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?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Okay, same

BGH wrote:

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....

 

BGH, you do not see God as I do. Well, you do not see him at all.  The important piece you are missing is God is relational.  I tried to convey this in my earlier post.  He relates to himself, he relates to us.  If you have ever been in a relationship with a human, you know they can be, at times wonderful, at times extremely disappointing.  They can evoke a myriad of emotions in us...love, anger, hate, jealousy, tenderness, concern, etc.  God experiences all these things too.  He experiences pain because of us.  None of us like pain, so why should we think God would?  So, the fact that he willingly chose pain, unfathomable pain by human standards, on the cross, is a big deal. 

Also, something important to note, when God is described as "perfect", this also means he is perfect relationally.  Meaning, yes, God experiences the emotions that we experience, but he experiences them at the perfect time, in the perfect amount, whereas we fly off the handle when we shouldn't, say mean things out of anger, and that sort of thing.

 So, basically, what I'm saying, I guess, is I think your view of God is a bit narrow.  Because of that narrow view, the cross seems silly, stupid, meaningless to you.  But I have found that, as I grow in my knowledge of God and begin to understand Him better, the more significant Jesus's crucifixion becomes to me. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:

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.

I do understand where you're coming from, but please realize that the same could be said for any religion: One can accept the tenets without a full reckoning, with the belief that understanding will come with time. With time, the individual can develop a personally suitable explanation.

As an example: A friend of mine recounted his visit to the local church of scientology. The representative who explained their philosophy to my friend was relatively new, and seemed unsure and less than confident in the information he was giving -- suffice it to say some of the beliefs were quite ridiculous. Yet my friend understood how the representative had managed to adopt scientology. His personal story was that he was from a broken home and had previously had a drug problem. The church had provided a point of stability and discipline for him, which took precedence over their harebrained beliefs. The longer the individual stays with scientology, his confidence in his beliefs increases. He will surely say to a newcomer that scientology seems ridiculous, but understanding comes with time.

sugarfree wrote:

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.

I was previously on this journey, and firmly desired to see it through, despite several concepts which I didn't understand. I managed to come up with explanations for some of my doubts -- such as the trinity, and jesus' historical significance. (The significance of the crucifixion never crossed my mind, but I'm sure I would have come up with an explanation for that as well). There remained other concepts which I still didn't fully understand -- such as transubstaniation -- but I simply deferred them, certain that I would eventually come to understand them better. As you can probably guess, this didn't happen. I realize in retrospect that due to my desire to continue believing -- to stay on the journey, as it were -- I was concocting explanations to create the appearance of understanding and justify my continuing belief. Whatever religion (or whatever denomination of christianity) I had been raised in, I would have done the same.

I do not continue to act in this way as an atheist. That is to say, I do not deny god's existence out of a deep-seated desire to deny god; I simply see no evidence for one. I can no more accept christianity than I could scientology, entrusting that I will eventually "get it".

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


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

sugarfree wrote:

BGH, you do not see God as I do. Well, you do not see him at all. The important piece you are missing is God is relational. I tried to convey this in my earlier post. He relates to himself, he relates to us. If you have ever been in a relationship with a human, you know they can be, at times wonderful, at times extremely disappointing. They can evoke a myriad of emotions in us...love, anger, hate, jealousy, tenderness, concern, etc. God experiences all these things too. He experiences pain because of us. None of us like pain, so why should we think God would? So, the fact that he willingly chose pain, unfathomable pain by human standards, on the cross, is a big deal.

Also, something important to note, when God is described as "perfect", this also means he is perfect relationally. Meaning, yes, God experiences the emotions that we experience, but he experiences them at the perfect time, in the perfect amount, whereas we fly off the handle when we shouldn't, say mean things out of anger, and that sort of thing.

So, basically, what I'm saying, I guess, is I think your view of God is a bit narrow. Because of that narrow view, the cross seems silly, stupid, meaningless to you. But I have found that, as I grow in my knowledge of God and begin to understand Him better, the more significant Jesus's crucifixion becomes to me.

You said a lot without saying anything at all. As I have a narrow view of god opposite of you, ergo you have a narrow view of god. You anthropomorphize him an awful lot giving him/it human qualities.

You did not answer directly the illogic of the crucifixtion. 


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

zarathustra wrote:

I was previously on this journey, and firmly desired to see it through, despite several concepts which I didn't understand. I managed to come up with explanations for some of my doubts -- such as the trinity, and jesus' historical significance. (The significance of the crucifixion never crossed my mind, but I'm sure I would have come up with an explanation for that as well). There remained other concepts which I still didn't fully understand -- such as transubstaniation -- but I simply deferred them, certain that I would eventually come to understand them better. As you can probably guess, this didn't happen. I realize in retrospect that due to my desire to continue believing -- to stay on the journey, as it were -- I was concocting explanations to create the appearance of understanding and justify my continuing belief. Whatever religion (or whatever denomination of christianity) I had been raised in, I would have done the same.

I do not continue to act in this way as an atheist. That is to say, I do not deny god's existence out of a deep-seated desire to deny god; I simply see no evidence for one. I can no more accept christianity than I could scientology, entrusting that I will eventually "get it".

zarathustra-- I believe you when you say you were on the journey, and I do wonder what it was that made you decide to stop and turn around.  I hope the same does not happen for me because, the way I am going now, I am growing and becoming a better person.  I see progress in myself...a growing selflessness that helps me be more effective in the world.  I judge whether or not I am on the right path by these improvements I notice in myself.

I'm not saying an atheist can't make self-improvements and become a better person...I just know, that, from my experience, before I decided to follow God's model, I would make improvements, then I would regress and have to start all over, I was constantly changing my mind, feeling confused about what was right.  Now, I don't have the confusion or worry, because my path has been laid out, it has been followed successfully by others, and now, what is required of me is to learn how to stay on it...because, it is a narrow path and therefore cannot be walked blindly. 

The parable of the sower explains it well, and I take the lesson to heart.  I want to be fertile ground for God's message.  That is what I hope to be.  I think Jesus told us that parable as a warning, and to help  explain to us why some people will stay on the path, others will turn away eventually, others won't even consider it an option... 

As far as doubts and questions, I don't expect to ever have all the answers in this life, and I am at peace with that fact.  I don't expect God's going to give all the answers to me, nor is he always, if ever, going to find it necessary to consult me before he does things.  I think he chooses to hide some things for my own good, and I'm okay with that.  I used to NOT be okay wth that, and I would search and search and pound my fists and say why why why...all that did was lead to anger and unhappiness because I was trying to control that which is not within my power to control.  Finally, I have become better able to discern what is in my control, and what is not, and therefore, I have learned how to just let some things go.  As a result, I am a much more peaceful person.  "Let go and let God" as they say.  This is a tough thing to do, at least it was for me.  But sometimes, at least for my own sanity, I have to do just that. 

Lastly, my evidence for God is that he has been patient and faithful to guide me on my journey.  I can look back and see how he has worked in my life, and is working to slowly but surely to evolve me into a better person.  I know, by comparing my life before I decided to follow God to how it is now, that His presence has made a difference.  Quite honestly, it has to be God, because I have already proven to myself that without God...specifically the Christian understanding of God...I am an accident waiting to happen.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: You said a lot

BGH wrote:
You said a lot without saying anything at all. As I have a narrow view of god opposite of you, ergo you have a narrow view of god. You anthropomorphize him an awful lot giving him/it human qualities.

I'm not following your line of reasoning. Given that I, as a theist, study God and continually expand on my knowledge, it makes sense that my view would be broader than the view of an atheist who does not spend time contemplating such things. As for God having "human" properties, we human's actually have many intrinsic Godly properties. "We are made in His image." Yes, we have ungodly properties also. As we are made in His image, we also inherited his free will, and using our free will we sometimes make wrong decisions.

God, being perfect, has free will, but even so, always makes the right decisions. He's got the patent on that. Knowing that we are lesser than himself, he initially protected us by NOT giving us knowledge of good and evil. We decided we were curious about evil, so we looked into it. As a consequence, some of us decide evil is cooler than good and we choose to pursue that instead. I'm guessing, when God created us, he knew this was a possiblitiy. Luckily, he also has a plan to bring us back to him.

All that to make the point, yes depending on how you look at it, you can say God has human qualities; however, I think it is more accurate to say that we have inherited Godly qualities. That is why I think it is possible, to a point, to learn about God by observing people. That is one reason why I find this cyber laboratory interesting.

