Is the crucifixian of Jesus meaningful?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
AdHoc
Guru
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:39 am

Is the crucifixian of Jesus meaningful?

Post #1

Post by AdHoc »

The question for debate
"Is the crucifixion of Jesus meaningful?"

- What each side claims
AdHoc's position: The crucifixion is a demonstration of God's love.
Divine Insight's position: The crucifixion cannot be meaningful.

- The debate format
1. Each participant will post their initial position. (AdHoc will go first and start the debate thread)
2. Then, in turn, each participant will comment on the position of the other.
3. This will then continue, in turn, until both parties feel they have made their case.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #11

Post by Divine Insight »

Edited to add: I just wanted to apologize for taking so long to respond. I had actually typed this in quite a few days ago and thought I had posted it, but I just realized today that I never posted it. So here it is. :D
AdHoc wrote: I'm sorry I did not mean to dismiss your life experience. I can see by your profile that you are my elder so you have much more life experience than I have. What I meant was that as far as the cross of Christ is concerned you don't have an experience.
And I can never have the experience you've had because I'm not suffering in sin that I can't deal with on my own. I also don't feel unloved by God. These are two criteria that were prerequisites for your particular experience. But I don't have those prerequisites so I could never have the kind of experience that you're talking about short of becoming overwhelmed in sin or feeling unloved by God. But that's not my state of affairs, and never has been.

I've actually had many people offer me similar scenarios as their testimony for the Christianity. That holds no meaning for me because that's not my life's situation.
AdHoc wrote: Respectfully, now you're not listening to me. I didn't change my life.
What do you mean you didn't change your life? Did you not chose to ask Jesus to become your Lord and Savior? And by making that choice did you not offer to obey his commands and start living your life according to his moral values instead by your own immoral values?

Here's the basic problem AdHoc,

When I read the story of Jesus and the moral values he supposedly taught I'm shaking my head in agreement the whole way through these stories. I agree with the moral values that Jesus taught as best as I can determine. So what would Jesus even be "saving" me from? The very same moral values that he's teaching?
AdHoc wrote: The Lord is my shepherd
That's just another way of saying that you acknowledge his moral teachings as being the basis upon which you have chosen to live. You could have just as easily chosen Buddha as your shepherd, or any number of other religious spiritual figures or Gods. In fact, some people are uplifted simply by the inspiration of fellow human that they admire. The key is to have faith in something, even if its in your very own self. And many people have turned their lives around via nothing more than raw self-determination.

I myself had the horrible vice of smoking cigarettes at one time. I got on them early as a young child due to peer pressure. They became quite additive, even though I was in denial of that to some degree. I always proclaimed that I could just quit if I really wanted to. Of course that did indeed turn out to be the truth.

One day I realized that smoking cigarettes was becoming a serious health problem as well as becoming a financial burden. I finally decided to quit cold-turkey. Pure self-determination. No reliance on any deity. I didn't even ask God for help. On the contrary, I felt that this was something I actually needed to do on my own. And I did it.

This also raises a huge question. If something like smoking cigarettes truly is a "sin", and I was able to overcome that sin on my own merit, that flies in the very face of the idea that man cannot overcome sin on his own.

Of course, many people might argue that smoking cigarettes doesn't actually qualify as a "sin". But, whatever the case may be, I seem to be able to deal with my own problems in life via my own personal determination. I haven't run into a problem yet that I haven't been able to overcome through pure self-determination.

So there's a testimony where I have been my own shepherd.
AdHoc wrote: I wouldn't throw away your picture of God. I agree with you that it is probably somewhat idolatrous to create a picture of God. As you said God is spirit. Some people picture Him as a wise old man sitting on a throne. No picture created by man can ever be accurate and all it would do is bring God down.
I have no intention of throwing away my picture of God. In fact, to accept Christianity I would actually need to do just that, because my picture of God is not compatible with a personified God who would actually arranged to have his son beaten and nailed to a pole to make any sort of statement to humanity.

