What is the logic behind Jesus' crucifixion?

[Justin108]

I have been asking this question over and over on this forum and no theist has ever been able to address it. They try, but once I give my rebuttal to their attempts, they eventually stop replying. Hopefully I can get an answer this time.

Note: This topic is specifically for Christians who believe Jesus' death was necessary for us to have our sins forgiven.

This is arguably the core of the Christian faith that Jesus died for our sins and made it possible for us to live for eternity in heaven... but why did Jesus have to die in order for us to have our sins forgiven?

God makes the rules. There is no "God HAD to sacrifice Jesus" because God can do anything.

Christians often say that God cannot let sin go unpunished as it would be unjust; but is it any more just to sacrifice an innocent man on behalf of a guilty man? If a man rapes a little girl and the man's brother offers to go to prison on his behalf, would this be justice?

If god is satisfied by punishment without guilt (Jesus), why is he not satisfied with guilt without punishment?

[American Deist]

I have been asking this question over and over on this forum and no theist has ever been able to address it.

The reason for the blood sacrifice is because that is what ancient humans used to believe in. Many cultures from around the world would execute a human in order to appease their god(s). God, as an omnipotent being, does not need a blood sacrifice; It only needs to say "you're forgiven" and it would be so.

Theists spend a lot of time trying to justify the way primitive humans behaved, but they have backed themselves into more than one corner in doing so.

[Justin108]

And yes, the God that I see as part of it.

Why do you believe that God is a part of it? If the Bible is just a collection of metaphors, parables and stories then why do you think God is behind it all as opposed to just a collection of poetic writers?

Achilles, for instance, and his immortality through glory...

What does his morality have to do with whether or not gods were involved? What if the gods of this universe are simply immoral?

I consider Lot to be immoral. Does that mean that the story of Lot did not come from God?

And what is the "clear evidence of story telling" in the Gospels?

Umm, the visitation by angels. The nativity (is that Luke?) is pretty obvious. The miracles and parables already mentioned... The whole rising from the dead thing.

You seem to be suggesting that because it is supernatural, it is therefore just a story?

Manipulative, yes. But hey, the ends justify the means here.

What exactly are the ends?

And again, we need to look more at the truth he is conveying

Can you give me a few examples of this truth?

I believe in the philosophy, which yes, teaches literal resurrection. That is something to believe in.

Just to be clear, when you say "literal resurrection", do you mean Jesus literally rose from the dead? If not, what exactly do you mean by "literal resurrection"?

[shnarkle]

Of course. They have to be for you cannot explain any of them. They can only be fanciful miraculous fairy tale stories. That is probably all they will ever be to you.

So we've shifted from a serious discussion to sarcastic banter?

Not at all. It's a simple observation that you know is true. There are a number of events in the Old Testament that can be explained scientifically, e.g. the plagues, the escape through the Red Sea, Elijah's offering catching fire without any source of ignition, the rotten water well made fresh again with salt, etc. These stories don't appear to be so fanciful when we see that scientists can achieve the same reproducible results. You have no explanation so it can be nothing but a fairy tale to you. If, I'm wrong, then by all means please explain to me how you came to understand that these stories are something more than simple fairy tales. This is anything but a sarcastic response. If it seems to you to be tearing at your flesh, then this only points to the fact that your questions and arguments are invalid.

Zooming in on this. Let's suppose for argument's sake that Jesus never performed a literal miracle. What reason would there be to believe he is the son of God?

There is no reason.

Right. So we can wrap this conversation up then

What conversation? You're talking right past me, and have been practically from the beginning. I've pointed out repeatedly that I can effectively debate this issue regardless of how you want to frame it. Regardless of whether you want to look at it as mythology, or historical events really makes no difference to what the narratives are pointing to.

As I pointed out already, reason isn't what determines reality. Reality is what determines reality.

Reason might not determine reality but it helps us discover it. Far more so than your musings about the poetic value of ancient scripture.

Well, yes and no. Reason can be used to see the poetic value of literature, but either way, they both are only pointers to reality. Refusing to entertain reason or the Muse isn't utilizing either one. Utilizing both together will never do anything more than point to reality; neither one can discover reality.

Until you are able to get in touch with reality you will never get in touch with reality.

Thanks for stating the glaringly obvious

Your welcome, hopefully I won't have to repeat myself anymore by pointing out that reason, or the intellect can never comprehend reality. I would have thought (pun intended) that was glaringly obvious as well, but evidently more needed to be said.