BGH wrote:
You did not answer directly the illogic of the crucifixtion.
No, I didn't, because the cruxifixion is not illogical to me.


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

sugarfree wrote:
I'm not following your line of reasoning. Given that I, as a theist, study God and continually expand on my knowledge, it makes sense that my view would be broader than the view of an atheist who does not spend time contemplating such things.

Okay, you stated it almost perfectly. As a theist you contemplate a being you have no proof for while ignoring evidences all around you of the absurdity of your claims. This has not given you a broader view of the world, just of your "god". This is narrow! An atheist has a broader view of the world and reality.

sugarfree wrote:
As for God having "human" properties, we human's actually have many intrinsic Godly properties. "We are made in His image." Yes, we have ungodly properties also. As we are made in His image, we also inherited his free will, and using our free will we sometimes make wrong decisions. God, being perfect, has free will, but even so, always makes the right decisions. He's got the patent on that. Knowing that we are lesser than himself, he initially protected us by NOT giving us knowledge of good and evil. We decided we were curious about evil, so we looked into it. As a consequence, some of us decide evil is cooler than good and we choose to pursue that instead. I'm guessing, when God created us, he knew this was a possiblitiy. Luckily, he also has a plan to bring us back to him. All that to make the point, yes depending on how you look at it, you can say God has human qualities; however, I think it is more accurate to say that we have inherited Godly qualities. That is why I think it is possible, to a point, to learn about God by observing people. That is one reason why I find this cyber laboratory interesting.

Again, a lot of words that really say nothing. You must understand that what you are doing is just prostyltizing. Most of us here are asking for evidences and statements based on reality, when you "preach the word" it is meaningless. To say "god created us in his image", or "god gave us a choice" is just using phrases we have all heard a million and a half times. Common christian statements that mean nothing.

sugarfree wrote:
No, I didn't, because the cruxifixion is not illogical to me.

It is sad you refuse to look at it with a skeptical eye.

From here on out, let just call it the:

christiFICTION!

 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Okay, you stated

BGH wrote:
Okay, you stated it almost perfectly. As a theist you contemplate a being you have no proof for while ignoring evidences all around you of the absurdity of your claims. This has not given you a broader view of the world, just of your "god". This is narrow! An atheist has a broader view of the world and reality.
I, obviously, could not disagree more. So, on this point, I am ready to agree to disagree with you.

BGH wrote:
You must understand that what you are doing is just prostyltizing.
Actually, I am just trying to explain my understanding of God to you as succintly as possible. If you do not wish to read my words, you have the right to ignore them.

BGH wrote:
It is sad you refuse to look at it with a skeptical eye.

From here on out, let just call it the:

christiFICTION!

 

BGH, do you have something good to offer me, which will enhance my life, make me a better human being, and thus make life better for those around me? I have related to you that by continuing to seek God, I am becoming a better person. So, I ask you, how am I harming you?

You, on the other hand, are attempting to break down and destroy something that is enhancing my life and helping me to live more positively. Now, if you were in fact able to "deconvert" me what good would you be adding to my life and to those around me?

I argue that you would not be doing me much good at all, so I further argue that you are pursuing a pointless goal...a goal that is actually harmful and negative.


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

sugarfree wrote:
BGH, do you have something good to offer me, which will enhance my life, make me a better human being, and thus make life better for those around me?

Sugarfree, you dirty, dirty girl. You are a married woman. I do have something to offer that would do all those things but your husband would not like it.


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

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
BGH, do you have something good to offer me, which will enhance my life, make me a better human being, and thus make life better for those around me?

Sugarfree, you dirty, dirty girl. You are a married woman. I do have something to offer that would do all those things but your husband would not like it.

 

HAHAHAHAHA!!! *sigh* That was funny!

 

Seriously, Sugarfree, BGH and everyone else has tried to offer you something that would do all of that - knowledge. Unfortunately, by limiting yourself to studying god, you limit your view dramatically. I study religion, science, philosophy, psychology...all in an attempt to do exactly what you do. It makes me feel good, it makes me a better person with better understanding of the world and it enhances my life and lives of those around me.


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

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
BGH, do you have something good to offer me, which will enhance my life, make me a better human being, and thus make life better for those around me?

Sugarfree, you dirty, dirty girl. You are a married woman. I do have something to offer that would do all those things but your husband would not like it.


Cute. Is that your best answer? If it is, you haven't convinced me because I already get that from my husband.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Seriously,

jce wrote:
Seriously, Sugarfree, BGH and everyone else has tried to offer you something that would do all of that - knowledge.
Knowledge is wonderful, but it changes and eventually fades away. Wisdom lasts thru the ages. If I had to choose, I would rather be wise than knowledgeable.

jce wrote:
Unfortunately, by limiting yourself to studying god, you limit your view dramatically. I study religion, science, philosophy, psychology...all in an attempt to do exactly what you do. It makes me feel good, it makes me a better person with better understanding of the world and it enhances my life and lives of those around me.

I don't "limit" myself by studying God, I study God as well as those other things you mentioned. So, how is that limiting myself again? The only difference is, when I study those things, I see them thru a different lense than you do.


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

sugarfree wrote:
Cute. Is that your best answer? If it is, you haven't convinced me because I already get that from my husband.

I am sure you don't start crying because you feel "god", like you would with me.

No, there is no point in giving you any more than you are giving us. You refuse to admit you could open up your mind a little more, you refuse to answer actual counterpoints being made. You prostyltize. You are a dishonest debater. As has occured in previous threads, you preach without saying much to the topic discussed.

You haven't come to these message boards for honest discussion, you have come to give anecdotal "feelings" and "spread the word". Most of us have heard this to the point of ad naseum.

Look at jce's post if you want the best answer.

jce wrote:
Unfortunately, by limiting yourself to studying god, you limit your view dramatically. I study religion, science, philosophy, psychology...all in an attempt to do exactly what you do. It makes me feel good, it makes me a better person with better understanding of the world and it enhances my life and lives of those around me.

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
sugar, you have previously


sugar, you have previously taken offense at my responses, concluding that I am mean or angry.  Please realize that I am making a supreme effort to remain civil in this response.  

I thought I explained (at least in part) why I "stopped the journey".  As I said, I found I was assuming that my beliefs were true, and then trying to make sense of them.  One simply cannot do this.  One should not accept a hypothesis and then go searching for ways to support it.  One should begin with observable facts and then formulate a conclusion.  If one has initial doubts and confusion about beliefs, one cannot say that he or she began with the facts.  In this case, one has rather assumed a hypothesis to be true, and then sought to twist the facts to fit that hypothesis.

You yourself conceded that not everything made sense to you at first; you developed a greater understanding over time.  I recounted the exact same process occurring with a scientologist; you did not address this.  As I strive to remain polite, I am compelled to point this out again:  you repeatedly ignore the fact that any of your assertions in favor of christianity or jesus or the bible can be made in favor of any other religion.  The scientologist I wrote about gave up drugs after adopting their beliefs, even though he lacked full confidence and understanding of those beliefs.  As you say in reference to the christian god, the practicioner of any other religion could say that without their non-christian god, they would also be an accident in waiting.

You acknowledge that atheists are capable of "self-improvement" -- that is, they don't need to believe in a god in order to be good.  You go further to say that "following god's model" made this easier for you.  However, you simultaneously mention that you had initial doubts and confusion and even now don't "expect to ever have all the answers in this life", and are "at peace with that fact."  It is unclear to me therefore precisely what is necessary for the "self-improvement" that you speak of.  Exactly how much about "god's model" does one have to understand in order to be able eligible for self-improvement?  What is the minimum threshold of doubt and confusion?  Specific to this discussion:  Does one have to "get" the crucifixion in order for self-improvement to work, or is one's capacity for self-improvement independent of acceptance and understanding of the crucifixion?

I hope you have not found me either angry or mean or morbidly obese in this response.  If you do, please point out where that I can correct myself.  If you intend to respond, I only ask this favor:  please try not to use the pre-emptive logic that you have used up until now, where you assume your conclusion in advance (that christianity/jesus/bible are true), and then force your reasoning to proceed to that conclusion.  If the only way I can follow your reasoning is to begin with the same unfounded assumption, obviously we cannot come to any understanding. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Sugarfree, I need to step

Sugarfree,

I need to step away from this discussion. I am reacting to your comments in a way that I do not care for. Though I think I have made some very valid points you refuse to respond to, the discussion is deteriorating. All you seem to want to do is preach and I want to discuss, this is aggravating. The others will continue with you I am sure.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Knowledge

sugarfree wrote:
Knowledge is wonderful, but it changes and eventually fades away. Wisdom lasts thru the ages. If I had to choose, I would rather be wise than knowledgeable.

