What is the Role of the Crucifixion in Christianity?

mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
What is the Role of the Crucifixion in Christianity?


what about the crucifixion is meaningful to christians? is it that jesus died on the cross? is it that he was resurrected after three days instead of one day or one minute or four weeks?

as i understand it, the logistics of jesus' story seem to be what impresses most christians, but to me, they seem to be unnecessary, if not distracting. employing the dramatic manner of your exit from earth as a means to communicate a divine message seems a bit juvenile to me.

is the manner of jesus' death important? what if jesus had died of food poisoning or a heart attack? or, if he tripped and fell on the way to the crucifixion. would his story be less meaningful to christians? would jesus still be jesus?


itsjustinf
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
it's not the way that he

it's not the way that he died, because crucifixion was pretty common at the time, so jesus was simply killed as a common criminal.  they think, though, that the fact that he died is what's important because it somehow forgave mankind for original sin (which is complete horseshit itself).  there really isn't any sort of logic to the whole thing.  i can't believe i thought it was true at one point.  oh well, live and learn.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Mouse:

Quote:
what about the crucifixion(sp?) is meaningful to you?

That God reached out to man where man was despite the fact he knew he would die.

Quote:
is it that jesus died on the cross?

More that he lived on earth.

Quote:
is it that he was resurrected after three days instead of one day or one minute or 4 weeks?

More that he raised at all-- thus representing his power over something man seems to have no power over.

Quote:
as i understand it, the logistics of jesus' story seem to be what impresses most christians, but to me, they seem to be unnecessary, if not distracting. employing the dramatic nature of your exit from earth as a means to communicate a divine message seems a bit juvenile to me.

Here is my story of Lord of the Rings without any distractions or without employing dramatic nature.

Ring gets lost. Ring gets found. Good fights bad with ring. Good becomes bad through ring. Good overcomes innerbad through friends. Good overcomes bad in destroying ring.

Perhaps dramatics do not serve a purpose to all individuals.. but they do reach out to some when trying to capture attention and bring out a point..

Quote:
what if jesus had died of food poisoning or a heart attack?

Wouldn't have been as dramatic.

Quote:
Or, if he tripped and fell on the way to the crucifixion. would his story be less meaningful to you?

All things being equal? Probably the same. Since, with regards to that hypothetical, I would not know of the story I know of now.. and thus, could still construct the same connotations out of it.

Quote:
would jesus still be jesus?

All things being equal? Yes.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Mouse:

Quote:
what about the crucifixion(sp?) is meaningful to you?

That God reached out to man where man was despite the fact he knew he would die.



Is the significance of Jesus/God's death that he died or is it the manner of his death? Many Christians wear crucifixes as a symbol of their faith, so it would seem that the manner of his death is important but I don't understand why; people die, and the manner of dying is variable. I have heard many times, "Jesus died on the cross for your sins"

If circumstances were different (but Jesus was still Jesus/God), would people be saying, "Jesus died of pneumonia for your sins" or "Jesus slipped and hit his head for your sins?" Or, is there something uniquely meaningful about the Romans' capital punishment system?

 


What does death mean to God? Does God have an emotional response to death (like fear)? Considering God's nature, and the ordinariness of death, why is Jesus/God's particular death deemed sacrifice?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
From Carrier

From Carrier (2006):

Quote:
Then there is Herodotus, who was always a popular author and had been for centuries. He told of a Thracian religion that began with the physical resurrection of a man called Zalmoxis, who then started a cult in which it was taught that believers went to heaven when they died. We also know that circulating in the Middle East were very ancient legends regarding the resurrection of the goddess Inanna (also known as Ishtar), who was crucified in the underworld, then rescued and raised back to earth by her divine attendant, a tale recounted in a four thousand year old clay tablet from Sumeria.[38] Finally, Plutarch writes in the latter half of the 1st century how "Romeo-and-Juliet-style" returns from the dead were a popular theme in contemporary theatre, and we know from surviving summaries and fragments that they were also a feature in romance novels of that day. This trend is discussed at some length in G. W. Bowersock's book Fiction as History.[39] ... So the idea of "physical resurrection" was popular, and circulating everywhere. Associating Jesus with this trend would have been a very easy mistake to make.

We already know that crucifixion was a popular form of capital punishment in the centuries before and after the common era ... and since it was associated with other resurrecting deities, we can see the interplay of myth, contemporaneous context and the use of the dramatic.

The quesiton I find more interesting is why did God have to live life as a man to fix a problem he created in the first place (original sin)?  Couldn't he have just snapped his finger?  It's interesting how not-well-thought-out Christian mythology is ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Is the significance

Quote:
Is the significance of Jesus/God's death that he died or is it the manner of his death?

The significance of Jesus/God's death is in that "fact" that he died at all.  The crucifix is significant because he did "in fact" die on the cross.  If he had died on a table.. I'd imagine some sort of table would be thus significant.

Quote:
Many Christians wear crucifixes as a symbol of their faith, so it would seem that the manner of his death is important but I don't understand why; people die, and the manner of dying is variable. I have heard many times, "Jesus died on the cross for your sins"

A symbol of reminder does not make the symbol, in and of itself, significant.

Quote:
If circumstances were different (but Jesus was still Jesus/God), would people be saying, "Jesus died of pneumonia for your sins" or "Jesus slipped and hit his head for your sins?" Or, is there something uniquely meaningful about the Romans' capital punishment system?

I think there is something unique about some human force bringing about his death that is significant.

Quote:
What does death mean to God? Does God have an emotional response to death (like fear)? Considering God's nature, and the ordinariness of death, why is Jesus/God's particular death deemed sacrifice?

To Jesus or "God"?  I suppose death means what it means to everyone else... so the question is, what does it mean to you?  I think you can safely place this mean on Jesus-- not necessarily "God"-- since there is "some" necessary distinction between the two within Christian theology (I believe).


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The quesiton I find

Quote:
The quesiton I find more interesting is why did God have to live life as a man to fix a problem he created in the first place (original sin)?  Couldn't he have just snapped his finger?  It's interesting how not-well-thought-out Christian mythology is ...

There is a different between "not well thought out by Christianity" and "not well thought out by you".  The former would require some sort of objective way of testing the assertion, the latter would not.

"God" did not create original sin (according to some followers of Christian Theology).. "God", perhaps, can be attributed the creation of "sin" as the logical opposite of whatever is "not sin"-- but "original sin" (I believe) points to man's first exploration into sin.. this was a choice made possible by God's allowance of freewill (once again, according to christian theology).

In any case.. why did God "have to live life as a man to fix a problem"?  If his purpose was to fix a problem (of sin and evil) at that immediate point in time.. I think it probably objectively failed.. since we still have "sin" and "evil".  If his purpose was to "present an example of the lengths God would take to commune with man on his (man's) chosen level" then.. i think it's a bit more complicaited.