You didn't even begin to answer my question. I'll ask again: Suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible was nothing but a metaphor and that none of it actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

You aren't asking a coherent question.

Your lack of comprehension does not make my question incoherent.

Quite true. I comprehended your question perfectly. You asked if the entire bible was a metaphor, but you neglected to present what the bible was a metaphor of. OF WHAT???? Here's a coherent question: "The bible is a metaphor of what? ANS: The bible is reality. That is a metaphor. The bible is obviously not reality. It is a book. So when one says that the bible is reality they are saying that it is representing reality. If one were to say that the bible is the theory of evolution we would be saying that the bible is representing the framework for evolution. If we said that the bible is quantum physics, we would be saying that the bible represents quantum physics. Jesus says "This is my body" When he says this he is using the same figure by pointing out that the bread in his hand is representing his body. Again, the figure is contained exclusively in the verb, and the two nouns must be used literally or there is no way tell what any of it means. In your case, you neglected to even supply the other noun.

You asked an incoherent question. A coherent question would be to ask what is the bible a metaphor of? Or to supply a noun and ask if that is what the bible is a metaphor of. You did neither. I just supplied a number of possible examples that are completely coherent. I understood your question perfectly. It was an incoherent question. It was essentially meaningless. That is why it is incoherent.

In modern lingo, you asked, "Does the bible represent"? Yeah, it represents. That's the answer to your question. Happy?

You aren't asking a coherent question. A metaphor that indicates what? You don't care what a metaphor is in the first place so you aren't even asking a legitimate question. A metaphor presents two literal things that are made equivalent by the verb or copula. The figure is contained exclusively in the copula itself, but you haven't defined what the two literal items are. You aren't asking a legitimate question. Just some vague idea of a question. It isn't up to me to fill in the blanks.

And what metaphor could possibly be enough to indicate that the Bible did in fact come from God?

I don't know why you're asking me this question. I'm not claiming the bible came from God.

This is why I pointed out that you don't believe in any of this as being fruitful in the first place. It's just a bunch of poets telling stories to you.

What is it if it isn't just a bunch of poets telling stories? If everything about the Bible is non-literal, then what makes it any more divine than any other poetry book? Do you believe the Bible is divine? If so, why?

No, I don't believe the bible is divine. I believe the bible is an anthology of books. In fact, I know it is an anthology of books. Why are you asking if the bible is non literal when you don't even want to talk about it in anything other than literal terminology?

Fair enough. I'm not disputing the fact that you see this as worthless

I'm not saying it's worthless as a whole, I'm saying it's worthless in a discussion on metaphysics.

And I'm agreeing with you that it has to be worthless to you. It can have no worth to you when you've already made up your mind that it is worthless.

When I talk about God, I talk about metaphysics. About reality. About the real, literal world. I don't see the point in metaphorical language when literal language is a hundred times more sufficient at communication. So please can we limit this discussion to literal matters?

Literal language is not more sufficient than figurative language. Literal speech is insufficient to emphasize much of anything, hence the necessity for figurative language. You ask if the bible is a metaphor, then turn right around and ask that we confine our discussion to literal speech. You may or may not understand that figurative speech and literal speech are distinctly different, but you don't see that by emphasizing something this in no way negates the reality of what is being emphasized. In other words, what is emphasized isn't something that doesn't exist literally. It's just being emphasized figuratively because literal emphasis isn't sufficient.

You're redefining figurative language, so the answer is 'No'. I'm not going to play games with your own private definitions of words. If you can't communicate with the accepted definitions and usage of words then you're just simply arguing with yourself. Literal speech is by relation to figurative speech completely insufficient to communicate. Scientists even use figurative speech because literal speech is insufficient, e.g. "the selfish gene"; "the axis of evil" etc.

You say that you want to talk about the real, and that on the whole it isn't worthless, but the reality of the whole is not the whole of reality.

but I can't answer a question that makes no sense to either one of us.

Ok since the word "metaphor" is what seems to have thrown you off... let me rephrase.

The word hasn't thrown me off, the fact that you haven't supplied what it is that the bible is supposed to represent indicates that you don't know what you're asking.

Suppose every miraculous event in the entire Bible never actually happened. Would you still believe the Bible is the work of God?

Your premise is irrelevant to my reply. You need to come up with a premise that makes sense as indicating the bible is a work of God in the first place. In other words, if there was some way to show that God wrote the bible, then it would be a work of God regardless of whether what was written actually happened or not.