This is ridiculous. Give me your definitions of 'knowledge' and 'wisdom.' I dont think you even know what those words mean.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Sugarfree, I

BGH wrote:

Sugarfree,

I need to step away from this discussion. I am reacting to your comments in a way that I do not care for. Though I think I have made some very valid points you refuse to respond to, the discussion is deteriorating. All you seem to want to do is preach and I want to discuss, this is aggravating. The others will continue with you I am sure.

LOL, now I am laughing about that comment you made regarding what you have to offer. Ha ha ha. Thanks for the chuckle. Fair enough and thank you for being honest.


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

zarathustra wrote:
sugar, you have previously taken offense at my responses, concluding that I am mean or angry.  Please realize that I am making a supreme effort to remain civil in this response. 
Gee, you folks are the only people I've encountered that find me this annoying. Just so you know, I don't talk to people about this kind of stuff in general because of the anger that ensues on both sides. You know, I "keep it to myself" which, as Christians we are not necessarily supposed to do. This venue is unique in that it strips away all the niceties of every day, person to person interaction. I'm not sure that's a 100% healthy thing, actually. 

zarathustra wrote:
One should not accept a hypothesis and then go searching for ways to support it.  One should begin with observable facts and then formulate a conclusion.  If one has initial doubts and confusion about beliefs, one cannot say that he or she began with the facts.  In this case, one has rather assumed a hypothesis to be true, and then sought to twist the facts to fit that hypothesis.
I don't know how to answer accept to say, you are possibly more scientifically left brained oriented, therefore require your proof to be in the form of a rock (i.e., something physical). I, unlike you, I think, do not require this. I know that when I made my decision, I realized I did not have all the answers, but I didn't doubt my decision because of it. I felt a deep conviction about the divinity of Jesus Christ, and this conviction has been matched by millions of people throughout history. Many people througout history also have had a deep conviction that we have a creator. You discount this as our "stupidity?", which we have evolved beyond. I see it as an indicator of truth. I, personally choose to trust that when something convicts me deeply, there is a reason behind it. Sorry. I know you are not going to like that answer.
zarathustra wrote:
I recounted the exact same process occurring with a scientologist; you did not address this.  As I strive to remain polite, I am compelled to point this out again:  you repeatedly ignore the fact that any of your assertions in favor of christianity or jesus or the bible can be made in favor of any other religion.  The scientologist I wrote about gave up drugs after adopting their beliefs, even though he lacked full confidence and understanding of those beliefs.  As you say in reference to the christian god, the practicioner of any other religion could say that without their non-christian god, they would also be an accident in waiting.
Bottom line, for me is, I believe as human's we do better if we submit to a will that is greater than our own. We do better if we admit our weakness to that which is stronger than ourselves. So, yes, I can see that people would have the same kinds of improvements with other religions. So, are you wanting me to say, my Christian God is not the only God, or that, there is no God at all? I'm not sure where you are trying to lead me. I will say, I believe there is one true God, and that we as humans have been seeking Him for all time. Given that this is my belief, I have chosen to follow the Christian model, in which death has been overcome. And, I believe there is ample evidence pointing to the fact that Jesus did in fact do what he said he was going to do. So, again, probably not what you were looking for in an answer, but there you have it.

zarathustra wrote:
You acknowledge that atheists are capable of "self-improvement" -- that is, they don't need to believe in a god in order to be good.  You go further to say that "following god's model" made this easier for you.  However, you simultaneously mention that you had initial doubts and confusion and even now don't "expect to ever have all the answers in this life", and are "at peace with that fact."
I don't know that I used the word confusion, but possibly, a better way of saying it is that, I was aware that there were unknowns and unanswered questions. It wasn't like I felt I would have to push them down or "wish" them away. I just acknowledged they were there, and that was that.
zarathustra wrote:
It is unclear to me therefore precisely what is necessary for the "self-improvement" that you speak of.  Exactly how much about "god's model" does one have to understand in order to be able eligible for self-improvement?
Did you not notice self-improvement in yourself when you were a Christian? I do not think it is about IQ. There are plenty of low-IQ people who get Jesus. Thus, the phrase, the meek shall inherit the earth. They are wise rather than knowledgeable.  But, wisdom is more important in the long run.
zarathustra wrote:
What is the minimum threshold of doubt and confusion?
Minimum? Why would you try to measure it in the first place? I guess I don't get it.
zarathustra wrote:
Specific to this discussion:  Does one have to "get" the crucifixion in order for self-improvement to work, or is one's capacity for self-improvement independent of acceptance and understanding of the crucifixion?
It starts with a humbling of the spirit, a willingness to bow down to that which is greater, only then can the improvement and understanding take root.
zarathustra wrote:
I hope you have not found me either angry or mean or morbidly obese in this response.  If you do, please point out where that I can correct myself.  If you intend to respond, I only ask this favor:  please try not to use the pre-emptive logic that you have used up until now, where you assume your conclusion in advance (that christianity/jesus/bible are true), and then force your reasoning to proceed to that conclusion.  If the only way I can follow your reasoning is to begin with the same unfounded assumption, obviously we cannot come to any understanding.
No, I have not found you morbidly obese. I do not know what you mean by pre-emtive logic. I speak from my own experience. You might not like that, but, at the end of the day, it is all I have.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
I'll meagerly try to

I'll meagerly try to breathe new life into the thread.

I'v had a long fascination with the details of christianity. I'm going to give my un-believer take on the meaning of the crucifiction and I'm curious about believer response.

The crucifition has 2 important parts, obviously: the death, the resurrection. As many theological critics have pointed out. These 2 things are like oil and water taken together. And it appears from the structure of christianity that they have to be taken together. But in my view, taking them together dooms christianity. However, when I separate the 2 parts I can make a lot more sense out of it and I can also see why each part would be attractive. The problem of christianity though is that the 2 parts are not separated even though they deny each other.

the death - The primary idea here is that we sinners can become cleansed by the (animal) sacrifice of jesus. It sounds weird put this way. But doing so points out the way this murder (martyr) is tied to the history of religion preceeding him. It's also self-reflective in a very normal way. We as humans generally acknowledge that we have imperfections and we strive to overcome them or some of them etc... The idea, then, was that jesus fixed a broken humanity.

the resurrection - The obvious idea here, one with obvious appeal, is that death is defeated. The resurrection was supposed to be the proof of the pudding that really there is no death, so no need to go worrying about dying anymore.

And...the obvious problem is that jesus's death was supposed to fix humanity, but the crucificion reveals that there is no death. So nothing was fixed since there was no actual death.

My interpretations are orthodox. Since I'm not a believer, it's all I have to go on. If this or that christian is not orthodox, it may be irrelevant, but I can't analyze unknown unique variations. What do other christians think of this paradox? Have you yourself had to vary the orthodox to account for the problem?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh

Roisin Dubh wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Knowledge is wonderful, but it changes and eventually fades away. Wisdom lasts thru the ages. If I had to choose, I would rather be wise than knowledgeable.

This is ridiculous. Give me your definitions of 'knowledge' and 'wisdom.' I dont think you even know what those words mean.

Knowledge = "the world is round" (The world is round now, but when the sun explodes, bye bye world.)
Wisdom = "love your neighbor as yourself" (The sun explodes, the world is destroyed, and we all die, our spirits live on. The world doesn't exist anymore, but love still does.)


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Roisin

sugarfree wrote:
Roisin Dubh wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Knowledge is wonderful, but it changes and eventually fades away. Wisdom lasts thru the ages. If I had to choose, I would rather be wise than knowledgeable.

This is ridiculous. Give me your definitions of 'knowledge' and 'wisdom.' I dont think you even know what those words mean.

Knowledge = "the world is round" (The world is round now, but when the sun explodes, bye bye world.) Wisdom = "love your neighbor as yourself" (The sun explodes, the world is destroyed, and we all die, our spirits live on. The world doesn't exist anymore, but love still does.)

