The vicarious redemption of Jesus would be immoral.

[Peter Parka]

I think there is a fundamental problem with the theory of someone perfect being able to make something imperfect and then considering the perfect way to sort it out is to kill himself and bring himself back to life. I really fail to see what the fuck good that is.

 

[Zorak]

It would have been a sacrifice if Jesus stayed dead, then he would have truly given up something, that is what a sacrifice IS. But no, he supposedly rose again, and since Jesus is really god, he has eternal life, couldn't have really "died", and knew he would have risen again. So no, there wasn't a real sacrifice.

You've completely, and utterly glazed over my post.

I was talking about Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus Christ, Messiah of the Christians and avatar of God.

Yes, I already agree with you about the religious idea of sacrifice in relation to Jesus and how it is not a sacrifice.

 

[All Else Failed]

Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ.

If you're referring to a Jesus that wasn't really divine, yet Christians wrongly saw him as divine but was just a man, then I get what you are saying.

 

[Zorak]

Wrongly or rightly doesn't enter into it.

 

[All Else Failed]

Explain.

 

[Zorak]

My point, long ago it seems, was that it was a sacrifice for Jesus of Nazareth (which is the generally accepted name for the man behind the myth) to be crucified by Pilate for conspiracy against Rome. When there is a good chance he was innocent of that crime himself, but perhaps some of his followers weren't.
So in that respect, it was a sacrifice for others.

And probably how the legend was born. Christianity is pretty allegorical, so it wouldn't surprise me if the followers of Christ viewed Jesus' execution as a redemption of their own. And from there the stories of the Bible followed and evolved.

 

[All Else Failed]

Eh, if he was just some dude who was nuts and preached against Roman power then he just died for being a loud mouth.

 

[Zorak]

Eh, if he was just some dude who was nuts and preached against Roman power then he just died for being a loud mouth.

:unsure::smiley24:

 

[Greatest I am]

Why are you still thinking about these things, dude? Most of us have moved on.

A good leader moves as fast as the slowest man.
Christians are way behind in their thinking.
Who else needs the greatest help?

Regards
DL

 

[All Else Failed]

:unsure::smiley24:

What? If he was just a regular guy just being loud about weird stuff then I can see why the Romans killed him.

 

[itsmeJonB]

You cannot argue against someones faith.
You just cant, thats why its faith. This topic is beating a dead horse, you arent going to convince anyone of anything.

 

[Greatest I am]

What? If he was just a regular guy just being loud about weird stuff then I can see why the Romans killed him.

The Romans were doing the work of the Jewish temple clergy of the day.
The message of god within us did not sit well with priests who wanted to maintain their position of power.

Do you not watch T V or read. Google is also good.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

You cannot argue against someones faith.
You just cant, thats why its faith. This topic is beating a dead horse, you arent going to convince anyone of anything.

If facts cannot move faith then faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

 

[itsmeJonB]

If facts cannot move faith then faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

I'm just saying Faith requires believing without evidence, its 100% trust in what they have been told.
You cannot persuade someone with their devoted efforts in their faith to change their mind unless they trust you enough to listen

 

[Accountable]

The vicarious redemption of Jesus would be immoral.

We have all heard the arguments that justify the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins.

We are asked to believe that the death of an innocent man somehow absolves us of our responsibility for our sins and that this is good justice because it is his way of showing his great love for mankind.


This usurping of our responsibilities is happily accepted by believers and they thank God profusely for it and look forward to a clear path to heaven.

Kelvin, I don't see the confusion. It was Jewish tradition to dump sin on an animal then sacrifice it to God, right? Jesus was just the last scapegoat.

If facts cannot move faith then faith without facts is for fools.

Say that with a mouth full of crackers.

 

[All Else Failed]

The Romans were doing the work of the Jewish temple clergy of the day.
The message of god within us did not sit well with priests who wanted to maintain their position of power.

Do you not watch T V or read. Google is also good.

Regards
DL

Don't read? I'm not sure what you mean by this, reading is good.

If facts cannot move faith then faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

Pretty much.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Firstly, God cannot die.

How in the world can people like you know stuff like this?

 

[All Else Failed]

If we're talking about the Christian God, he would not lie because that would mean he is limited.

 

[Kyle B]

If we're talking about the Christian God, he would not lie because that would mean he is limited.

What if God decided to kill himself?

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm just saying Faith requires believing without evidence, its 100% trust in what they have been told.

Yes but they have been told facts that created the faith.
If they cannot look at other facts and judge them then they are fools.

You cannot persuade someone with their devoted efforts in their faith to change their mind unless they trust you enough to listen

True.

Regards
DL