There is no evidence for God in the first place so once again, you're back to asking questions that make no sense.

You aren't explaining "literal" at all. There is literal as opposed to figurative. There is literal as opposed to factual, and there is literal as being synonymous with fact.

Why is it so damn impossible to get a simple answer out of you? Do you have to over-analyse every single word I use?

I'm not overanalyzing anything. I'm simply pointing out that you are asking a lot of vague questions. I'm getting the distinct impression that you really don't know what you're trying to ask in the first place.

I honestly do not know how to make this question simpler. If I ask "did these miracles happen literally" I am asking whether or not they actually happened in the real world.

And I'm pointing out that it all depends on what your perspective is. From the perspective of someone who sees the stories as fairy tales, they are clearly miracles that could never have happened. From the perspective of history they are also miraculous, but something happened that cannot be explained. From the perspective of reality, no explanation is required as it is self evident. We can even explain them within the framework of evolution, and quantum physics. So the answer is yes, it happened, unless you choose to reject it as the simple musings of a bunch of poets, then there is nothing to debate. You asked the question so you need to decide why you asked it in the first place if you've already determined it to be nonsense.

For example: did Jesus really die, and then after three days come back from the dead? I promise you I cannot ask this question in any simpler terms. I am at my wit's end.

No doubt about it. The limit to your wit is easily determined. Regardless, you still seem to be asking an irrelevant question. Why are you even asking it in the first place? I thought this was about the logic of the crucifixion. Does crucifixion seem to you to be something that doesn't naturally result in death?

It isn't for me to answer the question for you. That's a question you need to answer for yourself. Any of a number of people can answer that question for you, but what does that prove? Seriously, I'm not being facetious, or sarcastic in the slightest. I'm not being evasive either. I've already answered the question to this topic a number of ways. I don't see how you're advancing the discussion here at all, except perhaps as a means to discover your position. What is your position? Has it changed, or do you have one?

Even if there is a bodily resurrection, the reality is much greater than the literal history.

Ok I didn't ask you what your opinion is on what is greater and what is lesser. I simply asked you whether or not a bodily resurrection occurred. "The reality is much greater than the literal history" is answering a question no one asked

I would be flattered that you would think to ask me for an authoritative response on what happened over 2000 years ago, but I seriously doubt the question is in any way sincere. The best way to answer the question is to answer in the affirmative, but you need to figure out what it actually means. The narratives are plainly presenting something, and if you can't see it then no amount of explaining will ever convince you of anything. I've presented just a few examples and all it has done is serve to force you deeper into this concrete conviction that the intellect is the best way to determine what historically happened, or that it never happened at all. You're effectively saying that when presented with a screw, you don't care if a screwdriver or an electric drill might work, you want to use a hammer.

How did you come to the conclusion that the narrative presents him as the literal son of God?

Because there are no figures of speech being used when the text refers to him as the son of God.

Just because you didn't notice any figures of speech doesn't mean there aren't any.

I just said there aren't any. If there is a figure of speech, then the burden of proof is on you to provide the figure.

One could interpret "son of God" to simply be a figure of speech for "follower of God"

No, one can't legitimately do that without providing the figure of speech being used. You're just fabricating some nameless figure. There are no nameless figures of speech. You are under the false assumption that figurative speech is whatever the reader wants the text to say. The fact is that figurative speech is used by the author to emphatically state what he can't do as well literally. While the name of the figure isn't as important as what the author is conveying by using the figure, it is important to determine what figure is being used to justify your interpretation. Since you have no figure to produce, you're simply grasping at straws.

If you see one, which one do you see? There are literally hundreds to choose from. I've looked at all of them.

Ok you went from "because there are no figures of speech being used" to "there are literally hundreds to choose from"?

And you are once again seriously confused. There are a few hundred figures of speech, and not one of them is being used in this instance. When no figures of speech are being used it is safe to say that the author is speaking literally. When he is speaking literally, there is no reason to suggest or assume that he is using a figure of speech, especially when one see's the he is speaking literally and not using any of the hundreds of figures of speech that are available.

And let's suppose for argument sake you're right... Suppose the narrative did consider him the literal son of God. Why would you believe the narrative?

Because I can see it's the truth.

And how it it you know that what you see is in fact the truth? Or is this just a baseless assumption on your part?

