his ability to perceive metaphysical truths is less than that of the party correcting him (in this case, you). Is that arrogant?
-that emotional experiences can and do mislead many people into believing they have such a capacity, and that you are no less potentially susceptible to such than other people
I have no objection to this statement beyond the same complaint before that it unfairly (implicitly) characterizes Mondu as being guilty of this.
The honest thing to do is to admit that you simply don't know for sure which if any religion is true.
This is the half-honest thing to do. The honest thing to do is to admit that you don't know for sure which if any religion is true, but that some seem more true than others; perhaps, with study, that "some" could be reduced to "one." That is honest, whatever you may think about it, and it is the province of more religious believers than you seem to give credit to.
To put it plainly, it does not follow from an uncertainty about truth claims that all truth claims are equally valid.
It is my opinion that anyone who fails to do this is either delusional or is stubbornly clinging to beliefs he knows may not be true, for fear that to do otherwise is to breach what is expected of him/her by that belief system.
Your opinion is both uncharitable and unwise. I suggest you revise it, to better your life and that of those around you.
I think you see where I'm going with this...magic beans might be awesome, but don't trade your cow for them.
It's worth noting that in the narrative instance in which this did, in fact, happen, the magic beans really were magic and Jack's life was full of adventure and riches forever thereafter. Just saying is all.
Quote from Dre2Dee2 »
I guess the big deal that some christians believe is that Jesus' death keep a lot of people from automatically just going to Hell.
No; very few Christians believe that. None, actually, beyond certain universalists who are so broad in their thinking that the label "Christian" is useless in describing them.
His death supposedly made it possible for people to go to heaven again.
That's a different idea than that of your first sentence, and is closer to being accurate. People could still "go to Heaven" before, remember; it was just different.
Altough I have to admit, it's a pretty cliche ending. Jesus sacrifices himself, but he comes back to life again! Good guys win! Kinda corny don't you think?
Can we call something a cliche if it predates (or even begins) the cliche it is accused of being? Were Little Goody Two-Shoes or Lord Fauntleroy tropes even when they were new characters?
In either case, I am not impressed by Jesus' supposed sacrifice.
You have provided no reason why this is so. Would you care to elaborate?
Quote from mondu_the_fat »
Christianity is 100% correct. Call it Jack Chick universe if you will.
The two are not equivalent :teach:.
Quote from someguy25 »
there is a problem with that. if they did that, they would go to hell anyways, seeing as greed is one of the seven deadly sins, and I certainly see that as beeing greedy.
Would they? Is longing for perfect communion and submission to God an example of "greed?" Is it really sinful to want what God himself wants us to want?
I hear this from aethiest all the time.."do you have proof god exist? well, hmmm?" and I respond like this..."do you have proof god doesn't exist?" and the answer is no, it comes down to faith, not fact. you should never assume something, as you end up making an ass of yourself.
They don't have to have proof that God doesn't exist. It's up to Christians to furnish evidence for their claims, just as it's up to atheists to furnish evidence for theirs. In this case, however, simple negation is enough. An atheist need not declare, definitively, that no god exists for him to be an atheist. A Christian, by contrast, does need to positively affirm his worldview in order to practice it effectively.
Also, the statement, "it comes down to faith, not fact," is incorrect. If God exists, it is a fact that he exists. If the promises of the Bible are correct, than certain concrete and abstract things will point to this truth, when properly appreciated. It's not a matter of simply deciding, one day, apropos of nothig, "well, I guess he exists." There will be circumstances, many of them tangible and quantifiable (many, admittedly, not) that will lead up to this decision.
The New Testament conception of faith is predicated on evidence. It is not something that you just have for no reason. That would be sheer moonshine.
Furthermore, I must say that the picture shown in post 2 is WAYYYY off from the christian religion.
I suspect that your tenure as Offical Spokesman for the Monolithic Christian Religion will be short-lived
Jesus is not the same as god, just as the anti-christ is not the same as Satan. they are the "sons"( I use this term losely, as acording to the bible we are all the sons of god.) of those beings.
This diverges from any but the most obscure or frankly heretical of conceptions. The position of Jesus Christ within the trinity - that is, the triune singularity that is the One God - is a pretty profound cornerstone of every mainstream Christian conception. The idea you propose is moreover the province of sects like the Gnostics or the Cathari.
one other flawed thing, is that you think Jesus killed himself, well he didn't. if I remember correctly, the Jewish people wanted him crucified, as they seen him as a false prophet. Pontus Pilot, the Roman Leader of Jeruselem, did not want to Crucify Jesus, but also did not want a riot, so he condemned jesus to a crucifiction. Jesus just didn't "throw himself" onto the cross and "sling" a crown of thorns on his head.
I do not think that BenGreen thinks what you think he thinks. He was using hyperbolic language to give spice to his proposition.
now, this is where I answer your question.
Did it ever occur to you that God sent his only son down to the people of earth to show that if you Believe in god, and ask for forgiveness for your sins, then you will go to heaven, and have eternal life.
"For god so loved the world, he gave his only begotton son, and who soever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life"-Jon 3:16.
This is a point worth making.
Now, please don't confuse me with those christians who believe what they hear, and are so stubborn, that they won't listen to any body elses theorys, because as of right now, thats all it is is a theory, as is aethiesim.
Is there not some strange tension between "not believing what you hear" and "being open to hearing other people's theories?"
I also have different views on some things in the bible(such as no eating pork), but I believe that god does exist, and that Jesus died for a reason.
Would you care to elaborate on these different views? I find these things interesting, and would like to hear what you think, if you have a spare moment.