To me, that very scenario is far beneath what I would deem to be a supreme consciousness. I have no problem at all rejecting the idea that Jesus was a demigod. One reason I have no problem rejecting that idea is precisely because, for me, it's any extremely ungodly idea.

Of course, I have other reasons as well. I simply see far better rational explanations of how such rumors got started and who the man was that may have sparked these rumors. So, for me, I have no problem at all accepting Jesus as a mortal man, no different from Buddha, or anyone else.
AdHoc wrote: If God created us I think that makes Him our Creator and we would be His creatures.
I agree. So why would he need to adopt us then?
AdHoc wrote: I see lots of happy people, surrounded by friends, successful, loved by many and with lots of money. Christianity isn't for those people. Jesus said by way of parable that none of those people were interested, they don't need Him. Christianity is for losers. Weak, unloved, sinners, all alone. I accepted Jesus because I felt rejected. Strangely, I didn't feel rejected by the world but by God.
Well, like I say, there has never been a time when I've felt rejected by God.

So this is a non-issue for me personally.

Clearly you have felt rejected by God. So you felt a need to remedy that situation.

However, do you really think that God had every truly rejected you?

Perhaps your real problem all along was that you were rejecting God.

Now that you have embraced God through Christianity you feel loved by God. But in truth, God loved you all the while. There was never a time when God didn't love you. The only thing that has changed is that now you love God.

But since you have identified Christianity as God, now your apparently stuck with having to love Christianity for the rest of your life. Because now, in your mind, to reject Christianity would be the same as rejecting God. Solely because you created an idol image of God in Christianity. So now Christianity has become the Idol that you must worship as "God".

I guess that's the real difference here, and why we will never be able to come to a consensus. I don't tie God down to any religion, therefore I can love God and God can love me and no religion can come between us.

But since you have accepted Jesus as the "Only begotten Son of God", you've created an image of God that you must support till the day you die at all cost.

This is why I feel that it's better to just know God directly instead of through religions. When you seek God through religion you basically box God into the religion you've chosen.

In Buddhism, the Buddha is not viewed as God, or as the only begotten son of God, nor anything like that. So Buddhist really have no need to defend Buddhism as if it represents God. They realize that their spiritual philosophy itself is not an idol image of God.

But that's just one example. I'm not suggesting that you look into Buddhism. If you're happy with Christianity there's really no need for you to personally change that. But if the religion is going to cause you to start believing that non-Christians are somehow rejecting God because they don't recognize Jesus as "The Christ", then you're religion is actually going to become a burden that comes between you and anyone who doesn't also view God through that lens.

And you'll end up getting involved in debates over this very issues just as we are doing now.
AdHoc wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:I'll also offer this: I have said for many years that, when (if) the Messiah finally comes, the Jews will look up and say, “You’re here!� the Christians will look up and say, “You’re back!� -- and then we’ll all hug each other and laugh about it.
Amen, so be it
And I would be saying, "What took you so long? Why didn't you just show up in the Garden of Eden in the first place and save billions of people from horrible suffering?"

And I would expect a decent answer.

I have great respect for Jesus as a mere mortal man.

However I have no respect for him at all as a demigod who is supposedly sitting at the right-hand of God watching over life and can intervene at will but chooses not to.

And it would necessarily have to be this way, because according to the Bible Jesus intervene in the life of Saul/Paul. So Jesus is supposedly watching what's going on and can appear before anyone at any moment to change the course of history.

If this same demigod Jesus sat around doing nothing whilst Christian monks were writing the Malleus Maleficarum ("The Witches Hammer") and also did nothing for over 300 years whiles Christian authorities used this torture and burn alive innocent women whilst Jesus just sat by and watched. I could have absolutely no respect for this demigod.

He should have pounced on the Malleus Maleficarum instantly and nipped it in the bud. All he would have had to do was appear before those Christian Monks when they were starting to write that book and simply say, "No. You're not going to associate this book with my name", and that would have been the end of it.

So there are extreme problems with Jesus being an demigod who only intervenes when it's convenient for the religion, but not to save tens of thousands of innocent women from being horribly tortured and burned alive on poles.