Again, you are ignoring the glaringly obvious. So once again, you are asking me to repeat myself and state the glaringly obvious. Let's put it another way. If I say that what can be seen cannot be heard, why do you feel the need to ask how I could possibly hear what I see? You are talking about two completely different faculties. I point out that I can see the reality. I also point out that reality cannot be known by the intellect. There can be no intermediaries to reality, and yet you can't seem to get this through your head.

When I say that I "see" reality, I'm not saying that I can see it with my eyes, but with a completely different faculty altogether. I have to speak figuratively because there is no literal way to convey the fact. Reality can only be "seen" by reality. There is essentially no one to see it in the first place. There is no "you" or "me" in reality.

The truth is always self evident; it is rarely if ever known to be true. One can see the truth, and know it is the truth, but this knowledge is never because of the intellect which is by definition how anything is known. In other words, one can see the self evident truth, and the intellect can only acquiesce to this. The intellect can only come up with arguments, or agree with what is perceived by reality itself. So if I see a bird chirping, my sight is not what determines what the bird sounds like. My intellect can only agree through correspondence, not any direct knowledge of reality. Put another way, my intellect can have knowledge of reality, but knowledge of reality is not reality itself. Here again, this is why figurative speech is absolutely necessary, but even then it is still insufficient to explain reality. It only helps when one has at least a rudimentary grasp of the purpose of figurative speech; you see no point in it at all.

We're all dead or in the process of dying; we're born dying; we're born to die. We "live" in a world that is dead. Jesus comes along and points this out to those who can hear what he's saying. Dead people can't hear anything, so dead people have to be given the ability to hear before they can respond to this reality.

Think of it in terms of evolution. Some people are given this ability in much the same way some species are able to adapt or develop some trait that furthers their species. Of course the species that produces this trait isn't the species that continues on, but their offspring are the one's that continue on. it's the same way with the gospel message.

Think of it as a species giving birth to a completely different and new species. One that is perfectly adapted to live rather than simply die out. We see this all the time, right? We see new species showing up as if out of nowhere, and old species dying out for no known reasons that we can see. We see what's happening, but we have to come up with reasons to agree with what we see. The reasons we come up with don't explain why any of this is happening.

If Jesus never did anything remotely supernatural, then why would you believe anyone who claimed he was the son of God?

Because it all make perfect sense. He's saying that when you deny yourself; you are freed from the bondage of a single solitary perspective. The world is no longer seen as you see it, but as it really is.

A lot of people have told me a lot of things that make perfect sense... should I now conclude that they are all the sons of God?

If what makes perfect sense is that they are all sons of God, then yes.

You realize that someone (like Jesus) can give you some good advice and still just be a man?

Sure, and if he points to the fact that he is the son of God, and then points out that you and I are also sons of God, and points out not just why, but how this can be seen, then you'd be a fool to ignore him. He even gives you experiments to prove it to yourself. The divine paradox is that once this is seen, there is no one to prove it to anymore; it's just the reality. It's like looking at an experiment and realizing that the observation changes what is being observed. This is what Christ calls "belief".

How did you conclude that good advice = therefore, son of God? Can you please explain your though process to me?

I performed the experiments. The conclusions are all based on reproducible results that anyone can perform for themselves. All that is required is an open mind and a willingness to perform the experiments. The proof is in the proverbial pudding. Explanations only address the intellect, they can't address reality itself. The intellect cannot understand reality in the first place so it's like you're asking me to make a sound that can cause you to see something when you're blind. The first thing that has to happen is you have to open your eyes, then you'll be able to see.

Because reality isn't determined by appearances, or one's thought process.

Yet when you said that what Jesus said "made perfect sense", aren't you describing your own thought process?

Yep, but again, this is only based on what I see as evidence in front of me. It is not discovered by the intellect.

If something "makes sense", it means that your though processes conclude them to make sense. You cannot criticize reason and though without it becoming a self-defeating ideology

Sure, very true if one's senses were intellectual. This doesn't negate the fact that the thought processes themselves can never discover reality. I can see how a puzzle makes sense only after all the pieces are in place. And this is done with my eyes sticking pieces together piece by piece. I could do it blindfolded, and while my intellect may be involved, I would never have any idea of what I'm looking at because the puzzle can only be seen with the faculty of sight.

I've explained that the understanding can only come by performing the experiments; until you perform the experiments yourself, there is absolutely no chance of ever understanding. To the extent that one may understand with arguments can only go so far, beyond that one will need proof. Proof requires experiments with observable reproducible results.