Quote from Gamerz »
How many people are 'saved' merely because they don't want to go to hell? How is that any different from torturing oneself in order to live eternally?
Well, if this salvation doesn't involve torturing oneself, I'd imagine the two propositions differ considerably.
Quote from Frostshock! »
Since I don't beleive in the supernatural, nor do I think that the Jesus of the bible was a real historical figure, my short answer is I don't think there is a big deal.
Then what was the point of this post? It's like going into a "Colts v. Bears: Who will win the Superbowl?" thread and saying, "I don't watch football."
Christianity has no more properly defined in intelligable terms what a "god" is nor have they shown any more than other religions, wether still in practice or not, that it's supernatural claims are any more a reality then it's enemies.
Is it more or less likely that the Apostle Paul suddenly converted to Christianity after having a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus than that Athena sprang, fully-grown and armored, from the head of Zeus, it having just been cracked open like a coconut? Choose your answer carefully.
As quant as it was to live in a world of manticores, where people turn to salt pillars, bears tear children apart at the commands of deities, angels massacre babies, and jealous omnipotent beings drown entire worlds was. We thankfully don't (mostly) live in a world where the boogie man is taken at face value.
Yes, thank goodness we now instead live in a world of chimeras, superviruses and states of terror; where people turn into medicated drones or give themselves over to debauchery and excess; where doctors tear babies apart with the consent and endorsement of the state; where states massacre entire races; and where forward-thinking individuals exercise their right to self-determination by raping the unfortunate. We thankfully don't (mostly) live in a world where the idea of certain sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance no longer holds sway.
Quote from GodoftheGrove »
Because the premise of your post is wrong. Jesus didn't have a guarantee. He tought he would burn the rest of eternity in hell, but save all other people.
Yeah, what Stan said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
Firstly, I started this thread with the secret hope that my juicy bit of Christian pseudo-theological vulgarity would temp Furor, the catastrophic spider of the philosophy forum, from his hidden lair in Canada to render unto me a sensible and articulate answer to my question. Thank you Furor!
Secondly, I checked out your blog and hot damn that viking, giant robot, marching band, guitar duel was flippin' awesome! New Lenlow fan? Check!
Thirdly, the vulgarity. I was attempting humor, it apparently flopped. Hence the olde adage, "know thy audience."
And now, to the topic at hand.
Quote from Mondu_the_Fat »
This means that the person who is turning down the offer also has been given the choice and have, in fact, turned it down.
No, it doesn't. Rather, what the quoted text meant was that the offer is so good that it's absurd to think that anyone would turn it down. I'm not implying that some hypothetical person did in fact turn it down, rather I'm illustrating that no one would.
This would mean that some people had the option to flay themselves, but haven't.
No, what the quoted statement asserts is that everyone would flay themselves.
Quote from extremestan »
Sure, another human could willingly become a martyr.
Especially if that human was guaranteed a spot in Heaven on the right hand of God (or even a part in the Holy Trinity).
Quote from someguy25 »
if they did that, they would go to hell anyways, seeing as greed is one of the seven deadly sins, and I certainly see that as beeing greedy.
A) I think Furor has a good point.
B) Would that mean that your repentance (or whatever) only gets you to Heaven if you didn't do it so you could go to Heaven?
one other flawed thing, is that you think Jesus killed himself, well he didn't.
I don't think Jesus killed himself. As I understand the story, he knew what was coming hence the scene on the Mount of Olives, but he went willingly to his fate. My question asks if anyone in Jesus' position, knowing of the afterlife that awaited them, would do otherwise. Most certainly, they would dread the coming days most terribly, and in the final hours their fright would be nigh overwhelming. But if you knew, as I said, beyond faith, as certainly as you know you yourself exists, that in 3 days you'd be ascending to Heaven for all of eternity, I maintain that to a person, no one would walk away from that doom.
Did it ever occur to you that God sent his only son down to the people of earth to show that if you Believe in god, and ask for forgiveness for your sins, then you will go to heaven, and have eternal life.
I assume you're asking me if I've ever considered that this is in fact what happened, and that if I believe in God and ask for forgiveness for my sins, then I can go to Heaven and have eternal life. While I am willing to acknowledge that it's possible, I have not ever seriously considered it, by which I mean I've never considered it more likely than the Greek Pantheon. What I have considered seriously is the possibility that Jesus, his life, death, resurrection, etc, did actually happen. However I don't believe that his existence and the reality of his "miracles" necessitates the existence of God. Furor may recall some of my musings on the subject from a couple of years ago in a thread that quickly diverged from the main topic of "Extraterrestrials and the Bible," because he'd expressed particular interest in it at the time.
"For god so loved the world, he gave his only begotton son, and who soever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life"-Jon 3:16.
As I said before, it seems to me that God just lent His son out for a little while. So I don't see how that's an indication of God's great love for the world.
Quote from GodoftheGrove »
Because the premise of your post is wrong. Jesus didn't have a guarantee. He tought he would burn the rest of eternity in hell, but save all other people.
If all both Extremestan and Furor have to say to this is, "what," I'm going to hazard a guess that this is incorrect.
The New Testament gives us many ideas about God and Jesus, but nowhere among them is the idea that Jesus - second person of the trinity - had to be "bribed" into doing what he did, much less be told to do it by someone else - not least because that someone else was himself (more on this below).
My question doesn't depend on Jesus being bribed or anyone telling him what to do. All my question depends on are these two basic biblical facts:
Jesus knew his fate ahead of time.
He also knew that after his ordeal he would spend eternity in Heaven.