So as a demigod I cannot possibly have any respect for Jesus at all.

He's only respectable as a mortal man. As a God he's disgusting.
AdHoc wrote: I've read each of your posts carefully at least twice before responding. I thought I understood your position but to write that it's impossible for some people to accept the cross because its irrational would mean I'm irrational. Maybe its true but do you really expect me to write that down? And if I don't it means I'm not listening? At the end of the day we both knew that it would be unlikely that either of us would change our positions. I do believe I've learned something from you though. Applying the concept of "two wrongs don't make a right" was a novel application that I hadn't heard before and the question of why Jesus did not suffer eternally was also a new path of thought for me.
Well, I'm very glad that I was able to convey to you new ideas to ponder.

It's certainly not my intent to destroy your own personal religious or spiritual faith. I would have no problem with Christianity at all, if Christians would simply take Jesus seriously on the single idea that he came for sinners and not for the righteous. If they did that there would be no reason for anyone to have a bone to pick with the religion as a social belief system.

Where Christianity gets a bad rap (and this certainly isn't your fault), is when they insinuate that people who aren't acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God are somehow rejecting God and choosing to be sinners, or whatever.

This is where the religion breaks down. People who do not believe in Christianity have very good and solid reasons for rejecting the religion. And if the Christians could simply acknowledge this then the religion wouldn't be such a social pain in the butt. But the fact is that it is used to accuse non-believers of being immoral people who are choosing to reject God. And thereby creating its own enemies.

And unfortunately this very idea comes from the foundational scriptures of the religion. It didn't just come out of the blue. It's built-in to the religion and that's the fundamental problem of Christianity. And that problem will forever be with you as long as you continue to give your support to the religion.

That's just the way things are. It's a very unfortunate but factual problem with the religion.

AdHoc wrote: To me they are truth. When I read the scriptures it often feels as though God is speaking to my heart. When I think about the cross it does seem brutal and awful but this leads me to feel amazed and thankful that God even thinks about me and was willing to die on the cross for me. And this makes me feel loved, whatever happens to me in this life I will always have that. Meaningful? That english word is not meaningful enough to convey how important the cross is to me. I don't think I even understood that as well as I do now before we started this topic.
Well, I can certainly understand how you can feel that way. After all, you had things in your life that you felt needed to be forgiven. You also felt unloved by God. You turned to this religion seeking love and you believe that you have found it. So this is where you have sown your seeds of love. You can't very well toss out the pot where you've sown your seed of love for God. So you're stuck with it now.

But to make that relationship happier for you, you're going to need to understand why, for many other people, the religion is not only false (in their eyes), but it's also a highly undesirable religion.

Like I say, for me personally, Jesus as a mortal man who was merely rumored about in highly superstitious ways is respectable. I can actually have respect for the man Jesus and respectfully reject many of the superstitious rumors about him as simply being nonsense.

But as an actual demigod who is alive right now in some heaven watching down on every move that every one is making and he only chooses to intervene when it favors the highly superstitious aspects of this religion but never to actually prevent atrocities?

No way.

Jesus as an actual God deserves no respect from me whatsoever, IMHO.

I could have no respect at all for Jesus if he truly was God, or even the Son of God. He only gets my respect if he was indeed a mere mortal man just like you and me.

I have to give you my honest opinion from my knowledge of both history and from what I understand from the Biblical stories.

I'm not doing this to belittle your faith. I'm doing it to simply explain to you why Christianity could never be meaningful for me.

If it's meaningful for you, more power to you. But it can never be meaningful for me. And that's really the only point I hope to convey.

User avatar
AdHoc
Guru
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:39 am

Post #12

Post by AdHoc »

Divine Insight wrote: Edited to add: I just wanted to apologize for taking so long to respond. I had actually typed this in quite a few days ago and thought I had posted it, but I just realized today that I never posted it. So here it is. :D
No worries

Divine Insight wrote: What do you mean you didn't change your life? Did you not chose to ask Jesus to become your Lord and Savior? And by making that choice did you not offer to obey his commands and start living your life according to his moral values instead by your own immoral values?
Sure I made a choice like stepping in front of a freight train but at the end of the day it was the train that changed me. I didn't have the power to do it on my own.
Divine Insight wrote:
Well, like I say, there has never been a time when I've felt rejected by God.