I realize you may not accept some of the premises I am using here.. but-- they are, nevertheless, premises with no measure of "testible proof" as of yet.. therefore it would just be a matter of IF you wish to accept the premises whether the deductions are deductions you can make.. or are illogical according to other necessary premises.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
I suppose if we want to

I suppose if we want to discuss the metanarrative thread of from Adam to Christ, perhaps we should start a thread about it ... I have a problem rabbit-trailing on other people's threads.

... but yes, I find the premises (whether historical or philosophical) of Judeo-Christian mythology at best untrue and at worst illogical and pernicious ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
edit: I have a problem

edit: I have a problem *with* rabbit-trailing ... as in I do it and perhaps others think its rude ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
We could.. but the

We could.. but the metanarrative is the Bible.  The interpretation of that "metanarrative".. well.. that would take a long time.  And.. I can't state that my time here will be long enough to accomodate.

 To just contend one particular point that I believe is right.. a "premise" cannot be illogical in and of itself.. it is just a premise.

"All males are grasshoppers" is a premise.  And it is only illogical if you have already brought another premise along which directly contradicts that.. such as.. "Some males are human". 

So.. "pernicious".. and "at best" "untrue". I can understand, I think, how you would view it this way from your intrepretation.. for me.. at best it is true.. and at worst.. pernicious and untrue. 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Heh.. and I don't find it

Heh.. and I don't find it rude.  However, this thread isn't mine.. so.. mouse might.  Who knows.


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
It appears to me your

It appears to me your questions have been answered, so unless you have further questions from peoples responses any replies only seem off topic to me. Therefore, I'm just going to answer one little bit of your post rather than the whole thing.

mouse wrote:
if he tripped and fell on the way to the crucifixion. would his story be less meaningful to christians? would jesus still be jesus?

He did fall, 3 times. At least one of them was a trip, the others I believe were lack of energy, falling under the weight of the cross so someone from the crowd came out and carried it for him. This was to represent the fact he was still human until the time of his death on the cross, after all the punishment and torture he went through he was still operating as a man and hence was drained as anyone else would be.

In the covenants of the cross (I may have the completely wrong name for it here?) catholics review the stages leading up to his death.  3 of those covenants are the 3 trips.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Rhad,  The metanarrative I

Rhad, 

The metanarrative I was referring to was not the Bible in total, but the thread from Adam to Jesus, that the sins for which Jesus was dying for was the original sin of Adam (and subsequently all the sins that have ever been committed) and that his death provided the necessary sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin (which, again, started with Adam/Eve) from then on. 

Earlier, you pulled an interesting manuever, stating that Jesus' goal was perhaps not necessarily the forgiveness of sins, but 

Quote:
"was to present an example of the lengths God would take to commune with man on his (man's) chosen level ..."
 
This argument, while lacking any sort of verisimilitude, does take care of an interesting problem: namely that Adam, the first sinner, did not exist.  (Of course, we here at the RRS don't believe sin exists either, but for the sake of the argument ...)

I just wonder then, do you believe there was an Adam?  Do you believe Jesus existed at least in part to die for the forgiveness of sin?  What evidence is there that sin exists?  and could death exist before sin?  Just curious about your positionality before we get on with a discussion - that is, if you'd be interested in discussing this.

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The metanarrative I

Quote:
The metanarrative I was referring to was not the Bible in total, but the thread from Adam to Jesus, that the sins for which Jesus was dying for was the original sin of Adam (and subsequently all the sins that have ever been committed) and that his death provided the necessary sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin (which, again, started with Adam/Eve) from then on.

Ah.. I see.

Quote:
Earlier, you pulled an interesting manuever, stating that Jesus' goal was perhaps not necessarily the forgiveness of sins, but

Heh.. "interesting manuever".  I'm a race car driver trying to take the lead...

Quote:
This argument, while lacking any sort of verisimilitude,

"This argument, while lacking any sort of 'semblance of truth'..."

Really?  I didn't believe so..

Quote:
does take care of an interesting problem: namely that Adam, the first sinner, did not exist.  (Of course, we here at the RRS don't believe sin exists either, but for the sake of the argument ...)

It is a position that does not necessitate Adam and Eve.. yet does not necessitate their non-existence either.

Quote:
I just wonder then, do you believe there was an Adam?

Yes.. I would say I do.  Yet, as I stated before, the existence of Adam as is, is not a necessary part of my belief in God.

Quote:
Do you believe Jesus existed at least in part to die for the forgiveness of sin?  What evidence is there that sin exists?

I believe as a function of sin he died.  I believe as a function of reconciliation he died.

The concept of sin is an interesting one to me.  Some people would define it as an action.. some others would define it as a concept.  Me.. I would define it as the both

Sin, to me, in the Christian theological sense, is any action taken that leads you away from God as well as the separation between Man and God itself.

In otherwords.. sin and Sin.

In the sense that Jesus came down to commune with man as man, his life was to represent his ever-willingness to reconcile ("forgiveness of Sin&quotEye-wink; his death was to represent the lengths to which he would go to reconcile ("forgiveness of sins&quotEye-wink.

Neither of these instances were "reconciling" in the sense that heaven will bring about.. but even as a mother goes to visit her son in the midst of a battlefield doesn't bring that son home from the battlefield, it is still an instance that represents love and hope.

In the sense of forgiveness of sins.. in the Jesus narrative.. yes, "in part" his life&death was part of the "forgiveness of sins&Sin".

As for the second part of your question.  "What evidence is there that sin exists?"

I don't believe sin does exist apart from a belief in God.  It is not a tangible thing it is merely a word used to define a concept.

Quote:
and could death exist before sin?

Depends on how one defines death.  If one defines death as the cessation of biological functions, then yes.  If death is defined as the total separation between man and God, no.

Quote:
Just curious about your positionality before we get on with a discussion - that is, if you'd be interested in discussing this.

Is positionality a word? Heh.. it could be.. "verisimilitude" threw me off as well..

Um.. yah.  I'm interested in discussing as long as I'm here.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
You'll have to pardon me -

You'll have to pardon me - verisimilitude is my word of the day.  I was trying to find a place to throw it in ... maybe the word verifiability would have been better.  What I meant is, I don't think its possible to verify Jesus' goal per se - unless you'all are right in which case I'd have to quickly ask before sent to eternal punishment ...  The idea that He came down to commune with man on man's terms, to show his love, willingness, etc. seems more like a philosophical interpretation because it is not explicitly mentioned in scripture, at least not to my knowledge.  To be honest, I kind of like that idea more the "dying for our sins" idea ... it humanizes God's intentions in a way the established notion of Jesus (sinless, perfect) never could, at leats for me.  Jesus was always on par with the other members of the trinity in this way - he was far away and I could not identify with him ...