Unless one of these is incorrect, my assertion that his sacrifice was unimpressive stands (read below for qualifications). Simply put, anyone who understood the terms "Heaven," "eternity," and "guarantee" would, if given the opportunity, suffer pain, humiliation and torture for eternity in Heaven.
First, on a purely narrative level, the idea of the crucifixion is not so much for the benefit of God as it is for the beneft of Man. In subjecting the most honorable man in existence to the most shameful of degradations possible (for the world was an agonistic one, and crucifixion was as low as you could get), the race of man finally got to kill the God they hated so. Three days later they discovered to their delighted horror that the thing couldn't be done, and the rest, as we have seen, followed.
While it's very interesting to consider the symbolic power of the torture of the perfect human as a theatrical element, I don't really see how this bears on my assertion. My point was that Jesus didn't need to be an even remotely good person to go through the ordeal he did because of his knowledge of what would follow.
Next, it is worth noting that the seeming insignificance of three days compared to eternity is exactly what makes it potent. Jesus very much lived his life as a sort of template for his followers and their students to emulate. It is not for nothing that his sermons are laced with sentiments to the effect of "do as I have done" and "do this in remembrance of me." With regard to his crucifixion, then, we may see a parallel in his temptation. Asking the question, "could Satan have actually succeeded in tempting Jesus," the answer is simply "no." What, then, was the point? To demonstrate the futile irrelevancy of Satan to the Christ-like human. What, then, was the point of the three days in Hell? To demonstrate the futile irrelevancy of death to those who would embrace the life everlasting. That "so what" factor is actually essential rather than some sort of absent-minded flaw.
Wow. I think you blew my mind. I see now that the perfect point of his "sacrifice" was that in the context of Christianity (that is to say, Christ-likeness) his sacrifice, and even his time in Hell itself were, as you said, totally irrelevant. His "sacrifice" wasn't a sacrifice at all, but rather a demonstration of how trivial such "sacrifices" are in the face of reality as presented in the Bible. Note that I still don't Believe (with a capital "B") any more than I did before, but I think I can now appreciate the brilliance of the Bible story much more than I did before. Question answered. Thanks.
Lastly, your point that people who were already totally convinced that they were going to Heaven wouldn't take the offer, because as far as they're concerned they've already got the "pay-off" is excellent. Your other point about the cultural significance of the relationship of being perceived as righteous and actual internal righteousness is also interesting and puts the crucifixion in an interesting historical context.
Though you are being needlessly vulgar (this particular thread runs through your post in general), you seem to have answered your own question, more or less, with your final parenthetical comment.
I see your point that the result of Jesus' descention then ascension was that we can all be saved now is interesting but also not really relevant to my point, which was that anyone would've been totally stoked to be in Jesus' shoes.
What the crucifixion does is pay a debt that humans can not pay on their own.
It wasn't much of a price though, is (to belabor it) my point.
Would they? Is longing for perfect communion and submission to God an example of "greed?" Is it really sinful to want what God himself wants us to want?
yes, if you think about it, it is quite Ironic to say the least, but it does have the sound of being greedy.
They don't have to have proof that God doesn't exist. It's up to Christians to furnish evidence for their claims, just as it's up to atheists to furnish evidence for theirs. In this case, however, simple negation is enough. An atheist need not declare, definitively, that no god exists for him to be an atheist. A Christian, by contrast, does need to positively affirm his worldview in order to practice it effectively.
after reading this a few times, I see your point, and I agree, your right.
Also, the statement, "it comes down to faith, not fact," is incorrect. If God exists, it is a fact that he exists. If the promises of the Bible are correct, than certain concrete and abstract things will point to this truth, when properly appreciated. It's not a matter of simply deciding, one day, apropos of nothig, "well, I guess he exists." There will be circumstances, many of them tangible and quantifiable (many, admittedly, not) that will lead up to this decision.
what I meant was, that there is no proof for either arguement, therefore, it must come down to belief of what has happened to provide "evidence" of these events, and ultimately, a persons faith in how those events occured.
This diverges from any but the most obscure or frankly heretical of conceptions. The position of Jesus Christ within the trinity - that is, the triune singularity that is the One God - is a pretty profound cornerstone of every mainstream Christian conception. The idea you propose is moreover the province of sects like the Gnostics or the Cathari.
if my Religious studies are not off, the holy trinity is the father, the son and the holy ghost. God being the father, Jesus being the son, and the holy ghost being jesus' ressurection. Just as the opposite of that would be the devil, the anti-christ and the false Prophet. say that Jesus Christ is god sounds pretty obsurd to me.
Would you care to elaborate on these different views? I find these things interesting, and would like to hear what you think, if you have a spare moment.
I believe the bible, but I also understand that it was written by man, and man is not perfect. So therefore parts of the bible could be wrong and I am open to this, such as I believe that Jesus could have had a child, why couldn't he?
Then what was the point of this post? It's like going into a "Colts v. Bears: Who will win the Superbowl?" thread and saying, "I don't watch football."
The proverbial responce of "There is no big deal." Is a perfectly reasonable reply to a topic with the Subject line that this one has. Wether you like the reply or not is moot.
Quote from Is it more or less likely that the Apostle Paul suddenly converted to Christianity after having a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus than that Athena sprang, fully-grown and armored, from the head of Zeus, it having just been cracked open like a coconut? Choose your answer carefully.[/QUOTE »
A reply which seems to have nothing to do with what you quoted of mine.A variety of people, including the author of Atheism:A Case Against God has written on why attempts by Creation theology to define God so that the word is more than gibberish are full of self contradictions that render the term ultimately meaningless. Hence, " but Christianity has no more properly defined in intelligable terms what a "god" is". As for the latter part. The degrees of what is fantastical in one religion compared to another strips neither of supernatural elements. So comparing their supernatural elements as if either is plausible is rather pointless.