The easiest way to perform the experiments is to start with the narratives themselves and wherever Jesus says to do something just do it. I didn't do it this way. I started with the Old Testament and went from one instruction to the next, and performed every instruction that was possible to perform. Some weren't possible as I didn't have the means to do them. For example; yoking two oxen together rather than an ox and a jackass. In that example not only could I not perform the proper function, I couldn't even perform the violation of the instruction. Another example would be all the instructions that are required when living in the Promised Land. I don't live in the promised land, and then there are all the laws that are geared toward temple duties, there is no temple etc.

This didn't deter me because many of the experiments that I had already performed were giving me glimpses of reality. If not reality, they were proving to me that they made sense, and a number of them only made sense after performing the instruction.

[rickmeist]

God is omnipotent and therefore could not 'want' anything.
.

QUESTION Can an omnipotent God want anything?

There is no logical reason to conclude that having the power to do anything negates the desire to do anything. This is like saying billionaires never want to shop because they have too much money.

Billionaires are not a creator God as described in the bible nor are they unchanging.

For a God to want or to desire or to need or require or to urge or long for are surely, all human traits and not characteristics we could expect a perfect Lord to possess. But of course there lies the theists paradox. God is always 'wanting' something from his creation.

To understand this anomaly, we don't even need the further paradox of God's omniscience. He already knows the outcome of everything so wanting something could not possibly be part of the make-up of such an authority.

And yet this unchanging, all powerful creator of Nebulae, black holes, our solar system falling at 400 miles per second and trillions of hot burning stars - actually
got upset at making a mistake of creating humans.

Genesis 6:6 "6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

[shnarkle]

No, God is not the victim.

The bible teaches that when we sin, no matter what it is, we sin against God. It also teaches that the good we do to others, we do for God.

More strawman arguments. How about addressing the arguments that I actually present?

I am not making any strawman arguments. I am trying to cover all possible arguments here.

No, the idea of the sacrifice was to give up something so that you could earn your forgiveness

I don't know what you're talking about. Please elaborate where you're getting this from the text, or more importantly; from anything that I've posted.

I am trying to point out how it was in the old testament. When you sinned you had to make a sacrifice to God so that you could be forgiven. It wasn't God who paid the price. YOU did. You gave up the life of an unblemished sheep to pay for your transgressions.

When NT times came, God decides to provide a lamb that would take care of all those sacrifices once and for all. The lamb of God... Jesus was brought in. That lamb was killed instead. The lamb was to be the payment for the sins that YOU committed.

So it's still about the price YOU have to pay to be forgiven.

The idea was that something innocent had to pay the price for your sins. It PAID your price. It took the death you should have suffered.

I've got news for you; we're all gonna die.

According to the bible, once we die we get ripped out of our graves, resurrected, put on trial and then either admitted into heaven or killed a second time. The Lamb of God is there so that we can avoid the SECOND death, not the first one.

God masquerading as a sheep is not going to cut it. It would be going against the system that God set up to begin with. Sacrifices to HIM! So that HE would forgive you.

I'm not following. What are you talking about?

Are you aware of how the OT sacrifice system worked? If you understand that, you will understand how you are looking at the NT system wrong.

Tell me, what happens after say the sacrifice has been accepted. Let's say the rapist repents and is forgiven. He accepts Jesus's sacrifice on his behalf. What happens at this point?

Most likely nothing.

So no cleansing of sin? No new life? Nothing? He continues on with filthy sin in his soul?

What causes this rapist to now be cleansed and have eternal life?

According to the texts, God is the cause. God is the only one who can cleanse anyone, and the only one who will grant eternal life to someone.

AHHA! So GOD does the cleansing at this point, right? God steps in and ABRACADABRA we are cleansed of sin. We have new life.

How does Jesus's death on the cross affect this?

It doesn't, does it? Not directly. God decides to use his magical powers and cleanse us of our sins, which he could do without the need for Jesus to die.

So why the death of Jesus if it's not necessary? God is clearly not rendered impotent. So it can only mean that he simply refuses to cleanse you if you don't acknowledge Jesus's death. Jesus dying on the cross achieves absolutely nothing otherwise. Somehow the death of an innocent being, soothes the wrath of God.

God could chose to cleanse us without the need for Jesus's death, couldn't he? Jesus's death is actually redundant to the whole scenario of forgiveness. It's ALL up to God.