So this is a non-issue for me personally.

Clearly you have felt rejected by God. So you felt a need to remedy that situation.

However, do you really think that God had every truly rejected you?

Perhaps your real problem all along was that you were rejecting God.

Now that you have embraced God through Christianity you feel loved by God. But in truth, God loved you all the while. There was never a time when God didn't love you. The only thing that has changed is that now you love God.
Your assessment is true but it only describes the expression of my problem. I think the root cause of the problem was I hated myself and because I hated myself I assumed that meant I was unlovable and if I was unlovable that meant God didn't love me and if God didn't love me then He hated me. That was a belief so deep that I didn't even know it about myself. I surprized myself when I said it out loud.
Divine Insight wrote: And I would be saying, "What took you so long? Why didn't you just show up in the Garden of Eden in the first place and save billions of people from horrible suffering?"

And I would expect a decent answer.

I have great respect for Jesus as a mere mortal man.

However I have no respect for him at all as a demigod who is supposedly sitting at the right-hand of God watching over life and can intervene at will but chooses not to.

And it would necessarily have to be this way, because according to the Bible Jesus intervene in the life of Saul/Paul. So Jesus is supposedly watching what's going on and can appear before anyone at any moment to change the course of history.

If this same demigod Jesus sat around doing nothing whilst Christian monks were writing the Malleus Maleficarum ("The Witches Hammer") and also did nothing for over 300 years whiles Christian authorities used this torture and burn alive innocent women whilst Jesus just sat by and watched. I could have absolutely no respect for this demigod.

He should have pounced on the Malleus Maleficarum instantly and nipped it in the bud. All he would have had to do was appear before those Christian Monks when they were starting to write that book and simply say, "No. You're not going to associate this book with my name", and that would have been the end of it.

So there are extreme problems with Jesus being an demigod who only intervenes when it's convenient for the religion, but not to save tens of thousands of innocent women from being horribly tortured and burned alive on poles.

So as a demigod I cannot possibly have any respect for Jesus at all.

He's only respectable as a mortal man. As a God he's disgusting.
I think it interesting that you would respect Jesus as a man. First of all I'd like to know what your description of Jesus is based on? You described the writers of the New Testament as liars so I'm not sure what value their testimony of Jesus would be. If you do place any value on their writings then Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic or the Son of God.
He's disgusting to you? He is disgusting to mankind.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. - Isaiah 53:2-3
Not only did He watch those poor innocent women die, He predicted that it would happen.
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. - John 15:18-21

You have said that the cross seems like insanity to you. I think it would be crazy to believe that the New Testament writers would make up the things they wrote. My reasoning tells me that if someone were to make up a story it would not be the message of the cross which was foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. It would be a more glamourous end for Jesus. Maybe living like a King in Patagonia or with a wife in the south of France. Certainly not the shame and suffering at the hand of the Romans. The very proof that you present that it makes no sense is proof that it isn't likely to be made up. Secondly consider the way the writers presented themselves, cowards, cruel sinners, petulant. Not what I would expect for bald-faced liars. That makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #13

Post by Divine Insight »

AdHoc wrote: Sure I made a choice like stepping in front of a freight train but at the end of the day it was the train that changed me. I didn't have the power to do it on my own.
Well this is something that simply makes no sense to me. To say that you had no power to do it on your own suggests to me that you had no free will of your own. I find that hard to accept.

One thing for sure, I've never felt that way myself. Therefore your "testimony" is basically meaningless to me personally since I can't even begin to identify with it.

This also seems to emphasize the idea that Jesus came only for the sinners and not for the righteous. Perhaps if that were somehow true, and you truly were spiritually sick in some serious way and did indeed require a spiritual physician, then this could somehow make sense, in your specific case.