[QUOTE]Yes, thank goodness we now instead live in a world of chimeras, superviruses and states of terror; where people turn into medicated drones or give themselves over to debauchery and excess; where doctors tear babies apart with the consent and endorsement of the state; where states massacre entire races; and where forward-thinking individuals exercise their right to self-determination by raping the unfortunate. We thankfully don't (mostly) live in a world where the idea of certain sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance no longer holds sway.
I'll sum this up. The world still sucks a great deal even if the hows, whys, and whos differ from how the ancient world sucked. Did that whole paragraph really have a point?
- Is a sarifice less valuable when there is a huge payoff?
- Was it imperative for him to sacrifice himself for that payoff?
- if his act is not a sacrifice, but just an act, should we not be happy with the payoff?
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So my question is, so what's the big deal with Jesus sacrifice? It doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice with a payoff like that. I mean really, this makes trading a pubic hair for all the wealth and power in the world look like a rip-off.
And why should we be impressed that God gave his only begotten son in this way? It seems to me like He just lent him to us for a couple decades so we could torture him to death. Then God gets his boy back, as good as new (or better now that he's got tons of followers and has removed the sins of the world).
So yeah, why all the hubub?
Exactly. Unfortunately, too many people think that their pubic hair is worth more than all the wealth and power in the world.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Rather than assume people with whom you disagree are simply holding an absurd position, I suggest that you try to understand it better.
Not only do we not know whether anything we do in this life will result in an eternity in Heaven, we also don't know whether any particular promise of salvation is deceitful. It could be that Satan or whatever evil anti-deity of your choice has created your entire religion to lure you away from the true and correct religion that could bring you real salvation. Now at first glance, you might consider this an implausible proposition, but this is exactly what is taught by fundamentalist sects of Christianity and Islam about other religions. Are you prepared to say that those others are wrong and that you are right? That the group to which you belong is inherently more attuned to metaphysical mysteries than any other?
Furthermore, if you believe in a God who is "good" by any traditional definition, then it is likely that you also believe this God values the concepts of truth and honesty. Latching on to the first religion you find and proclaiming it to be the truth because you want the reward of salvation it has promised you is a far less honest practice than recognizing:
-that there are many different metaphysical beliefs in this world
-that simply because a belief is the one that you already hold, that doesn't necessarily make it any more likely to be correct than the beliefs that others hold
-that you alone do not possess the faculties to distinguish truth or falsehood from among these countless beliefs, and that only arrogance would lead you to conclude that your own ability to perceive metaphysical truths exceeds that of others
-that emotional experiences can and do mislead many people into believing they have such a capacity, and that you are no less potentially susceptible to such than other people
The honest thing to do is to admit that you simply don't know for sure which if any religion is true. It is my opinion that anyone who fails to do this is either delusional or is stubbornly clinging to beliefs he knows may not be true, for fear that to do otherwise is to breach what is expected of him/her by that belief system.
I think you see where I'm going with this...magic beans might be awesome, but don't trade your cow for them.
About Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx:
I take it you've never experienced truly excruciating pain. We're tied to a body that makes truly excruciating pain unbearable, and almost a gag reflex to make every attempt to escape.
Anyway, the mystery of the Trinity makes a lot of these kinds of questions hard to answer. I think it's clear, though, from Scripture, that Jesus did not sacrifice himself in anticipation of some reward.
I guess the big deal that some christians believe is that Jesus' death keep a lot of people from automatically just going to Hell. His death supposedly made it possible for people to go to heaven again. Altough I have to admit, it's a pretty cliche ending. Jesus sacrifices himself, but he comes back to life again! Good guys win! Kinda corny don't you think? In either case, I am not impressed by Jesus' supposed sacrifice.
If you read the first post, it wasn't me who suggested the absurd position. And, take note, I did not disagree with anything.
Please read the first post.
Everything in your post is moot given the assumption of the initial post.
In the original post, Christianity is 100% correct. Call it Jack Chick universe if you will.
That means there is no "Satan luring you away from the true and correct religion", just a Satan that is clearly marked as the advesary.
All other sects and Islam is wrong.
The person in said universe is prepared to say that he is right and others are wrong. And, yes, they are more attuned to the metaphysics of the universe.
There is no latching involved in the original post. It is either the truth, or not, and that everyone can tell which is what.
Given 100% certainty:
- There are no other metaphysical beliefs in the world. All of them are false.
- This is not a belief I hold. It is truth. All others are wrong.
- Given 100% certainty, yes, people can be be arrogant -- because they're right and everyone else is _knowingly_ holding to to something that is wrong.
- emotional experience is pointless as they do not alter the truth
The honest thing for you to admit is that you did not read the assumptions of the first post.
Answer this: if you were 100% certain that the beans are 1000x more than the cow, why did you not trade the cow?
Now, tell me, you have a person who is 100% certain that what he believes is true (which, oddly enough, exist in real life). What kind of rationalization would he have to when he sees someone whom he also thinks has 100% certainty do something wrong? It becomes a value judgement -- that errant person _chose_ to do what is more important to him.
Why don't you try answering the first post for yourself instead? Why would a person who is 100% certain of what is right and do something wrong?
