Heck, He might've been Buddhist

[Maldoror]

It's because a good part of religious people have no morals values, they need a set of morals to be imposed on them by what they believe to be divine and they would respect them fearing punishment and expecting reward.
They believe atheists have no morals because they induce that in the absence of a god, and in the absence of reward and punishment they themselves would have no morals to live by.

 

[BornReady]

How you doing? :ninja

lol Great, thanks for asking! May I buy you a drink?

 

[Accountable]

Isn't this human sacrifice to propitiate God? I suspect it makes you cringe that the Aztecs did it. Why does it seem good to you because the Hebrews did it?

Does it make sense to you for a person to be punished for the sins of another? Occasionally this happens through a failure in our court system and it's always considered an injustice. Even if someone wants to pay for your sin, how is it moral to allow him to do so?

Finally, we get back to the op!

Any time I (or anyone) decides on a particular opinion, I have to look at challenges or details that impact that opinion and either see if it fits or change the opinion so that it does. That's the problem I have with today's fundamentalists. They take obvious and glaring contradictions and either just say "it's God's will" or, even more often, just ignore that any contradictions exist. I try not to do this with the story of Jesus. Most of his "miracles" are easily explained without reverting to magic.

So, about sacrifice:

I think the idea of making a blood sacrifice is an entirely human invention. So far as I know, blood isn't an especially powerful fertilizer, so why would God insist that it be used? Since I personally discount magic as an option, the only option I have left is that humans made it up.

But made up or not, they believed in it at that time. Since I believe God has been around since the beginning, I have to acknowledge that he is immortal. Within that context, one human lifespan is not a big deal. Hell, for all I know the Buddhists may be right that human life is elementary school for the soul, which graduates to whatever comes after.

Assuming both of these are true (yes, I understand it's not proveable, but it's also not science), then it's no stretch to see how a human sacrifice is not the all-ending payment that it may seem. A relatively harmless "magic" trick to knock people out of a dogmatic practice of purchasing heaven through works or purchases without consideration for the spiritual/emotional component, which I think was Jesus' focus of his teachings.

 

[BornReady]

A relatively harmless "magic" trick to knock people out of a dogmatic practice of purchasing heaven through works or purchases without consideration for the spiritual/emotional component, which I think was Jesus' focus of his teachings.

But human sacrifice isn't harmless. Couldn't God have made a statement against works without giving lip service to a barbaric practice?

Also, is the message of someone else dying for your sins the best way to teach personal accountability?

 

[Accountable]

But human sacrifice isn't harmless. Couldn't God have made a statement against works without giving lip service to a barbaric practice?

Also, is the message of someone else dying for your sins the best way to teach personal accountability?

The Jews weren't practicing human sacrifice; they were sacrificing goats and such. I tried (and failed?) to indicate that from the POV of this immortal being who knows what comes after physical life, one human sacrifice is harmless, especially when weighed against the benefit of changing the people's focus from works to attitude.

Understand that I'm just rationalizing & postulating here. I see the relationship of God:Man similar to adult:kid. If a kid, or maybe a backward superstitious people, were practicing some undesirable thing or believing something that was preventing them from learning something important, what better way to change their behavior/belief than by showing them they are mistaken? Well, in this case, the mistake is that they can buy forgiveness with blood. You can't really show that mistake, and anyone simply telling them so would be ignored. If you have the means to make one major "purchase" of forgiveness so that they don't have to obsess over meaningless payments, why not do that so they can focus on more important things?

As for your last question, personal accountability wasn't being practiced by executing a goat for the crime of some person doing something wrong, any more than it's being practiced today by those that believe they can do what they want so long as they confess to a priest who will give them a bill to pay for the indulgence. The personal accountability bit was in Jesus' speeches.

 

[Zorak]

They spelled Gandhi wrong..