But again, like I say, how could I even begin to apply this to my life? The only thing that makes sense to me is that I'm not spiritual sick and therefore I don't need a spiritual physician.

In short, you experiences simply have no meaning in my life. I've never been without "Free Will Choice". And as long as I have free will choice I can't imagine anything that I would not be able to chose to do.
AdHoc wrote: Your assessment is true but it only describes the expression of my problem. I think the root cause of the problem was I hated myself and because I hated myself I assumed that meant I was unlovable and if I was unlovable that meant God didn't love me and if God didn't love me then He hated me. That was a belief so deep that I didn't even know it about myself. I surprized myself when I said it out loud.
Well, once again, you're talking about experiences that I've never had. There has never been a time in my life when I've hated myself. There have been times when I've kicked myself for having made stupid mistake (not necessarily evil or sinful mistakes), but I've certainly made my fair share of stupid mistakes (some of them were actually quite well-intentioned, yet still quite stupid).

But even when I kick myself for having made stupid mistakes I've never hated myself for having made them because I know that they were indeed well-intentioned and just plain stupid. I can hardly hate myself for not being a genius in every choice I ever make.

But clearly that wasn't your case. For whatever it's worth when I was younger I had a friend who was always doing mean things to other people and hurting people in really bad ways. He actually confided in me telling me that he would do really bad things and had no clue why he was doing them. I advised him to seek professional help, as in seeking out a psychiatrist. He didn't take my advice, but he did join the local church and become quite religion. The only problem is that apparently didn't help him, he continued to do bad things and get in trouble. I actually ended up becoming a seriously criminal, and the last I heard he was in a state prison.

So in his case, religion didn't work out very well. I personally believe he was mentally ill and it's a shame he didn't seek professional help when I suggested it.
AdHoc wrote: I think it interesting that you would respect Jesus as a man. First of all I'd like to know what your description of Jesus is based on? You described the writers of the New Testament as liars so I'm not sure what value their testimony of Jesus would be.
Well, once I've realized that the New Testament is most likely superstitious rumors, I work from that perspective. I try to piece together what makes the most sense to me. And I confess that I give Jesus the benefit of the doubt. After all, he wasn't responsible for a single solitary word written in the New Testament, so it would be wrong of me to hold that against him verbatim.
AdHoc wrote: If you do place any value on their writings then Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic or the Son of God.
That's the conclusion of C. S. Lewis too. However, again, that conclusions assumes that the quotes being attributed to Jesus are indeed 100% correct verbatim of what Jesus actually said. But that very notion comes from a mindset that the scriptures would have somehow been inspired and even preserved by God. In other words, that perspective already assumes the scriptures are 100% reliable.

Since I have recognized that these scriptures are most likely rumors, I have no need to maintain a view of 100% reliability. On the contrary, I have good reasons to believe that much of these rumors would indeed be highly exaggerated rumors, to the point where they very well made indeed be outright lies in places.

So why even bother to consider this at all, you may ask? Well, because from my perspective it's highly unlikely that these stories were totally made up fiction. The reason being that many things that are being attributed to Jesus fly in the face of the original religion. These were probably the things that were well-known that Jesus had actually taught. In other words, if these rumors were being made up about a real person, they would need to stick with at least the bulk of what the man had taught, otherwise people would know that they are totally making up fibs.

So for me, it makes perfect sense to try to sift through what the man might have actually been like who sparked these rumors. He probably actually did live. He probably actually did renounce the immoral teachings of the Torah and replace them with the higher moral values that are more in line with Buddhism. He probably did proclaim that he and the father are one. He probably did try to convince other people that the same it true for them just as the gospels suggest. He probably did sit around and call the Pharisees hypocrites. And he probably was horribly crucified, thus sparking the emotions required for these men to proclaim him as a God. And there probably were rumors about him having risen from his grave. And that just fed the superstitions like wildfire.

Why do I reject many of the things in the New Testament.

Well to begin these stories claim that Jesus was born of a virgin woman. How could these authors have any clue about such a thing? From my perspective that's hearsay superstition.