Us Atheists don't believe in "spirits" per se ... We understand that minds, which have been called "souls" by some, can be reduced to brain function and do not exist apart from material, neuronal brains ... (some have postulated artificial intelligence that could function like minds apart from neuronal brains, but I that is neither here nor there) The point is, your dichotomy is subjective and also ahistorical.  In fact, it seems simply made up ...

There is no "spirit" to live on.  Once the last person is eradicated from the earth, perhaps at the destruction of our Solar System, there will be no others (that we know of) who could continue the moral precept, "Love thy neighbor as thyself ..."

I should also remind you that the precept, "Love thy neighbor ..." which Christ derived from the Torah  (Leviticus 19:18), was not intended to actually apply to anyone outside of the In-group (in this case, the fledgling "nation" of Israel around the the sacking/genocide of the kingdoms of Canaan up to the Roman-Occupied Judea before the destruction of temple in 70 CE).  To quote Hartung,

Quote:
According to the Gospels, Jesus' declared mission was to reform Judaism, to bring back the spirit of in-group morality that seemed to have given way to sanctimony, observance of rituals, and rigid class distinctions in the face of Roman domination. He stated this repeatedly, even instructing his disciples to avoid out-group members when taking his message to in-group members (e.g., Matthew 10:5-6; RSV): "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ...

Jesus often used the words neighbor and brother without explicitly indicating that he meant fellow Jews whom he sought to unify. (For a sympathetic and particularly well informed perspective on Jesus and his mission within the context of 1st century Israel, see Vermes, 1973). Ironically, gentile Christians generally infer themselves to be included by these terms, even though many passages make it clear that they were not. For example, consider Matthew 18:15-18, in which Jesus explained to his disciples that Jews who sin against fellow Jews and cannot be made to see the error of their ways should be considered as gentiles because, like gentiles and tax collectors (Jews who collected taxes for the gentile government), they were going to be rejected from heaven (RSV, see also Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 6:32; 10:16-21):

Quote:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The purpose of re-forming Judaism was stated over and over by Jesus. It was to bring his god's kingdom to earth-to either be the Messiah himself, or to usher him in (see Vermes, 1973, regarding both the strength of the former conviction and the ambivalence of the latter). After so many centuries of foreign domination, Jesus wanted to bring his group back together, to forge them into a unit even more cohesive than that formed by Moses, primarily by emphasizing the need for active morality between in-group members, as distinct from the earlier emphasis on passive morality. This active in-group morality extended to nine repetitions of "love thy neighbor," to the Golden Rule (Jesus' twice-used paraphrase of "love thy neighbor"-"Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them&quotEye-wink, and even to "turning the other cheek" to fellow Jews who might thereby be persuaded to join the cause (Matthew 5:39) ...

The cause was the plan, or the word, and the word was holy. Jesus was very concerned that the holy plan not become apparent to out-group members, so again he instructed his disciples (Matthew 7:6; RSV): "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine." ...

This is where Matthew 15:21 looks pretty embarassing - "And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Quote:
The original covenant was an exclusive contract. Although he occasionally threatened to destroy them for insufficient fealty, the god of the Israelites never wavered in his insistence that they were his chosen people. The new covenant was for Jews who would follow the messiah and recreate the empire of the original chosen people. Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the "pigs".

Even if the moral precepts of the Bible actually did apply to us (which they don't) that would not change the reality that "spirits" don't exist (except as social constructions that pertain to our minds) and that the extinction of the only species that has ever been known to have developed advanced intelligence would spell the end of "spirit" (and thus moral precepts) in any capacity. 

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


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

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Roisin Dubh wrote:

Us Atheists don't believe in "spirits" per se ... We understand that minds, which have been called "souls" by some, can be reduced to brain function and do not exist apart from material, neuronal brains ... (some have postulated artificial intelligence that could function like minds apart from neuronal brains, but I that is neither here nor there) The point is, your dichotomy is subjective and also ahistorical. In fact, it seems simply made up ...

There is no "spirit" to live on. Once the last person is eradicated from the earth, perhaps at the destruction of our Solar System, there will be no others (that we know of) who could continue the moral precept, "Love thy neighbor as thyself ..."

I should also remind you that the precept, "Love thy neighbor ..." which Christ derived from the Torah (Leviticus 19:18), was not intended to actually apply to anyone outside of the In-group (in this case, the fledgling "nation" of Israel around the the sacking/genocide of the kingdoms of Canaan up to the Roman-Occupied Judea before the destruction of temple in 70 CE). To quote Hartung,

Quote:
According to the Gospels, Jesus' declared mission was to reform Judaism, to bring back the spirit of in-group morality that seemed to have given way to sanctimony, observance of rituals, and rigid class distinctions in the face of Roman domination. He stated this repeatedly, even instructing his disciples to avoid out-group members when taking his message to in-group members (e.g., Matthew 10:5-6; RSV): "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ...

Jesus often used the words neighbor and brother without explicitly indicating that he meant fellow Jews whom he sought to unify. (For a sympathetic and particularly well informed perspective on Jesus and his mission within the context of 1st century Israel, see Vermes, 1973). Ironically, gentile Christians generally infer themselves to be included by these terms, even though many passages make it clear that they were not. For example, consider Matthew 18:15-18, in which Jesus explained to his disciples that Jews who sin against fellow Jews and cannot be made to see the error of their ways should be considered as gentiles because, like gentiles and tax collectors (Jews who collected taxes for the gentile government), they were going to be rejected from heaven (RSV, see also Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 6:32; 10:16-21):

Quote:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The purpose of re-forming Judaism was stated over and over by Jesus. It was to bring his god's kingdom to earth-to either be the Messiah himself, or to usher him in (see Vermes, 1973, regarding both the strength of the former conviction and the ambivalence of the latter). After so many centuries of foreign domination, Jesus wanted to bring his group back together, to forge them into a unit even more cohesive than that formed by Moses, primarily by emphasizing the need for active morality between in-group members, as distinct from the earlier emphasis on passive morality. This active in-group morality extended to nine repetitions of "love thy neighbor," to the Golden Rule (Jesus' twice-used paraphrase of "love thy neighbor"-"Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them&quotEye-wink, and even to "turning the other cheek" to fellow Jews who might thereby be persuaded to join the cause (Matthew 5:39) ...

The cause was the plan, or the word, and the word was holy. Jesus was very concerned that the holy plan not become apparent to out-group members, so again he instructed his disciples (Matthew 7:6; RSV): "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine." ...

This is where Matthew 15:21 looks pretty embarassing - "And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Quote:
The original covenant was an exclusive contract. Although he occasionally threatened to destroy them for insufficient fealty, the god of the Israelites never wavered in his insistence that they were his chosen people. The new covenant was for Jews who would follow the messiah and recreate the empire of the original chosen people. Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the "pigs".

Even if the moral precepts of the Bible actually did apply to us (which they don't) that would not change the reality that "spirits" don't exist (except as social constructions that pertain to our minds) and that the extinction of the only species that has ever been known to have developed advanced intelligence would spell the end of "spirit" (and thus moral precepts) in any capacity.

just to clarify, "atheism" doesn't account for whether "spirits" or some kind of ether exists apart from matter. I think Conn is talking more specifically about materialism than he is about atheism. Atheism from the perspective of the RRS seems to be joined with materialism.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
hi sugarfree, can you

hi sugarfree, can you address my response to your post? i'm interested in reading your perspective. I quoted it again below.

mouse wrote:

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


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: hi sugarfree,

mouse wrote:
hi sugarfree, can you address my response to your post?

Hello mouse. I addressed it several posts back. Let me know if you want me to expand on anything I said.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Knowledge = "the world is round" (The world is round now, but when the sun explodes, bye bye world.) Wisdom = "love your neighbor as yourself" (The sun explodes, the world is destroyed, and we all die, our spirits live on. The world doesn't exist anymore, but love still does.)

So then knowledge = facts?  How do facts change?  The example you gave for wisdom is complete and utter nonsense.  And, if what you were getting at with wisdom was along the lines of a generally agreed-upon precept, then your original statement, as previously noted, is ridiculous.   General agreed-upon precepts change all the time(a woman's place is in the home.  Slavery is acceptable.)  Of course, as you've made abundantly clear, the truth is of no importance to you.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


Quester
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: what about

mouse wrote:

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?

I'll assume that you mean the story of the crucifixion as written in the Gospels and not what may or may not have transpired historically.

As far as I can discern as a Christian (Catholic, if it matters) the crucifixion is important to Christians in several ways.