As for positionality, that's a term left over from cultural studies class junior year - a lot of bell hooks, Paolo Friere and Stuart Hall ...  I was just curious where you're coming from philosophically, theologically, what tradition do you represent, are you male, female, upper-middle class, working class, white, black, gay, transgendered? ... that's positionality.  I hope you don't mind, but you sound like a Patrick Henry University theology/philosophy major and I wanted to see if I was close.

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
You'll have to pardon me - verisimilitude is my word of the day.

Heh.. no problem. Hopefully the definition will stick with me now that I've looked up the definition.

Quote:
I was trying to find a place to throw it in ... maybe the word verifiability would have been better. What I meant is, I don't think its possible to verify Jesus' goal per se - unless you'all are right in which case I'd have to quickly ask before sent to eternal punishment

Interesting. I, however, don't really believe in the "eternal punishment" concept of "hell" either, which interprets it more as "eternal torture".. which, is somewhat more limited in ability to interpret.

Quote:
The idea that He came down to commune with man on man's terms, to show his love, willingness, etc. seems more like a philosophical interpretation because it is not explicitly mentioned in scripture, at least not to my knowledge.

With regards to language.. most people would agree that it is an inefficient way to pass along meaning. Yet, it is perhaps the most efficient way there is with regards to what we have available at this time.

This being the case (or something I believe to be the case) leads, perhaps, all interpretations of the bible to be "philosophical interpretation." Perhaps many denominations believe there interpretation to be the only one.. but.. I do not believe this to be the case. There is a host of denominations.. each with varying views of scripture.. different ways of understanding the same words.

"Eternal punishment" means "everlasting torture" to some.. and to others means "the last punishment with regards to what is being punished."

Its.. an interesting thing the Bible-- to try and discover the meaning behind its words. Like all works, however, it is tough to be 'certain' without the actual author being there. (And with regards to the bible.. which is presents itself as 'historical', it becomes even more difficult to ever be certain of an interpretation as to the purpose of all the individuals within the story.)

Quote:
To be honest, I kind of like that idea more the "dying for our sins" idea ... it humanizes God's intentions in a way the established notion of Jesus (sinless, perfect) never could, at leats for me. Jesus was always on par with the other members of the trinity in this way - he was far away and I could not identify with him ...

I would probably describe myself with similar sentiment....

Quote:
I was just curious where you're coming from philosophically, theologically, what tradition do you represent, are you male, female, upper-middle class, working class, white, black, gay, transgendered?

Philosophically, I was raised by my friends&family&people (heh).

Theologically, I was raised by my immediately family.

I am a member of a denomination known as Seventh Day Adventist (which.. heh, wikipedia still has some incorrect descriptions.. but is fairly accurate.).

Albeit I consider myself a member.. I also consider my belief to be mutually exclusive from the church's-- meaning, just because the church has a stance, makes a stance, or changes a stance, does not mean I will fall in line.

I am male.

Dad was born on the mexican/american border.

Mom was born in (a south american country)--both, working class families.

By the time I came into the picture my parents had both graduated college, Dad was in graduate school with 3 kids-- but family scraped by.

Now the immediate family is more upper-middle class.. me personally, I'm poorer than poor (school loans have burdened me for life). Cinematic Arts degree from (School X) and now, on my way to law school.

Quote:
I hope you don't mind, but you sound like a Patrick Henry University theology/philosophy major and I wanted to see if I was close.

Heh.. no, I don't mind.  What about you? Curiousity has gotten the better of me...


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
I was born and raised in

I was born and raised in New Haven, Connecticut. 

My mother is Italian American Catholic (but she just converted to Judaism), my father is 7/8ths Italian, 1/8th Irish and what I could only describe as a pantheist (think Einsteinian religion). 

I was raised Catholic, became an atheist/materialist by age 12, became evangelical when I was 21 after an extremely instense conversion experience, started attending 3 or 4 churchs, mostly Anglo-Catholic/Episcopal and am now a 24 year old atheist (well, 24 next wednesday).

My family is middle class - my parents are divorced and have new, respective someones - I have 8 siblings (2 of which are from both my parents).

I attended a libertarian high school, a small liberal arts college in New York City and have worked in publishing since last summer.  On days when I wear a tie, you could call me a yuppie.  I generally vote democratic but like libertarians on social issues.

I think I brought up the whole positionality thing is because I'm curious with the ways that position informs our belief systems ... also knowing someones denomination helps when discussing nuances of their view on scripture.

 

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I generally vote

Quote:
I generally vote democratic but like libertarians on social issues.

This is an interesting pairing.

Quote:
I think I brought up the whole positionality thing is because I'm curious with the ways that position informs our belief systems ... also knowing someones denomination helps when discussing nuances of their view on scripture.

I thinks its an incredibly complex idea... one that I've been interested but am unsure whether there can be any conclusion as to wether a certain amount of variables can be concluded to be sufficient or necessary for a particular end.

As for knowing the "nuances" of their view on scripture..

I would agree, in a very broad sense that is.  So where does this conversation go from now? Smiling  How's your day going? Heh.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
Is the significance of Jesus/God's death that he died or is it the manner of his death?

The significance of Jesus/God's death is in that "fact" that he died at all. The crucifix is significant because he did "in fact" die on the cross. If he had died on a table.. I'd imagine some sort of table would be thus significant.

Quote:
Many Christians wear crucifixes as a symbol of their faith, so it would seem that the manner of his death is important but I don't understand why; people die, and the manner of dying is variable. I have heard many times, "Jesus died on the cross for your sins"

A symbol of reminder does not make the symbol, in and of itself, significant.

Quote:
If circumstances were different (but Jesus was still Jesus/God), would people be saying, "Jesus died of pneumonia for your sins" or "Jesus slipped and hit his head for your sins?" Or, is there something uniquely meaningful about the Romans' capital punishment system?

I think there is something unique about some human force bringing about his death that is significant.

Human force has brought about a lot of death to a lot of people, noble and otherwise. Is it special that humans brought death to Jesus? 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Human force has brought about a lot of death to a lot of people, noble and otherwise. Is it special that humans brought death to Jesus?

Only in the sense that, within Christian theology, he would be the most undeserving person to be killed (being 'perfect&#39Eye-wink; as well as the only person who knowingly entered into the experience which he never needed to experience (being 'God&#39Eye-wink.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
i can think of many people

i can think of many people who would deserve it less. children would deserve it less. no one needs to experience crucifixion..?

would god sending his son/self counterpart be essential to his character?  in other words, was it that difficult of a choice to make? i can fathom a lot of decent people who would do the same (that is, sacrifice themselves to save humanity); is it a stretch that the best person in the world would? 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: i can think

mouse wrote:

i can think of many people who would deserve it less. children would deserve it less. no one needs to experience crucifixion..?

would god sending his son/self counterpart be essential to his character? in other words, was it that difficult of a choice to make? i can fathom a lot of decent people who would do the same (that is, sacrifice themselves to save humanity); is it a stretch that the best person in the world would?

