Was Jesus' Sacrifice Meaningful?

[JoeMama]

Jesus spent some unpleasant hours on the cross, and a couple of days in a tomb, but he is still alive today, 2,000 years later, sitting forevermore in heavenly bliss at the right hand of God. If the price for living forever is being nailed to a cross and being shut up for a short while in a tomb, who wouldn't take that bargain? So why do people think Jesus made such a great sacrifice?

[brunumb]

I do consider life a great joy. However, it is clearly far less than eternal bliss and universal adoration. If a person had perfect joy then willingly setting that for a life that includes considerable amounts of pain seems like a great sacrifice. Do you disagree?

Just how much of Jesus' life included considerable amounts of pain?

[iam1me2023]

Jesus spent some unpleasant hours on the cross, and a couple of days in a tomb, but he is still alive today, 2,000 years later, sitting forevermore in heavenly bliss at the right hand of God. If the price for living forever is being nailed to a cross and being shut up for a short while in a tomb, who wouldn't take that bargain? So why do people think Jesus made such a great sacrifice?

To be clear - his death was only part of his sacrifice. An important and conclusive part to be sure - but no, it wasn't simply that. Rather, Jesus' entire life was a sacrifice to God - he had to live every day perfectly so that he was always pleasing to God. This means that he had to undergo all the same temptations and tribulations that are common to mankind and never give in to temptation or let his emotions get the better of him and lead him to sin. He didn't live an entitled life, and indeed he even had to choose to willingly submit himself to the authorities to be put to death - and at any point he could have walked away. He was furthermore tempted by Satan with the opportunity to rule the world without having to sacrifice himself, but chose God instead even when faced with a very painful death.

Seeings as no one else has been able to live a blameless life, I'd say that makes for a pretty impressive feat.

[boatsnguitars]

experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years

Something many of us do for more than 30 years but we are told it's a great honor to have Life. Here you suggest Life is just a grind and then you die.

No, but if we include the part of my post that was left off here then I wrote, “If Christianity is true the Jesus already had eternal heavenly bliss at the right hand of God before the incarnation. He gained nothing by coming to earth… experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years.”

I do consider life a great joy. However, it is clearly far less than eternal bliss and universal adoration. If a person had perfect joy then willingly setting that for a life that includes considerable amounts of pain seems like a great sacrifice. Do you disagree?

"If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, isn't it? "If" anything and magical things can happen, no?

[boatsnguitars]

It is indeed ironic that the apologetic 'Prove George Washington existed' is considered a valid apologetic. We have records, letters, his house, his teaspoons, his chamber pot. We even know what he looked like.

Much the same with Caesar and Alexander. Not Lincoln though, those photos have to be photoshopped; nobody could ever wear a top hat like that.

The fact is that, while I am convinced of the reality of Jesus, mainly because I think Paul's letters are authentic, and I credit the broad outlines of the deeds as much as those of Muhammad and more than those of Buddha (In fact I doubt pretty much all the recorded deeds and sayings of Buddha) I am also convinced that they have been heavily re - upholstered to be more comfortable to Christian beliefs.

Religious indoctrination is quite powerful - that it can create such a strong feeling that a mythological character actually existed. Not saying a man named Jesus didn't exist, but that the mythical people and creatures that people have believed in over the Ages.

Christians are quick to point out that all those other religions are based on myth, but they ignore the mythization of their own religion. They ignore the tale as old as Humanity itself that people are inclined to believe in myths, legends, fantastical tales and creatures.

Our species creates narratives and tools. Science prioritizes the tools, Religions prioritize the narratives. Both are important - in fact - inseverable from the human experience.

It appears that some people prioritize religion to the extreme and completely ignore the Natural world to the point they can't except that their Mind is "out there somewhere", or that unicorns really did walk the Earth, or a man really walked on water, or rose from the dead, or had he decapitated head replaces with an elephants, or chopped down a cherry tree, or slew a dragon, etc. - despite Science telling us these things are either impossible, or perfectly in line with our propensity to invent narratives (for example, it's not impossible to chop down a cherry tree, but the story was invented to explain how honest George was - and we can trace that story to the man who invented it).

Religionists seem to simply be stuck in placing the narrative above all other evidence. Sure, they accept the evidence that doesn't affect their idea of the narrative, but they are impervious to facts that would undermine the narrative. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Religionists.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is indeed ironic that the apologetic 'Prove George Washington existed' is considered a valid apologetic. We have records, letters, his house, his teaspoons, his chamber pot. We even know what he looked like.

Much the same with Caesar and Alexander. Not Lincoln though, those photos have to be photoshopped; nobody could ever wear a top hat like that.