Firstly, it establishes that Jesus is fully committed to the message that he is preaching. He is willing to go through a brutal death (you might say that crucifixion was common at the time, but its brutality is undeniable) because of the message that he was delivering.

Secondly, it shows the humility of Jesus in the face of those mocking him. If the most important person who ever walked the face of the planet can carry his cross to die a miserable and embarrassing death, what are the troubles of the day to day for the Christian? It shows us that we, as humans, will never be able to live up to the humility that Jesus shows by going to his death.

Lastly, in terms of the actual crucifixion itself, the symbol of Christ on a Cross is representative of his perfection. (If you take the cross as a feminine symbol, think: the circle with the cross thing at the bottom, the female symbol.) It tells us that Christ, in the moments before his death has become a fully realized person, one who has fulfilled his mission in life.

That Jesus rose is the important thing, not the period of time, although three (think: trinity) days is just as good as any number of days. This also symbolizes the spirit of his message rising up in his followers then and today. In rising Jesus tells us that death doesn't matter, it is simply another part of life, and one that believers think can be overcome.

The reasons for Jesus being crucified versus any other means of death or execution are explained above. The fact that Jesus was turned in by one of his own, and condemned to death by people reminds us that we can reject the message of Christ. It serves as a warning that God will not force you to follow him, but rather you must choose to follow. If you wish to put him to death in your mind, he will allow it. The fact that it is told in the form of a narrative story, I think, is simply to drive home the point of what happens. As humans, and I think the tremendous amount of mythology and story that exists in all societies tells us this, stories appeal to us, and we remember their messages and their contents much better then other forms of remembering.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Quester - Welcome!  Very

Quester - Welcome!  Very good explaination and outline.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh wrote: So then

Roisin Dubh wrote:

So then knowledge = facts?

Yes.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

How do facts change?

"The world is getting colder. An ice age is coming!" "The world is getting hotter, we're all going to die!" Etc.

Roisin Dubh wrote:
The example you gave for wisdom is complete and utter nonsense.
Why don't you say how you really feel. Heh heh. Okay, let me try a different example. Here's a tidbit of wisdom, from the source, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." This pretty much applies to people 6,000 years ago as much as it does today, and will still applly 6000 years from now (if we don't blow ourselves up first).


Roisin Dubh wrote:
And, if what you were getting at with wisdom was along the lines of a generally agreed-upon precept, then your original statement, as previously noted, is ridiculous. General agreed-upon precepts change all the time(a woman's place is in the home. Slavery is acceptable.)
No, I am not referring to these generally accepted precepts, as you call them.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: "The

sugarfree wrote:

"The world is getting colder. An ice age is coming!" "The world is getting hotter, we're all going to die!" Etc.

That the world is getting hotter is a fact. That we're all going to die(because of the warming earth) is pure conjecture. The world is getting colder is an incorrect statement, and the ice age coming is also conjecture. 1 out of 4 is not bad, for a theist.

Quote:
Why don't you say how you really feel. Heh heh. Okay, let me try a different example. Here's a tidbit of wisdom, from the source, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." This pretty much applies to people 6,000 years ago as much as it does today, and will still applly 6000 years from now (if we don't blow ourselves up first).

The adage is, "Money is the root of all evil." That is not wisdom, that is an opinion. And I dont think anyone with a brain believes it is true today.


Quote:
No, I am not referring to these generally accepted precepts, as you call them.

No, you are picking and choosing those that fit your statement. Just like a good theist should.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


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

Roisin Dubh wrote:
The world is getting colder is an incorrect statement, and the ice age coming is also conjecture. 1 out of 4 is not bad, for a theist.
I'm referring to the environmentalists in the 1970's who feared a coming ice age. They took what facts they had on hand and came to their alarming conclusion. Some people are doing the same thing today regarding warming. They are taking what little, on the record facts we have regarding global temperatures and then predicting. But the point is, all they can do is take the soil samples, ice samples, etc. and make predictions. We haven't been observing the world scientifically long enough to be able to say for sure what's going on. However, now, peeps like Al Gore are going around and making everyone feel guilty for driving SUVs based on these "facts". Well, guaranteed, these facts are gonna change in 20 years or so, and we will be looking at a completely different picture.

Below, a reference to the 70's ice age predictions:
http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm

Roisin Dubh wrote:
"Money is the root of all evil." That is not wisdom, that is an opinion. And I dont think anyone with a brain believes it is true today.
Oh geez. Then, now it's my turn to call you delusional. The point of the passage is that the love of money leads to evil...evil in various forms (i.e., all KINDS of evil). Do you not like that little nugget just because it is in the Bible? If you do not see that people's greed leads to evil being done, then I cannot help you. So, I'll just ask you this...how do you define knowledge versus wisdom?

Roisin Dubh wrote:
No, you are picking and choosing those that fit your statement. Just like a good theist should.
What? You know as well as I that as a Christian, I use the Bible as my moral guide (which has been time tested), not the constantly changing whims of man (as you do).


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: I'm

sugarfree wrote:
I'm referring to the environmentalists in the 1970's who feared a coming ice age. They took what facts they had on hand and came to their alarming conclusion. Some people are doing the same thing today regarding warming. They are taking what little, on the record facts we have regarding global temperatures and then predicting. But the point is, all they can do is take the soil samples, ice samples, etc. and make predictions. We haven't been observing the world scientifically long enough to be able to say for sure what's going on. However, now, peeps like Al Gore are going around and making everyone feel guilty for driving SUVs based on these "facts". Well, guaranteed, these facts are gonna change in 20 years or so, and we will be looking at a completely different picture. Below, a reference to the 70's ice age predictions:

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Those predictions are not FACTS. You said yourself, knowledge = facts. Like I noted in my first response to your post, you dont even know the meanings of the words you throw around.

Quote:
Oh geez. Then, now it's my turn to call you delusional. The point of the passage is that the love of money leads to evil...evil in various forms (i.e., all KINDS of evil). Do you not like that little nugget just because it is in the Bible? If you do not see that people's greed leads to evil being done, then I cannot help you.

You're really a dishonest poster. Notice in your response, GREED leads to evil. Greed/the LOVE of money does NOT equal money. If you cant see that what you are arguing is completely different from what you're saying, then I can't help you.

Quote:
What? You know as well as I that as a Christian, I use the Bible as my moral guide (which has been time tested), not the constantly changing whims of man (as you do).

No, that the bible is a "time-tested" guide to morality is nothing more than your ill-informed opinion. Since you claim "the bible" is your moral compass, then I'd like to invite you to my cousin's wedding in August. She is most definitely not a virgin, so bring plenty of stones. The "changing whims of man," as you ignorantly mention, mean nothing more than some tenets of secular ethics will change, based on more and better information available to us. Some things never change, i.e. murder = bad, or helping little old lady across the path = good. However, when there is a good reason to change a position based on EVIDENCE, we do so, i.e. homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, now we see EVIDENCE piling up that shows that it is simply a genetic difference. Only moronic theists using one somewhat vague line from a 2000 year old book of fables consider homosexuality to be immoral today. Or consider it to be "curable."

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Gee, you

sugarfree wrote:
Gee, you folks are the only people I've encountered that find me this annoying.

Where in my last post did I call you annoying. It seems you really want me to be mad at you, when in fact I'm not.

sugarfree wrote:
This venue is unique in that it strips away all the niceties of every day, person to person interaction. I'm not sure that's a 100% healthy thing, actually.

We're on a search for the truth here. If what you have to offer is the truth, it shouldn't have to rely on niceties to make itself known.

sugarfree wrote:
I know that when I made my decision, I realized I did not have all the answers, but I didn't doubt my decision because of it. I felt a deep conviction about the divinity of Jesus Christ, and this conviction has been matched by millions of people throughout history.

Once again, sugar -- in all politeness, of course -- you ignored what I put forth previously. This same line of thinking can be employed in the adoption of any religion.

sugarfree wrote:

Many people througout history also have had a deep conviction that we have a creator. You discount this as our "stupidity?", which we have evolved beyond.

Many people throughout history also have had a deep conviction that the earth is flat. You decide.

sugarfree wrote:
zarathustra wrote:
What is the minimum threshold of doubt and confusion?
Minimum? Why would you try to measure it in the first place? I guess I don't get it.

