Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus was not the perfect sacrifice

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 4:46:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixtion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankinds sin.

A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.
2: Trinitarians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.
3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 5:48:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No Chuck Norris is . . .
http://www.debate.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 6:21:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This seems to be based on "if God exists", so that is how I will address it.
Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixtion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankinds sin.

He atoned original sin, He made a way to Heaven for us all. God promised His people they would one day be redeemed. See Sheol.

A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.

This appeals to a gospel that few if any denominations,sects or Faiths consider true or valid. And the Jews let a known killer and thief loose so they could have Jesus crucified. They believed they worshiped the Father or Yahweh. So #1 is out.

2: Trinitarians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.

Jesus gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. He was giving up himself for us. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.

Sin is opposition to God. Being that God is without sin anyone or thing that is stained with sin cannot remain in His presence. It's not His problem, it is ours.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:29:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 4:46:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.

This doesn't make sense. An act by a divine God is divine by the merit of the fact that it was done by a divine God.

2: Trinitarians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.

People sacrifice themselves all the time and it would require that God manifest as a man to be capable of dying in the first place.

3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.

I don't see where you get that God is not omnipotent based on the crucifixion. Sin is disobedience to God, but it's also amorality, illogical behavior, negativity, obsession, and judgement.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 6:21:59 PM, jharry wrote:
This seems to be based on "if God exists", so that is how I will address it.

Not as such, but fine go ahead.

Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixtion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankinds sin.

He atoned original sin, He made a way to Heaven for us all. God promised His people they would one day be redeemed. See Sheol.

Atonement suggests a period of corrective punishment or exemplary conduct in order to make up for past trangressions. It can not be done by proxy. The crucifixtion of Jesus is (better and/or also) described as a sacrifice.


A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.

This appeals to a gospel that few if any denominations,sects or Faiths consider true or valid.

No it does not. Re-read what I typed.

And the Jews let a known killer and thief loose so they could have Jesus crucified.

Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.

They believed they worshiped the Father or Yahweh. So #1 is out.

Number 1 is only out if you establish that the Jews recognised the divinity of Jesus and willfully offered him up as a blood sacrifice to himself. I don't you have actually read the point properly? Or I've not made it clear.

2: Trinitarians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.

Jesus gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. He was giving up himself for us. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

If you are a trinitarian what you have just said is,
God gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. Except that he did not because he was still God and still in heaven. He was giving up himself for us, though giving himself to what and for what reason is unclear. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

Does that make sense to you?

3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.

Sin is opposition to God. Being that God is without sin anyone or thing that is stained with sin cannot remain in His presence. It's not His problem, it is ours.

Neither the Romans nor the Jews set themselves up in opposition to God, both groups were very pious. This whole sin business seems very poorly defined.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 2:01:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:29:07 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/18/2010 4:46:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.

This doesn't make sense. An act by a divine God is divine by the merit of the fact that it was done by a divine God.

What point is that meant to be a rebuttal of?

2: Trinitarians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.

People sacrifice themselves all the time and it would require that God manifest as a man to be capable of dying in the first place.

And to actually die as a sacrifice, which I have demonstrated he has not. Aside from the absurdity of sacrificing himself to himself.

3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.

I don't see where you get that God is not omnipotent based on the crucifixion. Sin is disobedience to God, but it's also amorality, illogical behavior, negativity, obsession, and judgement.

No... it's just rebellion against God. Or in the case of the OT just happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
kwmwtaj
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 2:47:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Jesus supposedly died for the sins of man kind. Now I don't that, if Jesus was the son of god and if there was a god that he would forgive those that actually do a ton of sins and not just a couple. Everything has a limit even forgiveness. Maybe it takes way more time to be forgiven for way more sins. Equilibrium is the situation. It's like Karma, but with "Get out of Jail Free" cards.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 2:35:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
To me, Christianity almost seems like an easy way out. People don't want to follow religious rules so just worship Jesus instead so they're able to do whatever. :)

Where's the fun in that? I'm pretty sure Catholics can do almost whatever as long as they confess afterwards...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 2:42:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 2:01:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This doesn't make sense. An act by a divine God is divine by the merit of the fact that it was done by a divine God.

What point is that meant to be a rebuttal of?

1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons

You're essentially saying that the only way that Jesus could have sacrificed Himself for the sins of man is if this sacrifice was done in acknowledgement of its purpose, which is conjecture. If Jesus was, in fact, divine, then the act was divine despite why people assumed they were killing Him.