The first thing that I see here that you probably don't agree with is that in the Old Testament, the lambs brought to sacrifice are gifts from God. Those who brought the lambs, didn't create the lambs. Ultimately, God owns all of it; it's all His. Secondly, Jesus comes along and shines the light of truth into the darkness of this sinful world. This is not primarily to reveal sin, but to reveal truth. The secondary result is the revelation of sin. The problem is that those who identify with their sin feel a desperate need to hide themselves. Those who don't identify with their sin, walk away from it altogether. Part of the process of being able to see sin and not identify with it, is seeing or experiencing forgiveness. If I steal your furniture and big screen television from you living room, and some one else comes along and tells me that my sins are forgiven. How does that make you feel? Do you get a warm fuzzy feeling all over? Do you feel any need or impulse to forgive the thief?

What if the person forgiving the thief is forgiving him for not cutting them in on the whole stash? What if they pawned it all, but only gave their partner 30% of the haul? One thief forgiving another one. Does that make sense? So Jesus comes along and he's innocent. He's spreading the gospel message. He's pointing out that we're all lost, and that we need to make things right. Are you ready to forgive those thieves yet? Is that enough for you to forgive them?

If everyone were to hear Christ's message, they would repent, make things right with those they had wronged and the kingdom would arrive in all its glory.

How about the fact that no one wants to hear this message in the first place? Jesus keeps it up, and even though he's done nothing wrong, He's broken no laws whatsoever, He's only shown people that they can experience what it means to truly live a life of abundance; he's arrested and crucified.

How about now? Do you feel any impulse to forgive anyone who has wronged you yet? Most wouldn't likely be feeling the love or any need to forgive anyone. Jesus is nailed to a cross and forgives not just those who are crucifying him, but everyone who has ever sinned against God, man, woman, child, nature, etc. He's got nothing but love for a fallen world, and wants nothing more than for this fallen world to be reconciled to God. God doesn't want to crucify Christ. Christ wants to forgive us in the midst of an insane fallen world that wants nothing more than to be rid of him.

He asks us to do the same by forgiving those who wrong us, when we're probably in the wrong. and even when we're innocent as well. He isn't asking us to do something that he didn't do already. So not only is he showing us how this is all accomplished; he's accomplishing it by going through this crucifixion. It isn't that God has decided to come up with the most ghastly and horrid means of inflicting death. We did that. God just happens to know what's going to happen. God just happens to be able to save us all in the midst of our culture of death.

Some people can see what's going on here. They can see a man who was despised and yet did nothing to warrant our scorn, and even though he was spurned and crucified unjustly, he forgives us. What this does is to break open a cold dead heart that can't forgive, and allows us to experience not only the forgiveness of God, but the ability to forgive others as well.

This is way beyond any standard of justice. We're all okay with God forgiving us, but we don't see how what we've done warrants Christ's crucifixion because we don't see or have any idea of the gravity of what we're doing to God. Our sin is no different than placing Christ on that cross ourselves, and there he is forgiving you for what you've done right there on the cross.

When we steal, lie, cheat, murder, etc. we do this to God. we just see it as cheating, we don't see how corrosive it is because it's so subtle to a darkened mind. We do this in ignorance, and then we have the nerve to say to God, hey you're big enough to just look the other way. God says, yeah, I'm going to look the other way while you hammer some nails into me, and then I'm going to forgive you. Can you accept his forgiveness now?? Some people can, and do so seeing themselves for who they really are, and what God has determined them to become. Others are incapable of separating themselves from their sin. They can only see themselves as separate from God or just separate from everything and everyone else in this world.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 83 by shnarkle]

Let's cut this short. I'm not interested in poetry. That's not why I come to this forum. So I believe we're done here?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

Let's think about this whole thing.......................the stories outlined in the Old and New Testament focus on the need for some kind of sacrifice by a pure and innocent (clean animal) or a once and final sinless perfect human (Christ).

Now at the time all this was written into text we were dealing with a prescientific culture who understood little about the laws and forces of nature.

Note only with just the Judeo/Christian but all cultures during this period of human development literally thought unexplained natural forces were controlled by super humans in the sky, aka Gods.. or even a single God..............as a result they all feared the bad effects of nature and life. So they tried to appease these imaged beings by offering them gifts/sacrifices......

Especially, of blood since they had observer when a person or animal kept bleeding they died............so that was the ultimate sacrifice that could be made.