The fact is that, while I am convinced of the reality of Jesus, mainly because I think Paul's letters are authentic, and I credit the broad outlines of the deeds as much as those of Muhammad and more than those of Buddha (In fact I doubt pretty much all the recorded deeds and sayings of Buddha) I am also convinced that they have been heavily re - upholstered to be more comfortable to Christian beliefs.

Religious indoctrination is quite powerful - that it can create such a strong feeling that a mythological character actually existed. Not saying a man named Jesus didn't exist, but that the mythical people and creatures that people have believed in over the Ages.

Christians are quick to point out that all those other religions are based on myth, but they ignore the mythization of their own religion. They ignore the tale as old as Humanity itself that people are inclined to believe in myths, legends, fantastical tales and creatures.

Our species creates narratives and tools. Science prioritizes the tools, Religions prioritize the narratives. Both are important - in fact - inseverable from the human experience.

It appears that some people prioritize religion to the extreme and completely ignore the Natural world to the point they can't except that their Mind is "out there somewhere", or that unicorns really did walk the Earth, or a man really walked on water, or rose from the dead, or had he decapitated head replaces with an elephants, or chopped down a cherry tree, or slew a dragon, etc. - despite Science telling us these things are either impossible, or perfectly in line with our propensity to invent narratives (for example, it's not impossible to chop down a cherry tree, but the story was invented to explain how honest George was - and we can trace that story to the man who invented it).

Religionists seem to simply be stuck in placing the narrative above all other evidence. Sure, they accept the evidence that doesn't affect their idea of the narrative, but they are impervious to facts that would undermine the narrative. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Religionists.

Our Myths (ancient and modern) reflect and perhaps mould our thinking and habits. That is why there is such an effort to control the narrative. We know the right way to do it - evidence and logic. But that doesn't always suit, so fiddling (at least) the evidence and inverting (or dismissing) the logic is the preferred method, because people aren't taught that getting at the truth is more important than Being Right, or denying to the last, being wrong.

Sure, tales and stories are fine, like games, music, dance and art, but they should not be taken too seriously; they are human constructs and should be subject to human reason, not the controllers of it.

[boatsnguitars]

It is indeed ironic that the apologetic 'Prove George Washington existed' is considered a valid apologetic. We have records, letters, his house, his teaspoons, his chamber pot. We even know what he looked like.

Much the same with Caesar and Alexander. Not Lincoln though, those photos have to be photoshopped; nobody could ever wear a top hat like that.

The fact is that, while I am convinced of the reality of Jesus, mainly because I think Paul's letters are authentic, and I credit the broad outlines of the deeds as much as those of Muhammad and more than those of Buddha (In fact I doubt pretty much all the recorded deeds and sayings of Buddha) I am also convinced that they have been heavily re - upholstered to be more comfortable to Christian beliefs.

Religious indoctrination is quite powerful - that it can create such a strong feeling that a mythological character actually existed. Not saying a man named Jesus didn't exist, but that the mythical people and creatures that people have believed in over the Ages.

Christians are quick to point out that all those other religions are based on myth, but they ignore the mythization of their own religion. They ignore the tale as old as Humanity itself that people are inclined to believe in myths, legends, fantastical tales and creatures.

Our species creates narratives and tools. Science prioritizes the tools, Religions prioritize the narratives. Both are important - in fact - inseverable from the human experience.

It appears that some people prioritize religion to the extreme and completely ignore the Natural world to the point they can't except that their Mind is "out there somewhere", or that unicorns really did walk the Earth, or a man really walked on water, or rose from the dead, or had he decapitated head replaces with an elephants, or chopped down a cherry tree, or slew a dragon, etc. - despite Science telling us these things are either impossible, or perfectly in line with our propensity to invent narratives (for example, it's not impossible to chop down a cherry tree, but the story was invented to explain how honest George was - and we can trace that story to the man who invented it).

Religionists seem to simply be stuck in placing the narrative above all other evidence. Sure, they accept the evidence that doesn't affect their idea of the narrative, but they are impervious to facts that would undermine the narrative. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Religionists.

Our Myths (ancient and modern) reflect and perhaps mould our thinking and habits. That is why there is such an effort to control the narrative. We know the right way to do it - evidence and logic. But that doesn't always suit, so fiddling (at least) the evidence and inverting (or dismissing) the logic is the preferred method, because people aren't taught that getting at the truth is more important than Being Right, or denying to the last, being wrong.

Sure, tales and stories are fine, like games, music, dance and art, but they should not be taken too seriously; they are human constructs and should be subject to human reason, not the controllers of it.

Some examples where the narrative and the facts worked well together (IMO) were the New Deal, the Apollo Moon Landing Program, and WWII. There was a narrative that ignited the people in a (generally) unified manner - and it was based on reality, human needs, scientific facts, etc. These are the great things we can do when the Narrative and the Science are used effectively.