No problem. Let's try again. You related that you had doubts when you took on the "christian model", but you were certain that understanding would come with time. So apparently, having certain doubts (such as the importance of the crucifixion) did not preclude you from being a christian. Can you also doubt the virgin birth or the resurrection? Can you doubt whether jesus was a real person? Or are there a certain number of beliefs you have to accept up front?

sugarfree wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Specific to this discussion: Does one have to "get" the crucifixion in order for self-improvement to work, or is one's capacity for self-improvement independent of acceptance and understanding of the crucifixion?
It starts with a humbling of the spirit, a willingness to bow down to that which is greater, only then can the improvement and understanding take root.

Specific to this discussion: Does one have to "get" the crucifixion in order for self-improvement to work, or is one's capacity for self-improvement independent of acceptance and understanding of the crucifixion?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh

Roisin Dubh wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
I'm referring to the environmentalists in the 1970's who feared a coming ice age. They took what facts they had on hand and came to their alarming conclusion. Some people are doing the same thing today regarding warming. They are taking what little, on the record facts we have regarding global temperatures and then predicting. But the point is, all they can do is take the soil samples, ice samples, etc. and make predictions. We haven't been observing the world scientifically long enough to be able to say for sure what's going on. However, now, peeps like Al Gore are going around and making everyone feel guilty for driving SUVs based on these "facts". Well, guaranteed, these facts are gonna change in 20 years or so, and we will be looking at a completely different picture. Below, a reference to the 70's ice age predictions:

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Those predictions are not FACTS. You said yourself, knowledge = facts. Like I noted in my first response to your post, you dont even know the meanings of the words you throw around.

Quote:
Oh geez. Then, now it's my turn to call you delusional. The point of the passage is that the love of money leads to evil...evil in various forms (i.e., all KINDS of evil). Do you not like that little nugget just because it is in the Bible? If you do not see that people's greed leads to evil being done, then I cannot help you.

You're really a dishonest poster. Notice in your response, GREED leads to evil. Greed/the LOVE of money does NOT equal money. If you cant see that what you are arguing is completely different from what you're saying, then I can't help you.

Quote:
What? You know as well as I that as a Christian, I use the Bible as my moral guide (which has been time tested), not the constantly changing whims of man (as you do).

No, that the bible is a "time-tested" guide to morality is nothing more than your ill-informed opinion. Since you claim "the bible" is your moral compass, then I'd like to invite you to my cousin's wedding in August. She is most definitely not a virgin, so bring plenty of stones. The "changing whims of man," as you ignorantly mention, mean nothing more than some tenets of secular ethics will change, based on more and better information available to us. Some things never change, i.e. murder = bad, or helping little old lady across the path = good. However, when there is a good reason to change a position based on EVIDENCE, we do so, i.e. homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, now we see EVIDENCE piling up that shows that it is simply a genetic difference. Only moronic theists using one somewhat vague line from a 2000 year old book of fables consider homosexuality to be immoral today. Or consider it to be "curable."

Oh geez, this is getting too ugly. Nevermind. I'm stepping out.


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

sugarfree wrote:
Oh geez, this is getting too ugly. Nevermind. I'm stepping out.

I know I said I was leaving this thread but I must say I notice a pattern here with our friend sugarfree. When the counter arguments get to be too much and no one gets her touchy-feely crap she leaves. If the faith is so strong, you should be able to endure any amount of questioning, right?

Or do you choose to bow out when you start to have doubts about your faith too, that way you won't have to think about it anymore?


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

zarathustra wrote:
Where in my last post did I call you annoying. It seems you really want me to be mad at you, when in fact I'm not.
OK, cool. Annoying was my word choice. I had just gotten done reading BGH's comment...which, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say, I annoyed him big time. LOL. I'm not trying to be annoying, seriously! I just don't dialogue like this everyday, not with anyone, including atheists...so I have no idea what your hot buttons are. I'm finding out as I go. Believe me, you guys make it known!

zarathustra wrote:
We're on a search for the truth here. If what you have to offer is the truth, it shouldn't have to rely on niceties to make itself known.
Well, yes, truth is truth and it should be allowed to stand untarnished. I can see we both feel that way about our own truths. (You think yours is true, I think mine is true...I'm sure one of us is right, I'll know for sure who it is when I die.)

zarathustra wrote:
Once again, sugar -- in all politeness, of course -- you ignored what I put forth previously. This same line of thinking can be employed in the adoption of any religion.
I thought I said, yes, you are right, the Scientologist phenomenon you described happens with all religions, quite probably.

zarathustra wrote:
Many people throughout history also have had a deep conviction that the earth is flat. You decide.
The world being flat is a physical truth, not a spiritual truth. To uncover spiritual truths, we must use different means of study. Studying trends in human nature is one of those ways.

zarathustra wrote:
Let's try again. You related that you had doubts when you took on the "christian model", but you were certain that understanding would come with time. So apparently, having certain doubts (such as the importance of the crucifixion) did not preclude you from being a christian. Can you also doubt the virgin birth or the resurrection? Can you doubt whether jesus was a real person? Or are there a certain number of beliefs you have to accept up front?
You keep using the word doubt. Does the word "doubt" for you have a negative connotation? I don't think there is anything wrong with saying "I don't get it." My "doubt" was not that, was Jesus born to a virgin? It was more like, Jesus was born to a virgin? "I don't get it." But look at it this way...I believe God created the universe. So, why would I not believe God could create a virgin birth? If he's smart enough to design an atom and build a biological organism, then certainly, he can figure out the virgin birth thing...that would be peas and carrots in comparison to what he's already done. Given that you don't believe there's a God that created the universe, I can see why the virgin birth would sound absolutely ridiculous to you. But, I'm coming at it from an entirely different angle than you.

zarathustra wrote:
Specific to this discussion: Does one have to "get" the crucifixion in order for self-improvement to work, or is one's capacity for self-improvement independent of acceptance and understanding of the crucifixion?
Well, I get the sense that you are baiting me, but okay, I'll take it. Specific to that one sentence you just said above, the answer is No, one does not need to understand the crucifixion in order to embark on self-improvement.

(p.s., Your politeness is much appreciated by me.)


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

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Oh geez, this is getting too ugly. Nevermind. I'm stepping out.

I know I said I was leaving this thread but I must say I notice a pattern here with our friend sugarfree. When the counter arguments get to be too much and no one gets her touchy-feely crap she leaves. If the faith is so strong, you should be able to endure any amount of questioning, right?

Or do you choose to bow out when you start to have doubts about your faith too, that way you won't have to think about it anymore?

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Oh geez, this is getting too ugly. Nevermind. I'm stepping out.

I know I said I was leaving this thread but I must say I notice a pattern here with our friend sugarfree. When the counter arguments get to be too much and no one gets her touchy-feely crap she leaves. If the faith is so strong, you should be able to endure any amount of questioning, right?

Or do you choose to bow out when you start to have doubts about your faith too, that way you won't have to think about it anymore?

Hello BGH, my sweetie pie. Eye-wink (I'm teasing.) I just didn't want to deal with his hostile attitude (i.e., "What in the hell..."). Life's to short for me to allow myself to be talked to in that way, regardless of what he has to say. The end result is, I will get mad and say something stupid. (i.e., I will sin.) I was following your example, which was a good one, I think, by bowing out of my discussion with him. I don't think it's worth it to get all mad about "what is knowledge vs. wisdom".


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: just to

mouse wrote:
just to clarify, "atheism" doesn't account for whether "spirits" or some kind of ether exists apart from matter. I think Conn is talking more specifically about materialism than he is about atheism. Atheism from the perspective of the RRS seems to be joined with materialism.

I'll buy that.  I should have been more clear about the relationship between atheism and materialism ... However, I have yet to meet an atheist who was not a materialist or a reductionist with respect to, you know, the stuff of the multiverse. 

I would argue, however, that atheism does not have to account for "spirits" or "ether" existing "apart from matter" as one cannot prove a negative ... there are no verifiable/falsifiable accounts of ethers or spirits apart from those that occur naturally, the presence of which can be detected empircally, etc. so why would we have to account for it? 

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


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

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:

mouse wrote:
just to clarify, "atheism" doesn't account for whether "spirits" or some kind of ether exists apart from matter. I think Conn is talking more specifically about materialism than he is about atheism. Atheism from the perspective of the RRS seems to be joined with materialism.

I'll buy that. I should have been more clear about the relationship between atheism and materialism ... However, I have yet to meet an atheist who was not a materialist or a reductionist with respect to, you know, the stuff of the multiverse.