 

Would it even be classified as a 'sacrifice'?

He knew he would be crucified. He knew he would be sitting at 'the right hand of god'. He knew that he would go to heaven. He knew that he would resurrect. He knew that he would come back from heaven.

If you knew that you would have to go through 'the passion' and then not DIE, but receive rewards everlasting.... then you'd be a fool not to do it.

Nothing was 'sacrificed'. Everything was gained.

 

This goes back to the old question of would you blow someone on the 50yard line at the super bowl for $1,000,000. (Incidentally, $1,000,000 buys a lot of mouthwash)

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: i can think of many

Quote:
i can think of many people who would deserve it less. children would deserve it less. no one needs to experience crucifixion..?

That's fine that you think there are people that deserve it less-- once again, I'm speaking through a theological prism and IF Jesus was perfect, how could someone be 'deserve it less' unless he was 'more than perfect'?

Granted.. I am making a connection between 'perfection' and 'deserving' of death.. which is a dangerous thing to do.  Personally I would like to believe that no one is 'deserving' of death in the sense that most people use the word...

Nonetheless, from an objective standpoint (a legal one at least).. 'wrongness' does correlate with 'deserviness for X'.

But even if you would contend that someone is 'as perfect' as Jesus.. there is still the added part of 'he was the only person who didn't necessarily have to experience what he experienced', death in this case.

Quote:
would god sending his son/self counterpart be essential to his character?

Depends on what you mean by 'essential'.  Only so far as he 'willed' it.

Quote:
in other words, was it that difficult of a choice to make?

Hmm.. this is a pretty big jump you're asking me to make with regards to putting myself in God's position.. yet, I will try to answer as I always do:

I believe it was not a difficult choice for him to make, although as a man, it was probably relatively more difficult for him to live through-- as it is for us all.

Quote:
i can fathom a lot of decent people who would do the same (that is, sacrifice themselves to save humanity); is it a stretch that the best person in the world would?

Once again.. I think we have two different concepts of what his life was meant to accomplish here on earth.  Was it "to save humanity" or merely to "commune with humanity in a way humanity understood and could hold onto as they moved into a more ambivalent future." or.. perhaps some other?  I don't think it was as simple as this.

Plus.. to compare man to God in terms of 'willingness' to 'sacrifice' X, is a misleading comparison since no man, conceptually, would have the existence that God did before he became man.

Quote:
Would it even be classified as a 'sacrifice'?

He knew he would be crucified. He knew he would be sitting at 'the right hand of god'. He knew that he would go to heaven. He knew that he would resurrect. He knew that he would come back from heaven.

If you knew that you would have to go through 'the passion' and then not DIE, but receive rewards everlasting.... then you'd be a fool not to do it.

Nothing was 'sacrificed'. Everything was gained.

I believe this contention was addressed in previous posts.. or perhaps it was in the "atheist to tears" one.

In anycase, to make it shorter. What glory did "God" gain that "God" already did not have?

As for "nothing was sacrificed".  No matter which way you cut it.. Jesus did sacrifice "time as God" for "time as man".  And while most people would contend that mathematically the time here on earth was the equivalent of zero to an infinite being.. I would just contend that mathematical ratios are a pour measure of human experience.  And while God may have been infinite (God), the moment he became finite (man), everyone moment was as real and as long as every moment is to you now.

The fact that you may live 30 more years does not make this second of your life any less real.  It is the present, as man, it is all we have.

Quote:
This goes back to the old question of would you blow someone on the 50yard line at the super bowl for $1,000,000. (Incidentally, $1,000,000 buys a lot of mouthwash)

The question in my mind (although.. heh, cleaned up of course)-- would you give a referee a your million dollars to hold, go to the 50 yard line and let a punter full force kick you in the groin, only to get the million dollars that was yours to begin with?


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:


Quote:
This goes back to the old question of would you blow someone on the 50yard line at the super bowl for $1,000,000. (Incidentally, $1,000,000 buys a lot of mouthwash)

The question in my mind (although.. heh, cleaned up of course)-- would you give a referee a your million dollars to hold, go to the 50 yard line and let a punter full force kick you in the groin, only to get the million dollars that was yours to begin with?


this may seem silly to you, but if you're god, then why not? is there anything to lose?

 

 

 

 

also, god didn't send his son/counterpart of himself to save his creation immediately. he took his time. why (to continue this cheesy metaphor..heh) did he wait till half-time? was he deliberating whether his creation was worth saving?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: this may seem silly

Quote:
this may seem silly to you, but if you're god, then why not? is there anything to lose?

Jesus? Only if you consider those days as God as a "loss".  Once again.. the mathematical ratio argument I don't believe works in the case of human experience, which (I believe), according to Christian theology, Jesus lived.

Quote:
also, god didn't send his son/counterpart of himself to save his creation immediately. he took his time. why (to continue this cheesy metaphor..heh) did he wait till half-time? was he deliberating whether his creation was worth saving?

I think that the Roman Empire presented an interesting situation where any sort of manifestation would be passed through the ages without the amount of cynicism that we have now to counteract such a manifestation.

While you may doubt the validity of Christian Theology, it has proven to be rather potent in its ability to differentiate itself from other messianic figures that came before and after.

And again, the whole "whether his creation was worth saving"-- I do not believe that the point of the experience was to "save" in the sense that, I think, most people understand-- but rather to show his willingness to reconcile with a freewilling creation which had turned his back on him (to some extent).


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Rhad, if you can speculate

Rhad, if you can speculate about that(Roman empire paragraph) then why can't you speculate about the other side?

 

Which christian theology?

 

Your individual beliefs seem to lead you astray by excusing the ridiculously fallacious reasoning behind sacrificing yourself or a son to yourself to save what you had damned in the first place.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Rhad, if you can

Quote:
Rhad, if you can speculate about that(Roman empire paragraph) then why can't you speculate about the other side?

Who said I can't? I realize that possible the other way as well.. that it was just a coincidence.

Quote:
Which christian theology?

The one I hold to.  Or do you mean, as in, denomination?

Quote:
Your individual beliefs seem to lead you astray by excusing the ridiculously fallacious reasoning behind sacrificing yourself or a son to yourself to save what you had damned in the first place.

Not necessarily.  I'm merely stating that it's possible to interpret the Biblical writings in a different way in which both 'damnation' and 'saving' have different connotations then ones that many people feel are necessary interpretations: e.g. "Paying a price to oneself to save" from "eternal hellfire torture."