These guys claim that God spoke from the clouds. Again, if God was going to speak to people from the clouds why even bother sending Jesus in the first place?

Moreover, no one else seems to have heard God speaking from the clouds. The only place we here of this is in the New Testament. There is no background chatter in independent history about this event.

Same thing goes with the claims that Jesus went all around the countryside healing all manner of sickness and even raising people from the dead with large masses of people following him around. But again, there is no background independent historical chatter of people ever having witnessed such events.

Matthew claims that when Jesus was resurrected a multitude of saints were also risen from their graves and went into the Holy City of Jerusalem to show themselves to the people there (these would be mainly Jews).

Yet there is not independent historical record of anyone seeing saints coming into Jerusalem showing themselves to the people there. In fact, the Jews for the most part rejected these New Testament tales, and still do to this very day.

So I have good reasons to believe that most of the claims being made in the New Testament are indeed superstitious exaggerations.

I dismiss all of that and try to weed through that to see what the common bottom line might be of this man named Jesus. And when I do that I see a potential Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.
AdHoc wrote: He's disgusting to you? He is disgusting to mankind.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
But Jesus wasn't disgusting as a man. Only the hearsay superstitious rumors about him are disgusting.
AdHoc wrote: He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
But supposedly he wasn't despised and rejected by mankind. On the contrary he supposedly had great multitudes of followers who supposedly loved him. In fact, the Gospels have the Pharisees fearing Jesus for this very reason that he seemed to be gaining a lot of followers. So to say that he was despised and rejected by mankind is itself a lie. And that comes from the Bible right?
AdHoc wrote: Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. - Isaiah 53:2-3
But none of that is true about Jesus. Jesus supposedly had a huge following. The only people who hated him were the Pharisees. And according to the gospels they had good reason to hate him because he was going around publicly ranting about them being hypocrites.
AdHoc wrote: Not only did He watch those poor innocent women die, He predicted that it would happen.
Well then shame on him for not intervening.
AdHoc wrote: If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. - John 15:18-21
These are the kinds of rumors that grew out of these events. You post these verses like as if I'm supposed to see credence in them, but you need to realize that these "Gospels" weren't even written for quite a few decades until after Jesus had died. Just because these people make these claims does not make them true.
AdHoc wrote: You have said that the cross seems like insanity to you. I think it would be crazy to believe that the New Testament writers would make up the things they wrote. My reasoning tells me that if someone were to make up a story it would not be the message of the cross which was foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. It would be a more glamourous end for Jesus.
But I'm not claiming that they made up the crucifixion of Jesus. On the contrary, I'm saying that the very fact that the Pharisees managed to crucify Jesus was precisely what sparked these highly superstitious rumors. Had Jesus lived to a ripe old age and died naturally we probably would have never heard about. He would have been a non-event in history.

It was indeed the crucifixion of this man that sparked these rumor. I don't doubt that at all.
AdHoc wrote: Maybe living like a King in Patagonia or with a wife in the south of France. Certainly not the shame and suffering at the hand of the Romans. The very proof that you present that it makes no sense is proof that it isn't likely to be made up.
Actually if Jesus truly was the Son of God, I would have expected Jesus to slip away from the Pharisees every single time they tried to arrest him. That would have been a far more impressive story to me. Here's a man that the Pharisees are trying to get and no matter what they do God protects him from their wrath.

That would have been an impressive God.

A God who actually allows them to crucify him and then uses that disgusting event as his symbol of "LOVE" for mankind would, IMHO, be a very sick and demented God.

Moreover, that God could not have a clue how I personally think. So why should I believe that my creator wouldn't have a clue how utterly repugnant this scenario would be?

You may be able to suggest to me that I should be able to accept this thing. But if you actually KNEW me you would know how absurd that is. And my point is that any truly omniscient God would indeed KNOW me, and would fully understand why I would see this whole drama as being totally unacceptable.

And I'm certainly not unique in this view. I've met many people who feel the same way I do. And I am not out to "reject" God, I can assure you of that.

