Gingerbread Man on 19/9/2006 at 01:13
I know what you're getting at, but I can't shake the feeling that a line of reasoning in that vein either deftly and sneakily sidesteps the question of the value of the sacrifice / resurrection, or at worst is straight-up equivocation.
Not that I can really fault someone for equivocation if I accept the basic groundrules... There's this black hole of unfalsifiability inherent in faith, and most explanations can always be ended reasonably and cogently with a shrug and an "I dunno... it's God, dude... I can't understand a THING that guy does"
It's really frustrating for me sometimes, because I'd dearly love to understand what loads of other people seem to be so thoroughly convinced about. Not that I want to believe it for myself... I'd just like to understand it. It's not even skepticism on my part -- this shit simply does NOT compute for me.
And the best anyone's ever given me, other than "you don't have to understand it, it's FAITH, man" is something along the lines of "you have to experience it for yourself" and I'm sorry but I don't trust black dudes offering me pills in creepy abandoned apartments, I don't care how expensive their trenchcoats might be. TAKE OFF THOSE SUNGLASSES I WANT TO SEE YOUR EYES MOTHERFUCKER :grr:
Agent Monkeysee on 19/9/2006 at 01:16
Along the same lines are those particular brand of Christians who for some reason hold a particularly virulent animosity towards the Jews for killing Jesus while at the same time finding salvation in Jesus' sacrifice :confused:
Not as universal a point as the one you're making but it reminded me of that particular mind-bender.
Gorgonseye on 19/9/2006 at 01:19
Whoa, whoa whoa, since when was it the JEWS that killed Jesus, I'm pretty sure it was the romans, and simply the Jews took no part in it, other then calling Jesus insane.....
Scots Taffer on 19/9/2006 at 01:19
I guess it became meaningful because even though he knew it was his destiny and although, ultimately I guess, he had no real free will in the matter, he had fear of death as most people do, he even kind of pleaded with God to not die because who the fucks want to? I guess at the end of it all, his sacrifice of his mortal body was still the part that meant something to everyone around him.
edit -
Quote Posted by Gorgonseye
Whoa, whoa whoa, since when was it the JEWS that killed Jesus, I'm pretty sure it was the romans, and simply the Jews took no part in it, other then calling Jesus insane.....
Uh, Pontias washed his hands? The crowd cried for Barabus as stirred up by the Jewish elders?
ercles on 19/9/2006 at 01:20
GBM
That's a pretty interesting idea, but I have a couple of sticking points with your comparisons (you did draw a pretty long bow with the whole thing). Firstly comparing quitting your job which was not great anywhere doesn't really equate with getting crucified along with thieves, stoned, and publicly jeered by the people you love, and are trying to save. Whilst you could argue that yes he knew he was going to heaven afterwards, I think it must have been a bit tougher than that. Don't forget that Jesus spent the night before having second thoughts and begging God to not as him to go through with it. Also, you have to think that this is not necessarily just the friendly and honest co-worker that you are sacrificing yourself with, it's leaving the door open for everyone. And there is no garuantee that the people you are trying to help will accept it, maybe the bloke who got fired will decide to stay unemployed (just as crazy as rejecting Jesus in the mind of Christians). So, to conclude, to make a more correct anology, this is you quitting your job to potentially help out some complete bastard who may very well turn his life around, and not only would you be rejected by those you were helping, but you also would be shamed whilst trying to help them.
Like I said, I found your argument quite interesting, but I don't see your analogy as quite correct.
In a bit of a tangent, one of the interesting arguments that constantly does the rounds in Christian circles is whether you go to heaven right after you die, or does everyone who has died throughout all of time get judged on the Day of Judgment as according to Revelations.
Quote Posted by gorgonseye
Whoa, whoa whoa, since when was it the JEWS that killed Jesus, I'm pretty sure it was the romans, and simply the Jews took no part in it, other then calling Jesus insane.....
Well (
http://www.slate.com/id/2088417/) this guy makes an interesting argument for the jews being responsible
Gingerbread Man on 19/9/2006 at 01:26
None of that addresses the fact that I am secure in the fact that I either have a better job elsewhere or will get my old job back. Analogies aren't similies, and I'm bad at both of them anyway.