Furthermore, I think "ridiculously fallacious reasoning".. is a fascinating wording. Smiling


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1150
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: I think

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I think that the Roman Empire presented an interesting situation where any sort of manifestation would be passed through the ages without the amount of cynicism that we have now to counteract such a manifestation.

 Since we are discussing the particulars of the jesus story:  I have wondered precisely what the significance of that point in history was for jesus to appear and do his thing.  Given the persecution visited upon the early christians by the Romans, the cynicism seems far more virulent at that time than it does now.  

(My apologies if this is too far off course the thread topic)

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: (My apologies if

Quote:
(My apologies if this is too far off course the thread topic)

No apologies necessary.. I'll attempt to answer until I get tired.  I get worn out pretty easily. Heh.

Quote:
Since we are discussing the particulars of the jesus story:  I have wondered precisely what the significance of that point in history was for jesus to appear and do his thing.  Given the persecution visited upon the early christians by the Romans, the cynicism seems far more virulent at that time than it does now. 

I suppose I should of used the word "apathetic" or "indifferent", since this was more the connotation I meant by "cynicism" of the day. 

Let me a make a general observation (an opinion of course), that people are generally oblivious to anything going on outside the immediate sphere of being.  And, while information is quick flowing, the system is rather flooded and easily errored.

During the Roman Empire, more than any other time perhaps, the world seems to have been interconnected in a way that it would never be again.

By "interconnected" I mean in ways other than "technologically".

I'll admit, I'm making judgments off my perception of the history I know-- but nevertheless, as far as examples of religion go, "Christianity" did have a rather quick expansion.

(Wow.. I'm not sure I can judge the coherence of my last post-- I think I'm still out of it.) 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Let me a make a general observation (an opinion of course), that people are generally oblivious to anything going on outside the immediate sphere of being. And, while information is quick flowing, the system is rather flooded and easily errored.
Do you know what projection is?

Quote:
During the Roman Empire, more than any other time perhaps, the world seems to have been interconnected in a way that it would never be again.

By "interconnected" I mean in ways other than "technologically".

I'll admit, I'm making judgments off my perception of the history I know-- but nevertheless, as far as examples of religion go, "Christianity" did have a rather quick expansion.

perception? A better word - imagine.

Quote:
(Wow.. I'm not sure I can judge the coherence of my last post-- I think I'm still out of it.)
I'm delighted you are begining to grasp the problem. You've been bordering on the distinction of a troll.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Do you know what projection is?

Yes.

Quote:
perception? A better word - imagine.

Um.. no.. I don't "imagine" history.. I learn it, then "perceive it". Unless you are trying to contend that I "imagined" there was a Roman Empire, or a religious sect known as Christians during that time.

Quote:
I'm delighted you are begining to grasp the problem. You've been bordering on the distinction of a troll.

Heh. Then ban me.

I would hope that most would disagree--I definitely would.

Yet, I do not believe that you actually believe I am "bording on the distinction of a troll"-- if you do, then by all means ban me-- I wouldn't want to fall on the wrong side of the line. However, I understand if the statement just sort of slipped out without being fully thought through or without solid basis.

On the other hand, being banned would definitely save me some time and I'm more than happy to leave my words remain in stone-- I've been nothing but polite and only recently begun to respond "in-kind" to personal attacks, no more no less then a sentence for a sentence.

But whatever, until that day...

In anycase.. with regards to my statement about "outside of peoples immediate sphere of being".. I still would contend this is true for the majority of people. I don't believe the majority of western or eastern civilization loses sleep over the horrors happenings in Africa. I would also contend that the majority of people do not really internalize the concept that more than 50k+ people die in car accidents in the US alone.

We have become such a large world, of such large statistics, that things easily graze by.. yes, I believe we are "disconnected".

Instead, these days, we are affected by what is "news worthy" like.. oh, lets say, the cold weather in New England or the NBA finals.

Of course.. as I prefaced before with regards to these statements regarding the state of the world-- they are personal opinion.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
(My apologies if this is too far off course the thread topic)

No apologies necessary.. I'll attempt to answer until I get tired. I get worn out pretty easily. Heh.

Quote:
Since we are discussing the particulars of the jesus story: I have wondered precisely what the significance of that point in history was for jesus to appear and do his thing. Given the persecution visited upon the early christians by the Romans, the cynicism seems far more virulent at that time than it does now.

I suppose I should of used the word "apathetic" or "indifferent", since this was more the connotation I meant by "cynicism" of the day.

Let me a make a general observation (an opinion of course), that people are generally oblivious to anything going on outside the immediate sphere of being. And, while information is quick flowing, the system is rather flooded and easily errored.

During the Roman Empire, more than any other time perhaps, the world seems to have been interconnected in a way that it would never be again.

By "interconnected" I mean in ways other than "technologically".

I'll admit, I'm making judgments off my perception of the history I know-- but nevertheless, as far as examples of religion go, "Christianity" did have a rather quick expansion.

(Wow.. I'm not sure I can judge the coherence of my last post-- I think I'm still out of it.)

during the roman empire, there was an entire population of people jesus didn't know about in the western hemisphere and southeast asia, not to mention populations in africa, east asia and south asia which the bible does not acknowledge. 

the 'world' of the bible was very limited and isolated. not interconnected.   

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: during the roman

Quote:

during the roman empire, there was an entire population of people jesus didn't know about in the western hemisphere and southeast asia, not to mention populations in africa, east asia and south asia which the bible does not acknowledge. 

the 'world' of the bible was very limited and isolated. not interconnected.

Good point and I concede it.  The whole world was not "interconnected" to the Roman Empire--as I may have suggested it was.

In this, it was limited and isolated-- yet, does this make it less significant to the Rise of Christianity? (which I believe was the original question-- "what was the significance of this point in history?&quotEye-wink

I don't know.  I guess I just couldn't imagine eastern mythology accepting a messianic figure (as Jesus presented himself to be)-- nor could I imagine a messianic figure being accept within the mythology of the western hemisphere (or, if accepted, as widespread as it is now [good or bad]).

As for why "0 A.D." as opposed to "100 B.C." or sooner.. hm, I will leave it up to someone else to suggest the differences between the times leading up to 0 B.C. (if any).

(See? I can concede points and step away rather gracefully. Smiling 

(The way I view Christian Theology is not one of mutually exclusivity.. [just making it clear] that just because someone believes differently does not mean one does not receive 'salvation' [in whatever that concept entails])

(Reitterating: I do not believe in "hell" in the way many people perceive it to be-- this is an important point with regards to why I perceive the "significance" of this point in time as trivial when compared to product of it.)