Actually, its a deux ex machina ending.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
As for why Jesus sacrifice was impressive -- if he was God, then it would mean that he gave up his cushy existance to be tortured for 30 odd years for the sake of a couple of billion souls, a lot of which are ungrateful. Sure, he's brought back to life, but then again does that mean everyone who has died for a (less grand) cause isn't impressive? (After all, if he's right everyone will be brought back to life anyway). How many people are willing to undergo that?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Is it "why was Jesus' suffering and sacrifice considered to be impressive" or "why was it necessary to abrogate the sins of humanity?"
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
You're right, I haven't, but I'm well aware of the body's aversion to it. That is however, besides the point because you're not in excruciating pain when you're being asked to make the decision, and once you've made the decision, it's too late to back out, you're stuck with the three days of torture followed by eternity in heaven whether you want it or not. And regardless, 100% beyond faith certainty that you're about to spend eternity in the best possible place of the best possible place would probably help you "roll with the barbed lashes lacerating your groin" so to speak. I'm sure that if the situation was that you were to be tortured a little bit, and then asked if you wanted to continue for three days, blah blah, or stop, it'd be a much harder choice. But that's a different scenario.
You also said this:
This means that the person who is turning down the offer also has been given the choice and have, in fact, turned it down. You were asking why, and I have given the answer: some people choose to. Even if Moses came down and told people how to part their hair, some will still choose not to.
You gave that option in the intial post:
This would mean that some people had the option to flay themselves, but haven't. You are now asking "why".
And, assuming that Person A knows for certain that Person B is making a mistake (for whatever reason), my first post still stands:
Some people will turn down the offer. They will give higher value to some things than others. Even christianity recognizes this "absurd position" -- gaining the world but losing you soul and all that. Given that existence on earth is fleeting while eternity is a rather long time, "gaining the world" is nothing more than pubic hair.
In any case, its obvious the JCricket's response to my post was a matter of " mondu thinks that non-christians are morons, and only christians are correct ones; what narrow-minded religious bigot" when in fact I'm only saying "Well, if Person A sees Person B making an obvious mistake, what is does Person A think Person B used as a rationale?"
And in that, my answer stands: Person A (who is 100% certain) would likely think that Person B is giving more value to something else than eternity. Smart choice? Like not, in Person A's viewpoint, but then Person A has always considered people who do no agree with him, well, wrong (or, at best, quite mistaken/misinformed), and person B's choice to choose the wrong thing doesn't really surprise him.
Mad Mat also said this:
In Person A's viewpoint, not many people have that kind of brains, since that is the only rationale he can possibly make for Person B to make the wrong choice.
To be fair, Person C (who is 100% that Person A is wrong) thinks the same thing about Person A -- someone who is willing to undergo suffering for no reward at all is pretty dumb.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I'd say that, Him probably being 100% certain that the reward was great would probably be the only way that he was gonna do what He was gonna do.
Personally, I'm not troubled too much by the whole premise though. I believe that the whole sacrifice was for our benefit, not to save us from some place called 'hell' (of which I'd like to debate the existence of (or at least definition of) anyways), but in order to give us hope so we can persevere through adversity. Cause I believe that, if He exists, He's got everything planned out anywho. I mean, how cruel would it be to leave to salvation of people up to chance or luck?
Huh. I dunno. Sure, another human could willingly become a martyr. Peter did it, for instance; was crucified upside-down.
there is a problem with that. if they did that, they would go to hell anyways, seeing as greed is one of the seven deadly sins, and I certainly see that as beeing greedy.
I hear this from aethiest all the time.."do you have proof god exist? well, hmmm?" and I respond like this..."do you have proof god doesn't exist?" and the answer is no, it comes down to faith, not fact. you should never assume something, as you end up making an ass of yourself.
Furthermore, I must say that the picture shown in post 2 is WAYYYY off from the christian religion. Jesus is not the same as god, just as the anti-christ is not the same as Satan. they are the "sons"( I use this term losely, as acording to the bible we are all the sons of god.) of those beings.
one other flawed thing, is that you think Jesus killed himself, well he didn't. if I remember correctly, the Jewish people wanted him crucified, as they seen him as a false prophet. Pontus Pilot, the Roman Leader of Jeruselem, did not want to Crucify Jesus, but also did not want a riot, so he condemned jesus to a crucifiction. Jesus just didn't "throw himself" onto the cross and "sling" a crown of thorns on his head.
now, this is where I answer your question.
Did it ever occur to you that God sent his only son down to the people of earth to show that if you Believe in god, and ask for forgiveness for your sins, then you will go to heaven, and have eternal life.
"For god so loved the world, he gave his only begotton son, and who soever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life"-Jon 3:16.
Now, please don't confuse me with those christians who believe what they hear, and are so stubborn, that they won't listen to any body elses theorys, because as of right now, thats all it is is a theory, as is aethiesim. I also have different views on some things in the bible(such as no eating pork), but I believe that god does exist, and that Jesus died for a reason.
Extendo
Read my Blog!
Then wouldn't that make a lot of Christians greedy for the same reason? How many time I have heard in church "Believe in God and you will be saved from the fiery pits of hell (or insert any other description of an eternal place of doom)" How many people are 'saved' merely because they don't want to go to hell? How is that any different from torturing oneself in order to live eternally?
That's sort of missing the point, though. Jesus could easily have done something about it if He wanted to...but He didn't. He might not have 'actively' killed himself, but it's not like He didn't know what was going to happen...
It might answer the question in a way, but it isn't a very descriptive answer, and doesn't really do much to specifically answer the questions that were originally posed at the beginning of the thread.
Merged double post.