That is utterly foolish.
AdHoc wrote: Secondly consider the way the writers presented themselves, cowards, cruel sinners, petulant. Not what I would expect for bald-faced liars. That makes absolutely no sense at all to me.
Well, I'm not trying to change you mind on what you believe.

I'm just trying to explain to you why I don't believe any of it.

It doesn't appear to me to be anything that a truly righteous God would have anything at all to do with.

Also, as I say, it simply doesn't fit with who I am and what my life has been like. I have never "rejected" God in my entirely life. I have never felt unloved by God. I have never lost my ability to make free will choices.

In short, I've never had a reason to be "saved" from anything.

Like I say, if there is any sort of truth to these stories, it would necessarily need to be based on what Jesus has said, "He came for the sinners, and not for the righteous".

And later on when Paul proclaims that all men are sinners, we simply need to recognize that this is wrong and even Paul didn't understand what was going on.

It would necessarily have to be that way in order for this religion to "work" for me. The only irony there is that in order for this religion to "work" for me would necessarily require that I have no need of any parts of it simply because I'm not a sinner.

But try telling that to a Christian and they start screaming "Everyone is a sinner and everyone needs to be saved".

That cannot be true. It's really that simple.

If there is any truth to this religion at all, then there has to be truth in the words attributed to Jesus where he said that he did not come for the righteous, but rather for the spiritually sick.

But then everyone does not need to be 'saved' because everyone isn't spiritually sick to begin with.

That could potentially make some sort of sense. Those who are sick and attracted to the religion need it. Those who aren't sick and don't see any value in the religion simply don't need it.

What would I need Jesus for if I already have moral values that already match the moral values that he supposedly taught?

What would I need to be "saved" from?

I certainly wouldn't need to be saved from your previous position in life because I've never been there.

User avatar
AdHoc
Guru
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:39 am

Post #14

Post by AdHoc »

Divine Insight wrote:
But supposedly he wasn't despised and rejected by mankind. On the contrary he supposedly had great multitudes of followers who supposedly loved him. In fact, the Gospels have the Pharisees fearing Jesus for this very reason that he seemed to be gaining a lot of followers. So to say that he was despised and rejected by mankind is itself a lie. And that comes from the Bible right?
There were enough people who hated Him that they crucified Him. And today 90% of the time I hear His name mentioned its to be used as a curse word.

Divine Insight wrote:
Moreover, that God could not have a clue how I personally think. So why should I believe that my creator wouldn't have a clue how utterly repugnant this scenario would be?

You may be able to suggest to me that I should be able to accept this thing. But if you actually KNEW me you would know how absurd that is. And my point is that any truly omniscient God would indeed KNOW me, and would fully understand why I would see this whole drama as being totally unacceptable.

And I'm certainly not unique in this view. I've met many people who feel the same way I do. And I am not out to "reject" God, I can assure you of that.

That is utterly foolish.
I don't understand, you think God should run all His ideas past you guys first? Or just know that you wouldn't like it and not consider it in the first place? I'm glad His ways aren't my ways.
Divine Insight wrote:
AdHoc wrote: Secondly consider the way the writers presented themselves, cowards, cruel sinners, petulant. Not what I would expect for bald-faced liars. That makes absolutely no sense at all to me.
Well, I'm not trying to change you mind on what you believe.

I'm just trying to explain to you why I don't believe any of it.

It doesn't appear to me to be anything that a truly righteous God would have anything at all to do with.

Also, as I say, it simply doesn't fit with who I am and what my life has been like. I have never "rejected" God in my entirely life. I have never felt unloved by God. I have never lost my ability to make free will choices.

In short, I've never had a reason to be "saved" from anything.

Like I say, if there is any sort of truth to these stories, it would necessarily need to be based on what Jesus has said, "He came for the sinners, and not for the righteous".

And later on when Paul proclaims that all men are sinners, we simply need to recognize that this is wrong and even Paul didn't understand what was going on.

It would necessarily have to be that way in order for this religion to "work" for me. The only irony there is that in order for this religion to "work" for me would necessarily require that I have no need of any parts of it simply because I'm not a sinner.

