scumble on 20/9/2006 at 08:26
So no-one was interested in my musings on Tolkein then? Never mind...
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
But that's GBM's entire point, that Jesus being "killed" doesn't carry the same cost, or any cost really, that anyone else being killed would. It's not a sacrifice except in the shallowest and most technical fashion.
But, as I attempted to outline, it is perfectly possible to come up with a way of making Jesus suffer in a very real way. Crucifiction isn't going to be a party even if you know you'll get through it, assuming one suffers as if one were flesh and blood. I don't think it's quite that easy to write off dying of exposure over several days as a "formality".
Quote Posted by fett
That's the main problem with Jesus - if he was just a compasionate man, he purposely lied to people about being God in the flesh, and therefore he was either an opportunistic liar, or psychotic to some degree (not to mention suicidal). Some would say the remaining option is that he actually was God in the flesh.
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
...one of the best ways to make sure that they could continue to spread these ideas and teachings and still manage to have people take them seriously was to pump up the legend of Jesus to the point where their own personal lack of whatever charisma or skills in oratory or even just flat-out presentation wouldn't be a problem.
I just put these two bits together because much of the problem of talking about a chap such as Jesus is the authority given to the NT accounts. The common thing you hear "If Jesus wasn't god he must have been a big fat liar or mad" only makes any sense at all if you think the NT is entirely accurate. If, like GBM and myself, you aren't bound to that assumption, it is perfectly acceptable to weed out the superstitious stuff to bring out another image of whoever this man was. In any case, one only has to look at the Dalai Llama to see a generally sane, respected individual who just happens to believe he is more or less a god.
I believe Thomas Jefferson was keen on removing the silly stuff (as he saw it) from the NT and produced his own editied "rational" version.
So, to recap in a slightly shorter version, it helps to define the terms of the discussion. In this case, the assumptions about the authority of the Bible. Religious debates almost always fall foul of the widely different underlying assumptions.
d0om on 20/9/2006 at 09:01
The main trouble I have with the supposed authority of the Bible is the way it was put together. There are many books which were considered for inclusion, and only some of those remain in the current version. The Catholic one has some other books in too.
Now 2Tim3:16 is the verse used to say that "scripture" is inspired by God. But it doesn't help with deciding which books are scripture.
So assuming that the Christian religion is "correct" how do we know which books are actually scripture? Presumably its not 100% since people make mistakes.
The common argument against this is "But God wouldn't let us have an incorrect Bible!"; this is a load of rubbish though since he lets people murder each other all the time, as well as the existance of several different Bibles.
Fingernail on 20/9/2006 at 10:15
People who've been brought up Christian probably don't think about it in that way, it's just the status quo for them to accept it, and it's tough for anybody to challenge their own status quo, whatever that is.
How many miracles would it take for me to turn around and say "oh yeah, I guess I WILL devote my life to God's work, I was wrong all along"? Wouldn't I keep searching for rational explanations to justify my non-belief? And even if I got past that, there'd still be a lingering doubt from my fairly secular childhood - what if I'm being hoodwinked here?
So you might present lots of reasons that the Bible is flawed in it's construction. But what are they to a real believer? It's the Bible! It always has been and it always will be.
JACKofTrades on 20/9/2006 at 10:47
I posted this earlier in the thread but no one responded and I really would like to know others thoughts on this as this is something I'm not entirely clear on myself:
"I think the hurdle here is that for the whole Jesus as Christ thing to have any real meaning is that you have accept that it was possible (as a real man, not some kind of hybrid god-man) for him to fuck up and render the whole process a failure."
Process here being the redemption of mankind. In my mind, this would answer GBM's question of whether the "sacrifice" was really a sacrifice at all. If we accept that Jesus was a real man, with all the weaknesses and failings that go along with that doesn't it necessarily follow that it was possible for him to sin and botch the whole thing? And, is it necessary for this to be true for the Christian doctrine to be true?
Damn, it was clear in my head before I started punching buttons, honest.
Convict on 20/9/2006 at 11:34
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Anyway, I do not trust a human who says they have had direct contact with something supposedly divine.
One way to test this would be to put them to death in a horrible fashion unless they recanted. If they die willingly then they were mad or telling the truth (I suspect mad; also I think very few would die in a nasty way to defend their claims).*
dam ethics committees!
*partly a disciple reference
JackofTrades I think the (
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%204:1-11;&version=31;) temptation of Jesus in the desert was a demonstration that Jesus could be tempted by sin.
Agent Monkeysee on 20/9/2006 at 16:01
Quote Posted by Convict
One way to test this would be to put them to death in a horrible fashion unless they recanted. If they die willingly then they were mad or telling the truth (I suspect mad; also I think very few would die in a nasty way to defend their claims).*
Or deeply and truly believed their own convictions. Throughout history innumerable people have died for deeply held beliefs without any pretense to claims of the divine. Unless you kids have some hot new definition of "mad" that includes that possibility you're oversimplifying the issue into oblivion.
Agent Monkeysee on 20/9/2006 at 16:03
Quote Posted by scumble
But, as I attempted to outline, it is perfectly possible to come up with a way of making Jesus suffer in a very real way. Crucifiction isn't going to be a party even if you know you'll get through it, assuming one suffers as if one were flesh and blood. I don't think it's quite that easy to write off dying of exposure over several days as a "formality".
Well that's inline with GBM's concession that he's willing to accept Jesus' crucifixion as a demonstration. I'm not sure if I'm willing to accept that as a sacrifice though and any way you cut it it seems that it somewhat lessens the impact of his actions.
Quote Posted by scumble
I just put these two bits together because much of the problem of talking about a chap such as Jesus is the authority given to the NT accounts. The common thing you hear "If Jesus wasn't god he must have been a big fat liar or mad" only makes any sense at all if you think the NT is entirely accurate. If, like GBM and myself, you aren't bound to that assumption, it is perfectly acceptable to weed out the superstitious stuff to bring out another image of whoever this man was.
Yeah I actually wanted to make this exact point to fett's post but couldn't come up with a string the words together to make it postable.
edit: that's right i'm double posting bitches
Scots Taffer on 20/9/2006 at 23:21
Dave installed multiquote for fags like you.
Agent Monkeysee on 21/9/2006 at 02:49
Dave installed shut the hell up for ur a jerkface, ass.