 


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
thanks for your comments,

thanks for your comments, rhad. i am interested in the jesus story and what sorts of qualities about it yield such strong religious sentiments in people. coming from the outside looking in, for me it would seem the way jesus carried out his life would be what would yield religious significance in that he offered a model for others to carry out their own lives.  the circumstances of his death to me are as arbitrary as the circumstances of all of our deaths.  the fact that he didn't have to experience it is not meaningful...it doesn't convey sacrifice of religious significance to me; it is just another circumstance.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: thanks for your

Quote:
thanks for your comments, rhad. i am interested in the jesus story and what sorts of qualities about it yield such strong religious sentiments in people. coming from the outside looking in, for me it would seem the way jesus carried out his life would be what would yield religious significance in that he offered a model for others to carry out their own lives.  the circumstances of his death to me are as arbitrary as the circumstances of all of our deaths.  the fact that he didn't have to experience it is not meaningful...it doesn't convey sacrifice of religious significance to me; it is just another circumstance.

No problem.  Thanks for your questions.

The old cliche (not really a cliche) goes, regarding Jesus's death and the significance with regards to the 'model' is this:

If Jesus was willing to experience torture and death as the consequence of living life rightly, how much more should be willing to try to live life rightly without these perceived consequences?

By "rightly", I mean whatever one perceives to be moral and good.

His death is significant to Christians (I believe) because it shows willingness to reconcile with humanity, once humanity chooses it is ready to reconcile.

His death, in a secular sense, is significant because it can be understood to show courage and fortitude for what one perceives to be his/her purpose.

(Think.. "Braveheart"-- except with a Jew instead of a Scotsman, and a cross and whipping instead of a evisceration.)

In anycase. Thanks again for the challenges/questions-- definitely required new areas of thought for me.. which are (not) always good with regards to ones belief--but in this case they were.

 Anycasex2, I'm just rambling now..... so I'm gonna stop............now.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: thanks for

mouse wrote:
thanks for your comments, rhad. i am interested in the jesus story and what sorts of qualities about it yield such strong religious sentiments in people. coming from the outside looking in, for me it would seem the way jesus carried out his life would be what would yield religious significance in that he offered a model for others to carry out their own lives.  the circumstances of his death to me are as arbitrary as the circumstances of all of our deaths.  the fact that he didn't have to experience it is not meaningful...it doesn't convey sacrifice of religious significance to me; it is just another circumstance.

Mouse-- Jumping in, I wanted to say, when I was baptized to become a Christian, I didn't understand the significance of Jesus's death...if you would have asked me, I would have said "I dunno." As you mentioned, it was the character of Jesus, how he lived his life, that intrigued me and made me want to learn more. As far as coming to an understanding of the cruxifixion, that came several years later, and kind of sunk in bit by bit. Then, there was a moment when the light bulb went off, and I said to my husband, "I get it!" For me to get to that point, it took patience and a willingness to keep learning, however, I realize some people never get there. My mom, in fact, goes to church every Sunday, but awhile back said something like "I've never gotten that cruxifixion thing." So, I do think it is the hardest part of Christianity to conceptualize...certainly is not something you will get in an hour, or possibly even a year. But the way I see it, spiritual growth is a process. Like any worthy goal, it takes time and patience to acheive.


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
what does the crucifixion

what does the crucifixion mean to you?


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Jumping

sugarfree wrote:
Jumping in, I wanted to say, when I was baptized to become a Christian, I didn't understand the significance of Jesus's death...if you would have asked me, I would have said "I dunno." As you mentioned, it was the character of Jesus, how he lived his life, that intrigued me and made me want to learn more. As far as coming to an understanding of the cruxifixion, that came several years later, and kind of sunk in bit by bit. Then, there was a moment when the light bulb went off, and I said to my husband, "I get it!" For me to get to that point, it took patience and a willingness to keep learning, however, I realize some people never get there. My mom, in fact, goes to church every Sunday, but awhile back said something like "I've never gotten that cruxifixion thing." So, I do think it is the hardest part of Christianity to conceptualize...certainly is not something you will get in an hour, or possibly even a year. But the way I see it, spiritual growth is a process. Like any worthy goal, it takes time and patience to acheive.

 

Yes, brainwashing takes a while to complete.   


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: what does the

Quote:
what does the crucifixion mean to you?

To me? Or to sugarfree? In case it was me I will answer:

I (try to) take from it both.  As a "Christian" I take from it the significance of the former.  As a person, I take from it the significance of the latter.

I do not believe the two perceived significances are mutually exclusive.. and so, I do not treat them as such. If ever I "stopped" being a Christian.. I would still hold the latter.  And if ever I "stopped" being a person.. I would still hold onto the former.

Smiling 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Yes, brainwashing takes a while to complete.

That was a bit rude and off subject in terms of new assertions (i.e. "spiritual growth" = "brainwashing&quotEye-wink. The subjective of the thread has been "significance" of the crucifixition, not whether or not "the process of understanding it" is "brainwashing or not".

If this subject were followed It would probably lead to a host of arguments and contentions.. but I will let sugarfree respond as she feels fit-- I just wanted to voice my opinion quickly. Smiling

(added for qualification) It has occured to me that the two of you may have some past history.. in which statements of this nature have been passed back and forth-- in which case, I should have stayed out of it. Smiling So apologies if this is the case.  Yet, the statement seems to have general applicability towards a particular group of which I am considered to be a part.

Smiling Alright.. I'm done with the qualification now. Heh. 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Yes, brainwashing takes a while to complete.

That was a bit rude and off subject in terms of new assertions (i.e. "spiritual growth" = "brainwashing&quotEye-wink. The subjective of the thread has been "significance" of the crucifixition, not whether or not "the process of understanding it" is "brainwashing or not".

If this subject were followed It would probably lead to a host of arguments and contentions.. but I will let sugarfree respond as she feels fit-- I just wanted to voice my opinion quickly. Smiling

(added for qualification) It has occured to me that the two of you may have some past history.. in which statements of this nature have been passed back and forth-- in which case, I should have stayed out of it. Smiling So apologies if this is the case. Yet, the statement seems to have general applicability towards a particular group of which I am considered to be a part.

Smiling Alright.. I'm done with the qualification now. Heh.

 

Ok, let me explain the brainwashing.  The significance of the crucifixion seems to be Pavlov's Dog effect.  The church shoves it in your face yelling "He died for you" so many times that you actually start to believe it is true and that the cross does have some significance.  There - answer to the significance and the brainwashing!  

 

To be quite honest, this whole thread appears to be a discussion in idolotry worship, which if I remember is a violation of at least one of your rules. 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: what does the

mouse wrote:
what does the crucifixion mean to you?

For starters, I have learned that God, by nature, is relational. He did not create us because he was "lonely"; he created us because he loves being in relationship. The fact that he exists in three parts (the father, son, and the holy ghost) means he is actually in relationship with himself. Yes, that is also difficult to conceptualize; however, what this means is...