That's what bothers me about religion and other idealistic ideologies based on woo, and are contrary to Science. The ability to move people to action is a tool that ought to be used responsibly. Using it to bilk old ladies out of their pension on the promise of an ever-lasting life is criminal.

[bjs1]

experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years

Something many of us do for more than 30 years but we are told it's a great honor to have Life. Here you suggest Life is just a grind and then you die.

No, but if we include the part of my post that was left off here then I wrote, “If Christianity is true the Jesus already had eternal heavenly bliss at the right hand of God before the incarnation. He gained nothing by coming to earth… experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years.”

I do consider life a great joy. However, it is clearly far less than eternal bliss and universal adoration. If a person had perfect joy then willingly setting that for a life that includes considerable amounts of pain seems like a great sacrifice. Do you disagree?

"If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, isn't it? "If" anything and magical things can happen, no?

I do not understand your argument here. Are you saying, “If we change the story of Jesus to something else then we could make it so it’s not a sacrifice”? I mean, yeah that is obviously accurate. It’s also silly.

If Christianity is true then Jesus made a great sacrifice. If Christianity is false then a reasonable person can understand how it is a story about sacrifice, even if that person insists that the story is fictional.

[boatsnguitars]

experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years

Something many of us do for more than 30 years but we are told it's a great honor to have Life. Here you suggest Life is just a grind and then you die.

No, but if we include the part of my post that was left off here then I wrote, “If Christianity is true the Jesus already had eternal heavenly bliss at the right hand of God before the incarnation. He gained nothing by coming to earth… experiencing the regular suffering of life (and perhaps a bit more than normal) for 30+ years.”

I do consider life a great joy. However, it is clearly far less than eternal bliss and universal adoration. If a person had perfect joy then willingly setting that for a life that includes considerable amounts of pain seems like a great sacrifice. Do you disagree?

"If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, isn't it? "If" anything and magical things can happen, no?

I do not understand your argument here. Are you saying, “If we change the story of Jesus to something else then we could make it so it’s not a sacrifice”? I mean, yeah that is obviously accurate. It’s also silly.

If Christianity is true then Jesus made a great sacrifice. If Christianity is false then a reasonable person can understand how it is a story about sacrifice, even if that person insists that the story is fictional.

You said, "If Christianity is true...."

If magic is true, if bananas were bolts, if nuts were whistles, if, if, if.....

If Christianity is true - have at it - say whatever you want.

Likewise, if Magic is true, I can make all kinds of claims, too.

But, also, "IF" Christianity is true, Jesus only suffered for a momentary blip in the broad scheme, and while he may have been enjoying his time with God, God demanded he sacrifice himself. It wasn't by choice. It was his fate - if Christianity is true...

Perhaps, hence, the "Why have you forsaken me?" For a moment he thought God had reneged on his deal. That's quite a comment for someone with perfect Faith? No? To doubt God after you spent all that time with him?

[bjs1]

You said, "If Christianity is true...."

If magic is true, if bananas were bolts, if nuts were whistles, if, if, if.....

If Christianity is true - have at it - say whatever you want.

Likewise, if Magic is true, I can make all kinds of claims, too.

I am not sure what you are saying here that I have not already said. If Christianity is true then Jesus made a great sacrifice. If Christianity is false then is a fictional story about Jesus making a great sacrifice. Do you have anything to add?

But, also, "IF" Christianity is true, Jesus only suffered for a momentary blip in the broad scheme, and while he may have been enjoying his time with God, God demanded he sacrifice himself. It wasn't by choice. It was his fate - if Christianity is true...

No, if Christianity is true then Jesus willingly gave up his life. No one forced him to. It was by choice. You don’t have to agree with Christianity, but that’s what Christianity is.

[TRANSPONDER]

You said, "If Christianity is true...."

If magic is true, if bananas were bolts, if nuts were whistles, if, if, if.....

If Christianity is true - have at it - say whatever you want.

Likewise, if Magic is true, I can make all kinds of claims, too.

I am not sure what you are saying here that I have not already said. If Christianity is true then Jesus made a great sacrifice. If Christianity is false then is a fictional story about Jesus making a great sacrifice. Do you have anything to add?

But, also, "IF" Christianity is true, Jesus only suffered for a momentary blip in the broad scheme, and while he may have been enjoying his time with God, God demanded he sacrifice himself. It wasn't by choice. It was his fate - if Christianity is true...

No, if Christianity is true then Jesus willingly gave up his life. No one forced him to. It was by choice. You don’t have to agree with Christianity, but that’s what Christianity is.

Yes, I think that is fair comment. But the point is that if the sacrifice is not in fact meaningfully a sacrifice, then either God is messing about or the Christian claim does not make sense and makes for doubt that the story is even true. Add to that (at least for me) the contradictions that make the resurrection story uncredible and you have two major reasons to think the resurrection and thus Christianity is NOT true.