This is nothing more than behavior and claims by humans who have not a clue about their environment trying to understanding it by imagining it is being controlled by conscious beings like themselves with far greater powers than they and attempting to appease them to change those forces that they feared......

How in the world can we take any claims from ancient prescientific texts as a validation for reality by cultures who had no scientific method to even begin to understand reality is beyond me........

Scape goat sacrifices of blood with any living organism to appease an imagined superpower is nothing more than a relic from primitive superstitious behavior.

But the texts of the Old and New Testament reek of a culture that doesn’t understand the environment and their God actions in that text are the actions of a primitive nomadic dessert culture best effort to try to understand reality before the process of the scientific method was leveraged.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

The logic is something like this: just as one bad apple can cast all the other apples in doubt (that they too are no good), so one good apple can restore the reputation of the others (that, in fact, they may be good).

That is what Jesus does. In steadfastness to the communal way of self-giving (for the salvation and life of others), through the worst possible death even, Jesus proves his worthiness to rule, and in the process restores the reputation of us all.

He redeems us or, as Paul puts it, justifies us. He justifies our existence and calling to rule the earth.

The only way we can share in this redemption is if we repent and acknowledge Christ as our redeemer. What happens then that redeems us? What metamorphosis occurs that takes us from being a good apple to a bad apple? How does this metamorphosis occur?

No, the redemption is automatic. You misunderstand.

Nothing takes us from being a good apple to a bad apple here. Rather, in finding one good apple in the batch, our faith and hope in the rest is restored. Or at least, we cannot deny that there is potential in the batch.

It does not make us good. What it does is makes it more likely for one to take another apple and give it a try... To give the batch another chance. To not destroy the batch outright (its existence being unjustified).

See? Automatic redemption. Just like the 10 good people in Sodom may have saved that whole batch if they were to be found.

That's not how it went down though was it? Instead God just took the one good apple out of the bad batch and tossed the bad batch out altogether.

Jesus says the same thing will happen again, his only distinction being that the next time it happens the bad apples will be giving and taking in marriage, planting and sowing, buying and selling. That sounds like a lot of bad apples.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 83 by shnarkle]

Let's cut this short. I'm not interested in poetry. That's not why I come to this forum. So I believe we're done here?

I could have told you that from the beginning but that would have been to state the glaringly obvious. That would have been to cut this short, this was the long drawn out version.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to OnceConvinced]

Let's think about this whole thing.......................the stories outlined in the Old and New Testament focus on the need for some kind of sacrifice by a pure and innocent (clean animal) or a once and final sinless perfect human (Christ).

Now at the time all this was written into text we were dealing with a prescientific culture who understood little about the laws and forces of nature.

Note only with just the Judeo/Christian but all cultures during this period of human development literally thought unexplained natural forces were controlled by super humans in the sky, aka Gods.. or even a single God..............as a result they all feared the bad effects of nature and life. So they tried to appease these imaged beings by offering them gifts/sacrifices......

Especially, of blood since they had observer when a person or animal kept bleeding they died............so that was the ultimate sacrifice that could be made.

This is nothing more than behavior and claims by humans who have not a clue about their environment trying to understanding it by imagining it is being controlled by conscious beings like themselves with far greater powers than they and attempting to appease them to change those forces that they feared......

How in the world can we take any claims from ancient prescientific texts as a validation for reality by cultures who had no scientific method to even begin to understand reality is beyond me........

Scape goat sacrifices of blood with any living organism to appease an imagined superpower is nothing more than a relic from primitive superstitious behavior.

But the texts of the Old and New Testament reek of a culture that doesn’t understand the environment and their God actions in that text are the actions of a primitive nomadic dessert culture best effort to try to understand reality before the process of the scientific method was leveraged.

Not only is that theory not interesting or compelling, it's probably just some fanciful imagining. The opposite is probably much more likely. They had a direct grasp of reality and therefore didn't need to explain anything. Notice that they don't explain anything, but seem to intuitively know that washing after coming in contact with blood, corpses, rotting animals, giving birth etc. is a really good way to prevent the spread of disease. They also know that quarantine is beneficial. Science has to see the bacteria and viruses before it can come to the same conclusion. Scientists therefore have to wait a few thousand years to figure out how to keep from getting the common cold. They also end up dying from things like the Black Death while those who have enough sense to wash and stay away from idiots not only survive, but thrive due to the many other instructions given to them by their gods...Better to be a thriving theist than a dead scientist.