 

[Minor Axis]

Understand that I'm just rationalizing & postulating here. I see the relationship of God:Man similar to adult:kid. If a kid, or maybe a backward superstitious people, were practicing some undesirable thing or believing something that was preventing them from learning something important, what better way to change their behavior/belief than by showing them they are mistaken? Well, in this case, the mistake is that they can buy forgiveness with blood. You can't really show that mistake, and anyone simply telling them so would be ignored. If you have the means to make one major "purchase" of forgiveness so that they don't have to obsess over meaningless payments, why not do that so they can focus on more important things?

This is grasping at straws to make an event in the Bible seem credible within the big religious view. Just my opinion. If Jesus lived and made him self such a nuisance to the Roman Empire that they killed him, I don't see this as a sacrifice, especially a sacrifice that some how would cause God to bestow forgiveness on all of mankind for 10 sec (before the next sin was committed). It just shows you how far out Religion goes to try to make a fanciful story work. I'm surprised anyone buys it, but I do know needy humans, so yeah.

 

[BornReady]

Understand that I'm just rationalizing & postulating here.

That is probably all that can be done with the story of sacrificing Jesus for our sins. The story doesn't fit with our culture. Yours is probably the best rationalization I've heard that sticks with a sacrifice. I expected you to give me something interesting and you did. I've asked several Christians that question and am usually just ignored. So thanks for answering.

 

[Accountable]

This is grasping at straws to make an event in the Bible seem credible within the big religious view.

Hardly. If my dad were within arm's reach he'd probably slap me down, then lay hands on me and pray the devil outta my soul. His church and every Christian I've ever heard talk about it have all said that shedding Jesus' blood was a necessary payment that somehow magically forgave all sin, past present & future. That view supports Ed's assertion that Christian's believe that God swoops in and violates the very laws He's supposed to have created, has a strict plan everyone has to follow yet still have free will. Such a view doesn't make sense to me, and so I have to choose:

1. Toe the line and avow to believe multiple contradictory views, dismissing the incompatible bits as "God's will" or some such tripe, or
2. Take what fits best with the original claims and toss the rest, figuring that I'm probably not much more fallible than the guys that tried to figure this stuff out the first few times.

Just my opinion. If Jesus lived and made him self such a nuisance to the Roman Empire that they killed him, I don't see this as a sacrifice, especially a sacrifice that some how would cause God to bestow forgiveness on all of mankind for 10 sec (before the next sin was committed). It just shows you how far out Religion goes to try to make a fanciful story work. I'm surprised anyone buys it, but I do know needy humans, so yeah.

Jesus wasn't a nuisance to the Roman Empire at all. He pissed off the Hebrew muckety-mucks by speaking against them and gaining popularity. That's never been healthy in a theocracy. Still, it's perfectly plausible that Jesus was a charismatic nut that committed SBC (suicide by cop). The only unexplainable part is that his appeal has lasted over two millennia.

 

[Accountable]

That is probably all that can be done with the story of sacrificing Jesus for our sins. The story doesn't fit with our culture. Yours is probably the best rationalization I've heard that sticks with a sacrifice. I expected you to give me something interesting and you did. I've asked several Christians that question and am usually just ignored. So thanks for answering.

The views expressed are those of Accountable, and do not reflect the policies or practices of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, their affiliates or subsidiaries. Void where prohibited by natural law.

 

[BornReady]

Accountable, I read an interesting book by David Fitzgerald called Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All. I won't ask you to read it. But if, by chance, you've already read it then I'm interested to know your thoughts on it.

 

[Zorak]

Jesus wasn't a nuisance to the Roman Empire at all. He pissed off the Hebrew muckety-mucks by speaking against them and gaining popularity. That's never been healthy in a theocracy. Still, it's perfectly plausible that Jesus was a charismatic nut that committed SBC (suicide by cop). The only unexplainable part is that his appeal has lasted over two millennia.

I agree, and just want to add a little more.

The Roman Republic and Empire never cared much for paganism (which is what they would have viewed Hebrewism as) but it didn't try and stamp it out. On the contrary, the Barbarian God's of Northern Europe were sometimes revered as equivalents to their own Roman God's. Just as Dis was the Roman equivalant to Hades, Caturix was considered the Gaulish equivalent to Mars.