I would argue, however, that atheism does not have to account for "spirits" or "ether" existing "apart from matter" as one cannot prove a negative ... there are no verifiable/falsifiable accounts of ethers or spirits apart from those that occur naturally, the presence of which can be detected empircally, etc. so why would we have to account for it?

I am not saying you are responsible for accounting for unfalsifiable ideas or theories;  i'm just saying that being an atheist does not entail empiricism/materialism.  Materialism seems to encompass your worldview more comprehensively than atheism does, since atheism is more specific.  

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


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

Quester wrote:
mouse wrote:

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?

I'll assume that you mean the story of the crucifixion as written in the Gospels and not what may or may not have transpired historically.

As far as I can discern as a Christian (Catholic, if it matters) the crucifixion is important to Christians in several ways.

Firstly, it establishes that Jesus is fully committed to the message that he is preaching. He is willing to go through a brutal death (you might say that crucifixion was common at the time, but its brutality is undeniable) because of the message that he was delivering.

Secondly, it shows the humility of Jesus in the face of those mocking him. If the most important person who ever walked the face of the planet can carry his cross to die a miserable and embarrassing death, what are the troubles of the day to day for the Christian? It shows us that we, as humans, will never be able to live up to the humility that Jesus shows by going to his death.

Lastly, in terms of the actual crucifixion itself, the symbol of Christ on a Cross is representative of his perfection. (If you take the cross as a feminine symbol, think: the circle with the cross thing at the bottom, the female symbol.) It tells us that Christ, in the moments before his death has become a fully realized person, one who has fulfilled his mission in life.

That Jesus rose is the important thing, not the period of time, although three (think: trinity) days is just as good as any number of days. This also symbolizes the spirit of his message rising up in his followers then and today. In rising Jesus tells us that death doesn't matter, it is simply another part of life, and one that believers think can be overcome.

The reasons for Jesus being crucified versus any other means of death or execution are explained above. The fact that Jesus was turned in by one of his own, and condemned to death by people reminds us that we can reject the message of Christ. It serves as a warning that God will not force you to follow him, but rather you must choose to follow. If you wish to put him to death in your mind, he will allow it. The fact that it is told in the form of a narrative story, I think, is simply to drive home the point of what happens. As humans, and I think the tremendous amount of mythology and story that exists in all societies tells us this, stories appeal to us, and we remember their messages and their contents much better then other forms of remembering.

thanks for your response, quester. i want to probe it a bit more; so, is the idea of jesus separable from the context and narrative which appeals to us?

in other words, would jesus still be jesus under more ordinary circumstances, or is the narrative necessary? are the details of his death essential for having access to the christian faith? 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Hello

sugarfree wrote:
Hello BGH, my sweetie pie. Eye-wink (I'm teasing.) I just didn't want to deal with his hostile attitude (i.e., "What in the hell...&quotEye-wink. Life's to short for me to allow myself to be talked to in that way, regardless of what he has to say. The end result is, I will get mad and say something stupid. (i.e., I will sin.) I was following your example, which was a good one, I think, by bowing out of my discussion with him. I don't think it's worth it to get all mad about "what is knowledge vs. wisdom".

If I seemed hostile(because I used the phrase, "what the hell...?"  give me a break), it was only out of frustration that your arguments frequently are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. As others have pointed out, you also often avoid answering questions and ignore points that get made that run counter to your beliefs.  I wasn't mad, nor you should you be.  I just dont understand what you are doing here, when it's clear that A) your arguments carry ZERO weight with the folks here that respect logic and the scientific method, and B) you are completely closed off to anything that contradicts your christianity unless it has a guaranteed happy ending.   

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


Quester
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: Quester

mouse wrote:
Quester wrote:
mouse wrote:

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?

I'll assume that you mean the story of the crucifixion as written in the Gospels and not what may or may not have transpired historically.

As far as I can discern as a Christian (Catholic, if it matters) the crucifixion is important to Christians in several ways.

Firstly, it establishes that Jesus is fully committed to the message that he is preaching. He is willing to go through a brutal death (you might say that crucifixion was common at the time, but its brutality is undeniable) because of the message that he was delivering.

Secondly, it shows the humility of Jesus in the face of those mocking him. If the most important person who ever walked the face of the planet can carry his cross to die a miserable and embarrassing death, what are the troubles of the day to day for the Christian? It shows us that we, as humans, will never be able to live up to the humility that Jesus shows by going to his death.

Lastly, in terms of the actual crucifixion itself, the symbol of Christ on a Cross is representative of his perfection. (If you take the cross as a feminine symbol, think: the circle with the cross thing at the bottom, the female symbol.) It tells us that Christ, in the moments before his death has become a fully realized person, one who has fulfilled his mission in life.

That Jesus rose is the important thing, not the period of time, although three (think: trinity) days is just as good as any number of days. This also symbolizes the spirit of his message rising up in his followers then and today. In rising Jesus tells us that death doesn't matter, it is simply another part of life, and one that believers think can be overcome.

The reasons for Jesus being crucified versus any other means of death or execution are explained above. The fact that Jesus was turned in by one of his own, and condemned to death by people reminds us that we can reject the message of Christ. It serves as a warning that God will not force you to follow him, but rather you must choose to follow. If you wish to put him to death in your mind, he will allow it. The fact that it is told in the form of a narrative story, I think, is simply to drive home the point of what happens. As humans, and I think the tremendous amount of mythology and story that exists in all societies tells us this, stories appeal to us, and we remember their messages and their contents much better then other forms of remembering.

thanks for your response, quester. i want to probe it a bit more; so, is the idea of jesus separable from the context and narrative which appeals to us?

in other words, would jesus still be jesus under more ordinary circumstances, or is the narrative necessary? are the details of his death essential for having access to the christian faith? 

I believe that the idea of Jesus, as a savior and redeemer of a people (and if you think that Jesus came for Gentiles as well as Jews, that is everyone), is seperable from the context he lived in.  In fact, you could label someone a "Christ-like" figure and mean just this and it could have nothing to do with the historical period that he lived in. 

The main compenents of the narrative, the universal teachings, the death and the resurrection are essential to what Jesus is because we know of Jesus through this form.  The narrative that appeals to us is important because, honestly, what good is a savior that cannot appeal to people?  I believe that Jesus needs to have the extraordinary circumstances because of the (somewhat) radical message that he is delivering.  Once again, I think that the narrative (and I guess if God exists, He'd agree (although you need not look to God, simply the amount of mythology and story that is part of human cultures)) is the form that is most effective in transfering truths (and not just historical ones) to humans.  I'm not sure if the details of the death are absolutely necessary to having faith in Christ, but they surely make the story much more complete and much more compelling.  I think that a religion, in order to be coherent, needs to have a complete story that goes along with it.  (If you look to things like the Infancy Narratives, for which there is no historical evidence and which it is unlikely the Gospel writers would know anything about, you can see that that they are mostly there to complete the story, not to decieve people.)  So, in sum, I think that the narrative is necessary to Christianity because it tells the story of Christianity.


Patrick Cizuz
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
i agree..

..Well the romans did use crucifixion..at the time it was not a symbol of religion..and i believe jesus was crucified for no more than being wht they might of thought as an insane person.but the fact that he was crucified and died on the cross for our "sins" .and if jesus was killed about 20 years ago..i would like to quote my friend on this." we would be wearing little electric chairs around our neck..not crosses..does that mean if he was killed then would that be the sign of religion today..?


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

Quester wrote:

I'll assume that you mean the story of the crucifixion as written in the Gospels and not what may or may not have transpired historically.

As far as I can discern as a Christian (Catholic, if it matters) the crucifixion is important to Christians in several ways.

Firstly, it establishes that Jesus is fully committed to the message that he is preaching. He is willing to go through a brutal death (you might say that crucifixion was common at the time, but its brutality is undeniable) because of the message that he was delivering.

what was the message he was delivering? are you able to appreciate the message without all of that pomp and circumstance of the crucifixion?

Quester wrote:
Secondly, it shows the humility of Jesus in the face of those mocking him. If the most important person who ever walked the face of the planet can carry his cross to die a miserable and embarrassing death, what are the troubles of the day to day for the Christian? It shows us that we, as humans, will never be able to live up to the humility that Jesus shows by going to his death.
well, there are definitely some humans who came close who didn't even claim to be god. i'll start with gandhi; i can explain further if you want me to.