Even if I wasn't an atheist I would look at you like you were speaking another language if you presented that argument. It doesn't "come down to faith". If you assert that any deity exists if someone says " I don't believe you." You do not stand on equal footing on that argument. You could claim invisible, massless, six foot tall elves exist. No one is obliged out of "faith" or the desire to not assume to agree with you. You have to show why your ascertation should be considered believable. If you can't, don't be suprised if people don't agree with you. I don't feel like getting into a huge religious debate, but Christianity has no more properly defined in intelligable terms what a "god" is nor have they shown any more than other religions, wether still in practice or not, that it's supernatural claims are any more a reality then it's enemies.
As quant as it was to live in a world of manticores, where people turn to salt pillars, bears tear children apart at the commands of deities, angels massacre babies, and jealous omnipotent beings drown entire worlds was. We thankfully don't (mostly) live in a world where the boogie man is taken at face value.
Because the premise of your post is wrong. Jesus didn't have a guarantee. He tought he would burn the rest of eternity in hell, but save all other people.
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
what
Actually, he repeatedly mentioned "the temple" being destroyed and rebuilt in a three day span. If you follow the teachings of Christ throughout the Bible, you can see that he is teaching that he himself is the temple. So, yes, he did know he would not spend eternity in hell.
Official Deschanel Stalker of The Called
If God exists exactly as described by the New Testament, then this is not even close to being what happened and the question becomes pointless. The New Testament gives us many ideas about God and Jesus, but nowhere among them is the idea that Jesus - second person of the trinity - had to be "bribed" into doing what he did, much less be told to do it by someone else - not least because that someone else was himself (more on this below).
However, taking your challenge at its inaccurate word, there are nevertheless some things to consider.
First, on a purely narrative level, the idea of the crucifixion is not so much for the benefit of God as it is for the beneft of Man. In subjecting the most honorable man in existence to the most shameful of degradations possible (for the world was an agonistic one, and crucifixion was as low as you could get), the race of man finally got to kill the God they hated so. Three days later they discovered to their delighted horror that the thing couldn't be done, and the rest, as we have seen, followed.
Next, it is worth noting that the seeming insignificance of three days compared to eternity is exactly what makes it potent. Jesus very much lived his life as a sort of template for his followers and their students to emulate. It is not for nothing that his sermons are laced with sentiments to the effect of "do as I have done" and "do this in remembrance of me." With regard to his crucifixion, then, we may see a parallel in his temptation. Asking the question, "could Satan have actually succeeded in tempting Jesus," the answer is simply "no." What, then, was the point? To demonstrate the futile irrelevancy of Satan to the Christ-like human. What, then, was the point of the three days in Hell? To demonstrate the futile irrelevancy of death to those who would embrace the life everlasting. That "so what" factor is actually essential rather than some sort of absent-minded flaw.
That the Christ himself did this is doubly impressive because it is not typically God's business to go about humbling himself. If I may say so without seeming flippant (for the circumstances are different), we may compare it to Henry II's ragged pilgrimage and flogging in atonement for the death of Becket.
So, three things, then:
1. Demonstrates the futility of death for the righteous
2. Demonstrates the futility of man's railing against his God
3. Instance of God doing something unprecedented and neat
You know, you can say that with great comfort in the modern west, where capitalism and individualism have set us on guard for always getting "the best deal" when we can. In the Ancient Near East, however, a land whose customs are divorced from our own by considerable degrees, it is not likely that many people at all would have taken this deal.
(Here I am discussing the real world, not the weird fictional world you were relying on to make your point)
For the Jews, there would be a number of things against the proposition. First among them was the fact that this Jesus was a recognized heretic - likely, in fact, a demoniac. His claims could not be trusted, and his miracles (which contemporary Jewish sources did not dispute, intriguingly) were the result of dark powers rather than divine might. Even if it were not Jesus himself, but rather God, delivering this information to a given Jew by way of a dream, sign, or some other revelation, there's no reason to think that the man in question would have trusted this information. The great romance of the tribes of Israel is studded with countless instances of God's chosen people being lured away by false promises, easier gods and "get [endowed in some way] quick" schemes. Impatience was a frequent problem, and one that the Jewish people had long ago and with perfect rectitude come to suspect.
An observant Jew would quickly note that he could be quite well assured of being eventually "clasped to the bosom of Abraham" by simply upholding the Law as he had been doing rather than taking a faster but exceedingly more painful route. Quite apart even from the pain was the question of personal honor, which was of monumental significance in the Ancient Near East (it being an agonistic culture). Whatever one's internal state of righteousness, to die in the same fashion as a slave or thief would have a very real impact upon their righteousness as a whole. The Jewish worldview did not place the same emphasis on internal purity that the later Christian one would, and external factors, even those beyond your control, played an important part.
What would a devout Jew have to gain from such action that he could not already achieve through a life of careful observance?
As for gentiles, there are some similar questions. The same suspicion fell upon Jesus and his ideas, if for more varied reasons than rabbinic opinion, and in fact the ultimately Jewish provenance of his message was itself a source of concern for the more generally pagan world. The same agonistic concerns also applied; crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and its meaning was utterly clear. Finally, much as with the Jews, what incentive would there be for the gentile to forego the reward offered by careful adherence to his own system in favour of what you have rightly called "excruciating pain" at the behest of a god you don't recognize, and who could (for such were the pagan gods) simply be one of your own playing a trick on you?
In addition to what I've already said, it makes this exquisite trade-off an attainable reality for the average person. I think that's pretty good.
Though you are being needlessly vulgar (this particular thread runs through your post in general), you seem to have answered your own question, more or less, with your final parenthetical comment.