Hebrewism being monotheistic was not viewed in quite the same light. But the Jew's were rich, very very rich. And thus held a lot of influence in not only the Eastern Roman Empire, but the West as well.

 

[Minor Axis]

Jesus wasn't a nuisance to the Roman Empire at all. He pissed off the Hebrew muckety-mucks by speaking against them and gaining popularity. That's never been healthy in a theocracy. Still, it's perfectly plausible that Jesus was a charismatic nut that committed SBC (suicide by cop). The only unexplainable part is that his appeal has lasted over two millennia.

The appeal is incredibly appealing to enough of us. Shoot, knowing there is a chance of living happily ever after is appealing to me, but I'm not yet ready to follow the other lemmings. And being in my mid 50's it's unlikely I'll ever change. Maybe on my death bed, which hopefully is a couple decades away, I'll convert to a hedge-your-bets believer.

 

[BornReady]

The Roman Republic and Empire never cared much for paganism

I thought Greek and Roman gods were a form of paganism. So would paganism only include Egyptian gods?

 

[Zorak]

I thought Greek and Roman gods were a form of paganism. So would paganism only include Egyptian gods?

I mean the word in the sense and concept of religions outside of their own. Not as the blanket term for all relgions that preceded Christianity.

 

[BornReady]

Okay, I understand. I read somewhere the initial Roman reaction to Christianity was pretty negative too. They called the early Christians man-haters.

 

[Zorak]

Okay, I understand. I read somewhere the initial Roman reaction to Christianity was pretty negative too. They called the early Christians man-haters.

It was a big deal when Constantine legalised Christianity and began to practice it himself.
Trying to put it in a modern context: Obama became a practicing Muslim say, and that doesn't even come close to how huge a thing it must have been for the Roman's to have a Christian emporer.

 

[Accountable]

The appeal is incredibly appealing to enough of us. Shoot, knowing there is a chance of living happily ever after is appealing to me, but I'm not yet ready to follow the other lemmings. And being in my mid 50's it's unlikely I'll ever change. Maybe on my death bed, which hopefully is a couple decades away, I'll convert to a hedge-your-bets believer.

If you really want to hedge your bet, consider Buddhism. Since they believe in reincarnation, you'll be essentially immortal.

 

[BornReady]

If you really want to hedge your bet, consider Buddhism. Since they believe in reincarnation, you'll be essentially immortal.

The problem is if you didn't spend your life practicing the 8 ways you might come back as a frog. I don't even know what the 8 ways are so I'm screwed.

 

[TommyTooter]

Hardly. If my dad were within arm's reach he'd probably slap me down, then lay hands on me and pray the devil outta my soul. His church and every Christian I've ever heard talk about it have all said that shedding Jesus' blood was a necessary payment that somehow magically forgave all sin, past present & future. That view supports Ed's assertion that Christian's believe that God swoops in and violates the very laws He's supposed to have created, has a strict plan everyone has to follow yet still have free will. Such a view doesn't make sense to me, and so I have to choose:

1. Toe the line and avow to believe multiple contradictory views, dismissing the incompatible bits as "God's will" or some such tripe, or
2. Take what fits best with the original claims and toss the rest, figuring that I'm probably not much more fallible than the guys that tried to figure this stuff out the first few times.

Jesus wasn't a nuisance to the Roman Empire at all. He pissed off the Hebrew muckety-mucks by speaking against them and gaining popularity. That's never been healthy in a theocracy. Still, it's perfectly plausible that Jesus was a charismatic nut that committed SBC (suicide by cop). The only unexplainable part is that his appeal has lasted over two millennia.

i think some of the explanation is to be found in paul and his backers. paul was a pharisee; one of the muckety-mucks jesus got so upset they had him killed. so he has this great epiphany and spreads a bunch of stuff that makes the story more appealing to the mystery religion crowd and we can thank constantine for entrenching the theocracy in the church/state empire paradigm we've found ourselves living under for the past almost 6,000 years by the reckoning of my ancestors.