Quester wrote:
Lastly, in terms of the actual crucifixion itself, the symbol of Christ on a Cross is representative of his perfection. (If you take the cross as a feminine symbol, think: the circle with the cross thing at the bottom, the female symbol.) It tells us that Christ, in the moments before his death has become a fully realized person, one who has fulfilled his mission in life.
did christ need the crucifixion to fulfill his mission in life? what if he tripped on the way to the roman court? would he have not fulfilled his mission? would he still be jesus?

Quester wrote:
That Jesus rose is the important thing, not the period of time, although three (think: trinity) days is just as good as any number of days. This also symbolizes the spirit of his message rising up in his followers then and today. In rising Jesus tells us that death doesn't matter, it is simply another part of life, and one that believers think can be overcome.
i appreciate this intepretation. virtually every christian i know has told me that the resurrection is important simply because jesus did something humans can't do. personally i am not inspired by magic tricks, even if they are divinely imagined. (by the same token, i am not inspired by the circumstances of jesus' death, because i think that if anything they would distracting from any divine message he was trying to get across; it compares today to sentimentality artificially manufactured for effect by TV Dramas; they get high ratings, but are they...good? does the exciting quality of jesus' death (it made millions at the box office in the passion) have anything to do with 'truth'?

Quester wrote:
The reasons for Jesus being crucified versus any other means of death or execution are explained above.

this is tricky territory here. are you saying that the circumstances of jesus' death were designed for a sentimental effect, or that it's lucky (from christianity's perspective) that circumstances befell him as such (i.e., he didn't die from pneumonia) so that people would know who jesus was?

how do you like my use of 'befell'...?

Quester wrote:
The main compenents of the narrative, the universal teachings, the death and the resurrection are essential to what Jesus is because we know of Jesus through this form. The narrative that appeals to us is important because, honestly, what good is a savior that cannot appeal to people?
how faithful are people who must be appealed to with sentimentality?

Quester wrote:
I believe that Jesus needs to have the extraordinary circumstances because of the (somewhat) radical message that he is delivering.
can you explain the radical message and its relationship to the manner in which it was delivered in more detail?

 

Quester wrote:
Once again, I think that the narrative (and I guess if God exists, He'd agree (although you need not look to God, simply the amount of mythology and story that is part of human cultures)) is the form that is most effective in transfering truths (and not just historical ones) to humans.
to me the truth isn't transferred by this particular narrative; it seems to be muddled and confusing, even if it is page-turning. i relate to simplicity a lot better. (for example, jesus' love for everyone as an ethical model for an individual's life is accessible to me, unlike all of that complicated logistical stuff like original sin and hell and the incompatiblity of a sentient all-good yet omniscient creator)

i love double parentheses in writing. you should get extra rrs points.

Quester wrote:
I think that a religion, in order to be coherent, needs to have a complete story that goes along with it. (If you look to things like the Infancy Narratives, for which there is no historical evidence and which it is unlikely the Gospel writers would know anything about, you can see that that they are mostly there to complete the story, not to decieve people.)
i think this is a neat claim from an anthropological/psychological perspective. can you tell me about it?

also, what do the infancy narratives say?

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
You fellas mind if a newbie

You fellas mind if a newbie chimes in?


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

nope.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Your questions aren't easy

Your questions aren't easy to answer, so bear with me if I get a little long winded.  First, the answers to you Cricifixion questions.  Then I'll expand on them a bit, then maybe we can discuss them, and, if you'd like, after that, I'll post my views on the Resurrection.

Is the manner of Jesus" death impotant?  Yes.

 Why?  Through Crucufixion, he offered the most complete satisfaction for our sins.  The "original sin" was pride, our desire to "be like unto God".  By choosing Crucifixion as His manner of death, Jesus sought the most humiliating, painful and ignominious of deaths.  Remember that, under the Old Law, the body of an executed criminal was hung as a token that such a man was cursed by God and rejected by the people.  Jesus consented to be hun upon a Cross while alive.  Thus St Paul in Galatians 3:13, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:  for it is written (Deut 21:23): 'Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree.'" Jesus abased himself as far as he could to offer ssatisfaction for that pride.   He also atoned for our disobedience becoming "obedient unto death, even to death on the Cross" (Phil 2:Cool

There is indeed a sentimental, or emaotionnal aspect to this form of death as well, which, far from being distrating, actually draws believers to it.  It displays to us his unbounded love.  He suffered the severest torments of soul and body.  St Augustine says, "See, see the wounds of the Crucified, the Blood of the dying, the ransom paid by the Redeemer; His Gead bowed down to kiss us; His Heart is opened to love us; His Arms spread to embrace us; His whole Body is given to save us."

The Cross itself is of great significance.  Jesus, as God-man was hanged betwee Heaven and earth, the four arms, pointing to the four corners of teh earth signify the universality of Redemption.

Crucifixion fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

Psalms 21:17-19 "They have pierced My Hands and Feet...They parted My garments among them, and upon My vesture they cast lots."

Isaiah 53:7 "He was offered because it was His own will, and He opened not His mouth.  He shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be as dumb as a lamb beofre the shearer."

Matthew 20:19 "They shall crucify Him."

It fulfills OT types; the tree of knowledge of good and evil; Isaac carrying the wood for the holocaust for Abraham's sacrafice of his son; the Paschal lamb; the brazen serpent.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
I can't get down with

I can't get down with Totus' godman thing, but there was some good basic christian/bible stuff there.

Prophecy needed, or at least it was thought, the messiah to die on a cross. In a different time period or culture with different prophecies, the story could've built up to all kinds of things. The death had much more significance in its time, where you have people who understood the concept of blood sacrifice. Resurrection was the central promise of the bible since the garden fiasco.

The cross is meaningful to me because of what it is a part of, but I recognize that it's value is entirely dependent upon the story as unfolded. Jesus would still be the messiah figure, so long as he was given the role. Heh, if I were directing the thing I'd probably have changed a few twists myself.

Mike Gravel for president!


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Is the

totus_tuus wrote:

Is the manner of Jesus" death impotant? Yes.

By choosing Crucifixion as His manner of death, Jesus sought the most humiliating, painful and ignominious of deaths....

For one thing: Crucifixion was a standard method of execution used by the Romans for common criminals. Thousands of others were submitted to the same punishment that jesus presumably was - some even at the same time (the 2 thieves). There is nothing singular about jesus' suffering as accounted in the gospels.

For another: Crucifixion, although an exquisite form of torture, was not the most humiliating, painful and ignominious of deaths. Read up on techniques used during the Inquisition, the Nazi Holocaust or Saddam's regime. There are far worse deaths to die than crucifixion -- which is to say countless humans have suffered greater pain and punishment in this life than has jesus.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
The canned line would be

The canned line would be something like how Jesus was beaten until he no longer resembled a man, much less himself, before being crucified. Mel Gibson showed us that AND denied your holocaust! ...but yes, I can think of stories heard in this decade that I'd prefer Jesus' fate instead  of.

Mike Gravel for president!


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:
totus_tuus wrote:

Is the manner of Jesus" death impotant? Yes.

By choosing Crucifixion as His manner of death, Jesus sought the most humiliating, painful and ignominious of deaths....

For one thing: Crucifixion was a standard method of execution used by the Romans for common criminals. Thousands of others were submitted to the same punishment that jesus presumably was - some even at the same time (the 2 thieves). There is nothing singular about jesus' suffering as accounted in the gospels.

For another: Crucifixion, although an exquisite form of torture, was not the most humiliating, painful and ignominious of deaths. Read up on techniques used during the Inquisition, the Nazi Holocaust or Saddam's regime. There are far worse deaths to die than crucifixion -- which is to say countless humans have suffered greater pain and punishment in this life than has jesus.

Indeed, Zarathustra, many othe criminals of the era suffered the same fate.  There were even though who were executed for crimes of which they were innocent, or petty crimes, or some things which today wouldn't be considered crimes at all.  But Jesus, an innocent man, and, by all accounts actually a good man, to be executed in an exquisitely painful fashion while claiming to be doing it for the good of all is my point.

Perhaps I misspoke when i said "the" most painful, and should have said "a" most painful death.  But I'm kinda thinking too, it may be futile to quantify pain after a certain point.

More important is the ignominy (sp?) of His death.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
Lets consider the indignity

Lets consider the indignity of  the supposed messiah who the jews expected(and rightfully so...in part) to overthrow the romans, being executed as a common miscreant by the roman regime instead.

Jesus was a political figure. His death followed suit. Just look at the sign.

Mike Gravel for president!