Now, moving on to other considerations:
Framing the issue like that sure makes it sound laughable, but it remains inaccurate. God is not sacrificing himself to anything, least of all himself. What's more, he's not changing any rules beyond the unspoken one that God can not be humbled.
What the crucifixion does is pay a debt that humans can not pay on their own. It takes care of the insult to divine honor that sin constitutes (which insult can not be atoned-for in a non-divine way, unfortunately), and frees up the average person to atone for the substantive rather than the abstract.
Quite so, but this is not within the bounds of the question this thread is asking. Certainty is presupposed by the original post. Mondu's point is worth considering within those bounds, even if it is ultimately dismissed.
Why shouldn't he, if he believes them to be wrong?
Also, why are you insisting he assume a fundamentalist mindset? Is he a fundamentalist? Ought he to be?
Again, this is quite a noble sentiment, but it is not applicable to the circumstances provided by the original post. I repeat, certainty is presupposed in this case.
However:
Multiplicity of potential is meaningless to truth.
You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who argues this. Why bother refuting it?
This is needlessly inflammatory. To say that not he alone possesses the faculties to distinguish truth and falsehood is true; the practical upshot of your sentiments here, though, is the implicit accusation that he doesn't possess those faculties at all. Otherwise, why criticize his choice?
Furthermore, it is not "only arrogance" that could lead one to suspect the perceptiveness of others. Is it arrogance that makes one feel dubious about a flat-earther? Is it arrogance that makes us incredulous of the scientologist? Of the psychic healer?
And, finally, I hope I don't need to point out that lambasting Mondu for what you seem to be suggesting is his certainty in his own creed (which he has nowhere stated, described, or attested to) seems to be a very real suggestion that his ability to perceive metaphysical truths is less than that of the party correcting him (in this case, you). Is that arrogant?
I have no objection to this statement beyond the same complaint before that it unfairly (implicitly) characterizes Mondu as being guilty of this.
This is the half-honest thing to do. The honest thing to do is to admit that you don't know for sure which if any religion is true, but that some seem more true than others; perhaps, with study, that "some" could be reduced to "one." That is honest, whatever you may think about it, and it is the province of more religious believers than you seem to give credit to.
To put it plainly, it does not follow from an uncertainty about truth claims that all truth claims are equally valid.
Your opinion is both uncharitable and unwise. I suggest you revise it, to better your life and that of those around you.
It's worth noting that in the narrative instance in which this did, in fact, happen, the magic beans really were magic and Jack's life was full of adventure and riches forever thereafter. Just saying is all.
No; very few Christians believe that. None, actually, beyond certain universalists who are so broad in their thinking that the label "Christian" is useless in describing them.
That's a different idea than that of your first sentence, and is closer to being accurate. People could still "go to Heaven" before, remember; it was just different.
Can we call something a cliche if it predates (or even begins) the cliche it is accused of being? Were Little Goody Two-Shoes or Lord Fauntleroy tropes even when they were new characters?
You have provided no reason why this is so. Would you care to elaborate?
The two are not equivalent :teach:.
Would they? Is longing for perfect communion and submission to God an example of "greed?" Is it really sinful to want what God himself wants us to want?
They don't have to have proof that God doesn't exist. It's up to Christians to furnish evidence for their claims, just as it's up to atheists to furnish evidence for theirs. In this case, however, simple negation is enough. An atheist need not declare, definitively, that no god exists for him to be an atheist. A Christian, by contrast, does need to positively affirm his worldview in order to practice it effectively.
Also, the statement, "it comes down to faith, not fact," is incorrect. If God exists, it is a fact that he exists. If the promises of the Bible are correct, than certain concrete and abstract things will point to this truth, when properly appreciated. It's not a matter of simply deciding, one day, apropos of nothig, "well, I guess he exists." There will be circumstances, many of them tangible and quantifiable (many, admittedly, not) that will lead up to this decision.
The New Testament conception of faith is predicated on evidence. It is not something that you just have for no reason. That would be sheer moonshine.
I suspect that your tenure as Offical Spokesman for the Monolithic Christian Religion will be short-lived
This diverges from any but the most obscure or frankly heretical of conceptions. The position of Jesus Christ within the trinity - that is, the triune singularity that is the One God - is a pretty profound cornerstone of every mainstream Christian conception. The idea you propose is moreover the province of sects like the Gnostics or the Cathari.
I do not think that BenGreen thinks what you think he thinks. He was using hyperbolic language to give spice to his proposition.
This is a point worth making.
Is there not some strange tension between "not believing what you hear" and "being open to hearing other people's theories?"
Would you care to elaborate on these different views? I find these things interesting, and would like to hear what you think, if you have a spare moment.
Well, if this salvation doesn't involve torturing oneself, I'd imagine the two propositions differ considerably.
Then what was the point of this post? It's like going into a "Colts v. Bears: Who will win the Superbowl?" thread and saying, "I don't watch football."
Is it more or less likely that the Apostle Paul suddenly converted to Christianity after having a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus than that Athena sprang, fully-grown and armored, from the head of Zeus, it having just been cracked open like a coconut? Choose your answer carefully.
Yes, thank goodness we now instead live in a world of chimeras, superviruses and states of terror; where people turn into medicated drones or give themselves over to debauchery and excess; where doctors tear babies apart with the consent and endorsement of the state; where states massacre entire races; and where forward-thinking individuals exercise their right to self-determination by raping the unfortunate. We thankfully don't (mostly) live in a world where the idea of certain sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance no longer holds sway.