The only time God ever experienced a sense of separation is when Jesus was on the cross--when Jesus said, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" People often wonder about this verse, but here is what I have learned... Jesus said it because, in that moment, God turned away from him. Given that Jesus is part of the trinity...father, son, holy ghost, he was actually turning away from himself. As we cannot fully comprehend God, it is difficult for us to understand why this was a big deal. The fact remains, this was a very big deal to God, and caused him immense pain...pain so immense that it is unfathomable to us.

The reason God had to turn away is because Jesus, also in that moment, took on the sins of the world--past, present, and future. God rejects sin, so he was forced to reject Jesus (himself). (And when I say "turn away", he removed his presence from Jesus...which equalled placing Jesus in hell.)

Given that long explanation, which I grant, is probably meaningless to a lot of folks, here it is in a nutshell:

The cruxificion tells me that God is willing to accept any amount of pain (spiritually and physically) for little ole me. God cares about me THAT much. He refuses to let anything thwart my ultimate return to him. So, the cross, for me, represents God's humongous, unbelievable, unfathomable, immeasurable love for me.

Why anyone would want to turn away from that kind of love is truly beyond me. That's why I just do not get it when people say nasty things about God. I just want to shake them and say, do you have any idea how much God loves you?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1150
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
The subject of brainwashing

The subject of brainwashing is relevant to the thread topic in this manner:

If the mechanics of the crucifixion is essential to christian doctrine -- or any other specific detail, such as the point in history when the jesus story is placed  -- then there should be some precise explanation for it, which one should understand prior to accepting baptism, rather than saying "I dunno", and waiting for the answer to come later.  

If on the other hand, the specifics are not relevant -- if jesus could have appeared at any point in history, and died in any fashion whatsoever -- then there is no revelation about the crucifixion to be received, no "I get it!" moment which one arrives at through 'spiritual growth'.  Under these latter circumstances, an "I get it!" moment would be a false construct, a creation of the individual's own mind. 

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
what does the crucifixion mean to you?

To me? Or to sugarfree? In case it was me I will answer:

I (try to) take from it both. As a "Christian" I take from it the significance of the former. As a person, I take from it the significance of the latter.

I do not believe the two perceived significances are mutually exclusive.. and so, I do not treat them as such. If ever I "stopped" being a Christian.. I would still hold the latter. And if ever I "stopped" being a person.. I would still hold onto the former.

Smiling

 

sorry, i'm lost here; what are former and latter referring to? 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: mouse

sugarfree wrote:
mouse wrote:
what does the crucifixion mean to you?
For starters, I have learned that God, by nature, is relational. He did not create us because he was "lonely"; he created us because he loves being in relationship. The fact that he exists in three parts (the father, son, and the holy ghost) means he is actually in relationship with himself. Yes, that is also difficult to conceptualize; however, what this means is... The only time God ever experienced a sense of separation is when Jesus was on the cross--when Jesus said, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" People often wonder about this verse, but here is what I have learned... Jesus said it because, in that moment, God turned away from him. Given that Jesus is part of the trinity...father, son, holy ghost, he was actually turning away from himself. As we cannot fully comprehend God, it is difficult for us to understand why this was a big deal. The fact remains, this was a very big deal to God, and caused him immense pain...pain so immense that it is unfathomable to us. The reason God had to turn away is because Jesus, also in that moment, took on the sins of the world--past, present, and future. God rejects sin, so he was forced to reject Jesus (himself). (And when I say "turn away", he removed his presence from Jesus...which equalled placing Jesus in hell.) Given that long explanation, which I grant, is probably meaningless to a lot of folks, here it is in a nutshell: The cruxificion tells me that God is willing to accept any amount of pain (spiritually and physically) for little ole me. God cares about me THAT much. He refuses to let anything thwart my ultimate return to him. So, the cross, for me, represents God's humongous, unbelievable, unfathomable, immeasurable love for me. Why anyone would want to turn away from that kind of love is truly beyond me. That's why I just do not get it when people say nasty things about God. I just want to shake them and say, do you have any idea how much God loves you?

i asked these questions in a different context to rhad, but i'm interested in your perspective. what if jesus hadn't died of crucifixion? what if he died of food poisoning or a heart attack? would jesus still be jesus to you, if he didn't die in such a dramatic way? is there something special about the roman's capital punishment system which makes it ideal for taking on the sins of the world?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: The fact

sugarfree wrote:
The fact that he exists in three parts (the father, son, and the holy ghost) means he is actually in relationship with himself. Yes, that is also difficult to conceptualize; however, what this means is... The only time God ever experienced a sense of separation is when Jesus was on the cross--when Jesus said, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" People often wonder about this verse, but here is what I have learned... Jesus said it because, in that moment, God turned away from him. Given that Jesus is part of the trinity...father, son, holy ghost, he was actually turning away from himself. As we cannot fully comprehend God, it is difficult for us to understand why this was a big deal. The fact remains, this was a very big deal to God, and caused him immense pain...pain so immense that it is unfathomable to us. The reason God had to turn away is because Jesus, also in that moment, took on the sins of the world--past, present, and future. God rejects sin, so he was forced to reject Jesus (himself). (And when I say "turn away", he removed his presence from Jesus...which equalled placing Jesus in hell.)

Okay, same argument as before.  In a nutshell, god sent himself to be a sacrafice to himself, to forgive a system and rules he himself made up, And when he did this to himself, it made himself feel better and he forgave himself? People?

Huh, wha....

Honestly please tell me how you convince yourself this is true. Do you send a piece of yourself, to be a proxy for yourself, to church services you yourself signed up for yourself?

Huh, wha.... 

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Ok, let me explain

Quote:
Ok, let me explain the brainwashing.  The significance of the crucifixion seems to be Pavlov's Dog effect.  The church shoves it in your face yelling "He died for you" so many times that you actually start to believe it is true and that the cross does have some significance.  There - answer to the significance and the brainwashing!  

 

To be quite honest, this whole thread appears to be a discussion in idolotry worship, which if I remember is a violation of at least one of your rules.

Not from my perspective.. it has significance-- this is not to say that it is significant in and of itself.

This would be likened to a ring my dad gave awhile back with the words: "Live to Learn, Learn to Live, Live to Love" or some variant of that.

The ring is not significant in and of itself-- yet it has significant.. I believe this is known as "sentimental value".

As for the brainwashing aspect of it-- valid argument. Smiling

Yet, as we've been discussing, the fact that the church may (or may not) "brainwash" people into thinking there is significance in a certain event does not allow for any deduction concerning the issue of whether or not significance can in fact be found in the event.