My point is that there are some bits that are either poorly-explained as far as the internal consistency goes, or are such a hodge-podge of writes and rewrites and embellishments and exaggeration-- for good or ill, because I DO understand the necessity of building up a really strong case for Jesus' authority and street cred in so far as making sure that the teachings carry some sort of weight with people, and I have no real bone to pick with that -- that it's practically capsizing itself under the weight of the editing.
Also Jews created Superman, so that's a-okay by me. Consider it amends.
ercles on 19/9/2006 at 01:32
Yeh I agree, that is the main problem I have with the Bible. As much as it is an incredible example of metaphors and is an incredible rich scripture, it is just way too open to interpreation for my liking. If I was an omnipitent God, I'd make a religious scripture that is clear and decisive about what I'm all about, and what I want people to do. In my opinion, if there is a heaven, it'll have about 8 people in it, purely because of the differences in opinions on crucial topics even between churches of the same faith.
Gorgonseye on 19/9/2006 at 01:33
Ah, yes, but first of all, it seems to state that only specific Jewish leaders had prodded the romans into doing such a thing, not "The Jews" as a whole, that in mind, taking a few people and their backround, and just saying it was that entire grouping, seems somewhat inappropriate. As well as the fact, we can not truly be 100% percent sure of the accuracy of this in the first place can we?
fett on 19/9/2006 at 01:43
Quote:
Along the same lines are those particular brand of Christians who for some reason hold a particularly virulent animosity towards the Jews for killing Jesus while at the same time finding salvation in Jesus' sacrifice
AM - that's the reason the western church is so fucked up and running around with it's head up it's ass. They think Jesus was a Baptist from Dallas. He was a Jew from Jerusalem. The Bible is Hebrew. Judaism is the cradle in which Christianity was nursed. After long, agonizing consideration, I've determined that the church has totally lost the plot somewhere along the way...
GBM - Here's the theological short and long of it: I think the element that you're leaving out of the equation has to do with the unpopular subject of the wrath of God. The sacrifice of the cross was not necessarily a sacrifice of death, but a sacrifice of suffering - particularly suffering for the crime of another, when you are in fact innocent of any crime ever.
If, as the bible teaches, the wages of sin is death, and Christ in fact 'had no sin' - he had not 'earned' the wages of death, yet suffered death on behalf of those who had. This also explains the resurrection in a bit of a different light - why didn't he stay dead? He had not earned the wages of death. Potential for a long rabbit trail here....
The NT book of Hebrews goes into some detail as to the metaphysical suffering of the cross. Obviously there was intense physical pain (Roman scourging and crucifiction being on the top 2 list of 'ancient execution that hurt the most). But there seems also to be a 'behind the scenes' situation where the wrath of God against sin is being 'poured out' on this guy. He supposedly yells out things like 'why have you forsaken me?' and such - implying a metaphysical separation from the Trinity as he 'became sin' - a total rejection by his father, and even an uncommon emotional and physical suffering beyond a normal human crucifiction.
The bottom line being, that though he supposedly knew there would be a resurrection, the sacrifice of pain and suffering was a huge thing to face as he was divine, but also completely human (the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ - another opportunity for a loooong rabbit trail).
Another element that plays into this, given the dual nature, is that he suffered in this way while being totally capable of calling it all off, calling down lightning, angels, big monsters, and boy bands to smite the guys who were killing him etc.
Anyway, my two cents...
Celtic_Thief on 19/9/2006 at 01:47
Addressing Jesus' death as a sacrifice:
It was a sacrifice in as much as, for some reason (This is what makes the explanation incomplete) God required blood in payment. I think people often forget that. In the Old Testament, several stories deal with the nature of sacrifice and it's importance.
Part of worshiping the God of the Old Testament was providing a sacrifice, blood was required. I'm not exactly sure how many times this was carried out by a worshipper, but I'm confident it was more than once in a life time. So in order to save all of humanity at once for all of time, it would require a blood payment like none other. If we take that notion that Jesus was in fact divine, was faced with all temptations but resisted, was born of Immaculate Conception, was God made flesh; would that not be an adequate sacrifice?
I know this explanation falls short (Why did God require the blood of a living thing to be appeased?), and I'm dearly sorry about that, but it is the best I can do. If there's anything blatantly wrong about old religious practices, please correct me.