But try telling that to a Christian and they start screaming "Everyone is a sinner and everyone needs to be saved".

That cannot be true. It's really that simple.

If there is any truth to this religion at all, then there has to be truth in the words attributed to Jesus where he said that he did not come for the righteous, but rather for the spiritually sick.

But then everyone does not need to be 'saved' because everyone isn't spiritually sick to begin with.

That could potentially make some sort of sense. Those who are sick and attracted to the religion need it. Those who aren't sick and don't see any value in the religion simply don't need it.

What would I need Jesus for if I already have moral values that already match the moral values that he supposedly taught?

What would I need to be "saved" from?

I certainly wouldn't need to be saved from your previous position in life because I've never been there.
Absolutely, Jesus clearly stated this truth and your experience would confirm it. Jesus was able to live a sinless life as a man and so it is hypothetically possible for you to continue to live a sinless life and as long as you keep that up until the moment you die you should be fine and will not need to be saved from anything. Of course this will disprove the scripture that says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and I'm not sure how to reconcile that in my mind. Some people say that we are born into sin but I don't know off the top of my head what scripture they base that on.

My final point is a story,

When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.�

Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.�

“Tell me, teacher,� he said.

“Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?�

Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.�

“You have judged correctly,� Jesus said.

Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.�- Luke 7:36-47

I'm definitely the woman in that story.

In conclusion, while the crucifixian of Jesus is meaningful to me and other Christians you have made a strong argument that it cannot be meaningful to you. This argument is further strengthened by your experience that you have lived a sinless life. Maybe we can reach consensus with this statement; The crucifixian of Jesus is meaningful to sinners and those who have been saved from a life of sin.

I don't think I can add any more value to our debate. I have really enjoyed the debate and as I mentioned earlier I think I have learned something from you and I've been introduced to at least two new ideas. I will rest my case and since I started, the last word belongs to you.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #15

Post by Divine Insight »

I too thank you for the debate. This was my first head-to-head debate, (I believe this was your first head-to-head debate too), so we were able to share this new experience together.

I really have nothing more to add in terms of debate, but I would like to say that I wish you the very best in both life and in spiritual experience. Religions and spiritual philosophies really should be something that we can all embrace and support for each other. I would love nothing more than to support your belief in Jesus as your Lord and Savior. And I would actually be more than willing to do that. If, and only if, I could receive the same respect back in whatever faith I might choose. Whether it be secular atheism, a mystical religion, or something like Wicca.

If we could stand in awe of creation side-by-side (and thereby honor our creator whatever our creator may be) without pointing fingers at each other for worshiping the "wrong God" (or no God at all), that would be great.

So for whatever it's worth, I support your worshiping of Jesus within the context of your religion. I see nothing wrong with that at all, for you. I'm sure that if any God exists, that God would appreciate your sincerity and dedication to do what you believe is the right thing to do.

But as I hope I have made clear, when it comes to the types of quotes from scripture that you had just posted in your closing comments above, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", that to me, is basically the same as saying to me, "Hey, even though you've presented your arguments, I must still believe that you are a sinner in need of salvation because the Bible tells me so".

So in other words, we're right back at square one. If I'm still worshiping the Moon Goddess and refusing to believe in the Bible, I'm doing the "wrong thing" according to you, because "The Bible tells you so".

How can I feel supported by you when you keep pointing to reasons why you can't support me?

This is where it always seems to end. Basically with an insinuation of religious intolerance.

And I realize this isn't your fault. Just as you point out, it comes from the Bible. That's where you get it clearly. The Bible basically forces you to be religiously intolerant. And this is precisely why I speak out against this religion so passionately.

So it's nothing personal against you. It's a problem I have with the authors of the Bible. It's a problem I have with a religion that breeds religious intolerance.

Again, I thank you very much for the debate, and I wish you the very best in life, and I most certainly do hope that we all end up in an eternal paradise in spite of our different beliefs, that would be great indeed. ;)

Post Reply