Quote:
The subject of brainwashing is relevant to the thread topic in this manner:

If the mechanics of the crucifixion is essential to christian doctrine -- or any other specific detail, such as the point in history when the jesus story is placed  -- then there should be some precise explanation for it, which one should understand prior to accepting baptism, rather than saying "I dunno", and waiting for the answer to come later. 

I would agree with this:

If "understanding the mechanics" is essential to christian doctrine-- or "understanding the significance of a particular point in history as a incubator for the christian church" is essential to christian doctrine-- then one should understand these things before one is baptized.

However, the way you state it is if as if to suggest the "mechanics" are essential to christian doctrine.. and "point in history" is essential to christian doctrine.

This would be likened to me stating that the "engine of a car" is essential to a car.. therefore I should "understand" how it works before I get inside of it.

I believe the "mechanics" are essential to christian doctrine-- I do not feel that "understanding the mechanics" are essential to christian doctrine.

Yet.. this is just me using an analogy. Smiling  This is not to say that one CANNOT understand-- yet, as most thing, there is never knowing if one is right or not.

Quote:
If on the other hand, the specifics are not relevant -- if jesus could have appeared at any point in history, and died in any fashion whatsoever -- then there is no revelation about the crucifixion to be received, no "I get it!" moment which one arrives at through 'spiritual growth'.  Under these latter circumstances, an "I get it!" moment would be a false construct, a creation of the individual's own mind.

Perhaps.. unless "I get it" refers to some temporally independent significance...

Quote:
sorry, i'm lost here; what are former and latter referring to?

Former is: "His death is significant to (some) Christians (I believe) because it shows willingness to reconcile with humanity, once humanity chooses it is ready to reconcile."

Latter is: "His death, in a secular sense, is significant because it can be understood to show courage and fortitude for what one perceives to be his/her purpose."

Quote:
i asked these questions in a different context to rhad, but i'm interested in your perspective. what if jesus hadn't died of crucifixion? what if he died of food poisoning or a heart attack? would jesus still be jesus to you, if he didn't die in such a dramatic way? is there something special about the roman's capital punishment system which makes it ideal for taking on the sins of the world?

I'll answer the same way.

If he had died from something other than external forces (Man), then I suppose I would consider much less melodramatic.. but nonetheless, some significance may have still be applied to it.

Jesus (if real and as who he stated) would be Jesus no matter what-- whether I would perceive him as such-- I don't know.. I must admit that the melodramatic nature of the story does appeal to me, even as the melodramatic nature of "The Last Samurai" appeals to me.

No.. there is nothing special about roman's capital punishment system which makes it ideal for taking on the sins of the world (in my belief).


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Shit!  I've been Rhadified

Shit!  I've been Rhadified again!  Does someone have an English to Rhad dictionary I can borrow?

 

Sugarfree, you let yourself get baptized without knowing the significance of the crucifixion?  Well!  I have some swap land I would like to sell you.  I will explain the significance later, over time, until you understand it.

 

The crucifixion is a made up story found in a made up book.  Brainwashing is what makes it significant to christians.

 

(Yes, Rhad, these are assertations.  I do not need a reminder from you Wink)


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Rhadified!!

Rhadified!!

Haha. Laughing

You're amazing. Hope your evening is going well. Your comment definitely made me smile--thanks for that. Heh. Smiling Heh, good day.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: The

zarathustra wrote:

The subject of brainwashing is relevant to the thread topic in this manner:

If the mechanics of the crucifixion is essential to christian doctrine -- or any other specific detail, such as the point in history when the jesus story is placed -- then there should be some precise explanation for it, which one should understand prior to accepting baptism, rather than saying "I dunno", and waiting for the answer to come later.

If on the other hand, the specifics are not relevant -- if jesus could have appeared at any point in history, and died in any fashion whatsoever -- then there is no revelation about the crucifixion to be received, no "I get it!" moment which one arrives at through 'spiritual growth'. Under these latter circumstances, an "I get it!" moment would be a false construct, a creation of the individual's own mind.

There are no qualifications required for coming to or accepting Jesus.  One does not have to understand all the peices of the puzzle, have all the answers laid out in a neat little row.  Doubt, questioning, and discovery are part of the spiritual growth process.

People come to Jesus at different levels of understanding.  A person's knowledge about the subject matter is not important to Him.  Their willingness to trust Him and submit to Him is the crucial matter.  Then, as the seeker learns more about Jesus/the Bible/God/human nature, questions get answered, doubts are addressed, new and deeper spiritual truths are discovered.

It is a process, and accepting Jesus is the beginning of it, not the end.  You, at this point, have no desire to begin the journey.  That is your choice.  I cannot force you.  And God will not force you.  Why?  I believe it is because he has given you the right to reject Him, and out of respect for you, He is honoring that right.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: i asked these

mouse wrote:

i asked these questions in a different context to rhad, but i'm interested in your perspective. what if jesus hadn't died of crucifixion? what if he died of food poisoning or a heart attack? would jesus still be jesus to you, if he didn't die in such a dramatic way? is there something special about the roman's capital punishment system which makes it ideal for taking on the sins of the world?

From my understanding, cruxifixion was used at the time as a deterrant, and it was meant to humiliate the offender.  They would crucify people as an example...if you do this, this is what we will do to you...we will make a public mockery of your death, we will kill you in this horrendous way, slowly, and allow everyone to watch.

For this reason, I think the cross (Jesus or no Jesus) was a powerful symbol to people of that time, and I'm guessing, God saw that and felt the existing symbolism would help him get his message out.  Now, if he had deemed food poisoning would have made more of an impact, than, sure, he could have used that too.  But, fact is, the mode of death he chose was crucifixion.  God was saying, "Okay, here I am, up on this cross, taking the punishment that you deserve...not defending myself, not saving myself pain and agony--which he could have done as it truly was in his full power.

But the point of Jesus's time on earth was not to say, look at me, aren't I so neat, look what I can do and that's that.  I think it was to say, yes, look at me, look at what I can do, and GIVEN what I can do, look at what I am willing to do for you.  I will lower myself, absolutely humiliate myself...for you.  I will bear your punishment so that you don't have to.

THAT is how merciful God is.  People beat up on Him and get caught up on Him being nothing more than a punisher, but I think, what God was trying to tell us with the cross shows quite the contrary...Yes God will punish (i.e., honor our right to not love Him, thus not force us to live with Him eternally), but that's not what motivates Him.  What motivates Him is His love for us, and he absolutely wants us to know that.  His ultimate hope is that we will accept His love and love Him back.

However, he does not make himself "obvious" because He wants to test our hearts for sincerity...that's why He doesn't declare with His trumpet every five minutes "Hey guys, I'm up here and I'm awesome, love me love me love me..."  Instead, he tests our character.  He gives us adequate chances, within our lifetimes, to discover Him, uncover Him in our own way.  And once we have done that...then we get to choose Him or reject Him.