Yeah, what Stan said.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Secondly, I checked out your blog and hot damn that viking, giant robot, marching band, guitar duel was flippin' awesome! New Lenlow fan? Check!
Thirdly, the vulgarity. I was attempting humor, it apparently flopped. Hence the olde adage, "know thy audience."
And now, to the topic at hand.
No, it doesn't. Rather, what the quoted text meant was that the offer is so good that it's absurd to think that anyone would turn it down. I'm not implying that some hypothetical person did in fact turn it down, rather I'm illustrating that no one would.
No, what the quoted statement asserts is that everyone would flay themselves.
Especially if that human was guaranteed a spot in Heaven on the right hand of God (or even a part in the Holy Trinity).
A) I think Furor has a good point.
B) Would that mean that your repentance (or whatever) only gets you to Heaven if you didn't do it so you could go to Heaven?
I don't think Jesus killed himself. As I understand the story, he knew what was coming hence the scene on the Mount of Olives, but he went willingly to his fate. My question asks if anyone in Jesus' position, knowing of the afterlife that awaited them, would do otherwise. Most certainly, they would dread the coming days most terribly, and in the final hours their fright would be nigh overwhelming. But if you knew, as I said, beyond faith, as certainly as you know you yourself exists, that in 3 days you'd be ascending to Heaven for all of eternity, I maintain that to a person, no one would walk away from that doom.
I assume you're asking me if I've ever considered that this is in fact what happened, and that if I believe in God and ask for forgiveness for my sins, then I can go to Heaven and have eternal life. While I am willing to acknowledge that it's possible, I have not ever seriously considered it, by which I mean I've never considered it more likely than the Greek Pantheon. What I have considered seriously is the possibility that Jesus, his life, death, resurrection, etc, did actually happen. However I don't believe that his existence and the reality of his "miracles" necessitates the existence of God. Furor may recall some of my musings on the subject from a couple of years ago in a thread that quickly diverged from the main topic of "Extraterrestrials and the Bible," because he'd expressed particular interest in it at the time.
As I said before, it seems to me that God just lent His son out for a little while. So I don't see how that's an indication of God's great love for the world.
If all both Extremestan and Furor have to say to this is, "what," I'm going to hazard a guess that this is incorrect.
My question doesn't depend on Jesus being bribed or anyone telling him what to do. All my question depends on are these two basic biblical facts:
Jesus knew his fate ahead of time.
He also knew that after his ordeal he would spend eternity in Heaven.
Unless one of these is incorrect, my assertion that his sacrifice was unimpressive stands (read below for qualifications). Simply put, anyone who understood the terms "Heaven," "eternity," and "guarantee" would, if given the opportunity, suffer pain, humiliation and torture for eternity in Heaven.
While it's very interesting to consider the symbolic power of the torture of the perfect human as a theatrical element, I don't really see how this bears on my assertion. My point was that Jesus didn't need to be an even remotely good person to go through the ordeal he did because of his knowledge of what would follow.
Wow. I think you blew my mind. I see now that the perfect point of his "sacrifice" was that in the context of Christianity (that is to say, Christ-likeness) his sacrifice, and even his time in Hell itself were, as you said, totally irrelevant. His "sacrifice" wasn't a sacrifice at all, but rather a demonstration of how trivial such "sacrifices" are in the face of reality as presented in the Bible. Note that I still don't Believe (with a capital "B") any more than I did before, but I think I can now appreciate the brilliance of the Bible story much more than I did before. Question answered. Thanks.
Lastly, your point that people who were already totally convinced that they were going to Heaven wouldn't take the offer, because as far as they're concerned they've already got the "pay-off" is excellent. Your other point about the cultural significance of the relationship of being perceived as righteous and actual internal righteousness is also interesting and puts the crucifixion in an interesting historical context.
I see your point that the result of Jesus' descention then ascension was that we can all be saved now is interesting but also not really relevant to my point, which was that anyone would've been totally stoked to be in Jesus' shoes.
It wasn't much of a price though, is (to belabor it) my point.
after reading this a few times, I see your point, and I agree, your right.
what I meant was, that there is no proof for either arguement, therefore, it must come down to belief of what has happened to provide "evidence" of these events, and ultimately, a persons faith in how those events occured.
I agree, hence why I said you should never assume something.;)
So you believe that Jesus christ also plays the role of god, and that jesus Christ "created himself"?
if my Religious studies are not off, the holy trinity is the father, the son and the holy ghost. God being the father, Jesus being the son, and the holy ghost being jesus' ressurection. Just as the opposite of that would be the devil, the anti-christ and the false Prophet. say that Jesus Christ is god sounds pretty obsurd to me.
After reading his post after yours, I realize it isn't. But all i can go off of is the way his first post sounds, so excuse me, I apologize.
Its like reading "do you believe everything your read on the Internet?" sure, some of it is true, but you must chose for yourself what to believe.
I believe the bible, but I also understand that it was written by man, and man is not perfect. So therefore parts of the bible could be wrong and I am open to this, such as I believe that Jesus could have had a child, why couldn't he?
Extendo
Read my Blog!
The proverbial responce of "There is no big deal." Is a perfectly reasonable reply to a topic with the Subject line that this one has. Wether you like the reply or not is moot.
I'll sum this up. The world still sucks a great deal even if the hows, whys, and whos differ from how the ancient world sucked. Did that whole paragraph really have a point?
- Is a sarifice less valuable when there is a huge payoff?
- Was it imperative for him to sacrifice himself for that payoff?
- if his act is not a sacrifice, but just an act, should we not be happy with the payoff?
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!