People sacrifice themselves all the time and it would require that God manifest as a man to be capable of dying in the first place.

And to actually die as a sacrifice, which I have demonstrated he has not. Aside from the absurdity of sacrificing himself to himself.

No, you didn't actually demonstrate that Jesus was not a sacrifice.

Jesus was not "sacrificed to God," He was sacrificed for man. Jesus is a Word of God manifest and was sent to give man the Gospel, and was thus sacrificed for man's sins, which will be forgiven if man accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior--let's translate this directly.

Jesus was born with divine knowledge and therefore, with the purpose to give man good news: that God has rescinded His wrath for every single sin committed as long as you accept what He has to say, which is, moving forward, that the means to achieving happiness and enlightenment is decency to one another. Give the tower of Babel another try.

Or, you can say screw the good news. Which means either you remain bound by God's initial wrath, meaning you're going to Hell for having ever sinned (or too much), or, you simply reject God, and God has decided that He's done chasing.

I don't see where you get that God is not omnipotent based on the crucifixion. Sin is disobedience to God, but it's also amorality, illogical behavior, negativity, obsession, and judgement.

No... it's just rebellion against God. Or in the case of the OT just happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time!

You're basing this on the assumption that the Bible has no moral foundation. Jesus is an avatar. A point of reference. Humanity has a pretty limited imagination past what it hasn't experienced. Thus, rebelling against God is the same as rebelling against His word, His Son, His philosophy. Jesus's message was "love thy neighbor as you love thyself," and really, that's about it.

Doesn't sound nearly as counterproductive as you're making it out to be.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 7:29:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 2:42:22 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/19/2010 2:01:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This doesn't make sense. An act by a divine God is divine by the merit of the fact that it was done by a divine God.

What point is that meant to be a rebuttal of?

1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons

You're essentially saying that the only way that Jesus could have sacrificed Himself for the sins of man is if this sacrifice was done in acknowledgement of its purpose, which is conjecture. If Jesus was, in fact, divine, then the act was divine despite why people assumed they were killing Him.


The word sacrifice means something. That way when someone offers up a black lamb to Satan, then later eats a pie we can use different words to describe the different actions. The former is a sacrifice, the latter is not.

People sacrifice themselves all the time and it would require that God manifest as a man to be capable of dying in the first place.

And to actually die as a sacrifice, which I have demonstrated he has not. Aside from the absurdity of sacrificing himself to himself.

No, you didn't actually demonstrate that Jesus was not a sacrifice.

A religious sacrifice is,
When you choose to give something to God. In order to feed, calm, or please him. None of these would apply to Jesus.

Jesus was not "sacrificed to God," He was sacrificed for man.

Then he is not a religious sacrifice.

Jesus is a Word of God manifest and was sent to give man the Gospel, and was thus sacrificed for man's sins, which will be forgiven if man accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior--let's translate this directly.


So he is a sacrifice to God?

Jesus was born with divine knowledge and therefore, with the purpose to give man good news: that God has rescinded His wrath for every single sin committed as long as you accept what He has to say, which is, moving forward, that the means to achieving happiness and enlightenment is decency to one another. Give the tower of Babel another try.

That is a totally divergent theology. You are now claiming that being Christ-like earns salvation can you not see this is a complete 180?

Or, you can say screw the good news. Which means either you remain bound by God's initial wrath, meaning you're going to Hell for having ever sinned (or too much), or, you simply reject God, and God has decided that He's done chasing.

I don't see where you get that God is not omnipotent based on the crucifixion. Sin is disobedience to God, but it's also amorality, illogical behavior, negativity, obsession, and judgement.

No... it's just rebellion against God. Or in the case of the OT just happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time!

You're basing this on the assumption that the Bible has no moral foundation.

If a genuine divine message that the bible has no moral foundation. Only if you argue it is the product of anthropology can it actually be considered a moral work.

Jesus is an avatar. A point of reference. Humanity has a pretty limited imagination past what it hasn't experienced. Thus, rebelling against God is the same as rebelling against His word, His Son, His philosophy. Jesus's message was "love thy neighbor as you love thyself," and really, that's about it.

Doesn't sound nearly as counterproductive as you're making it out to be.

To accept the doctrine that the crucifixtion of Jesus absolves sin is to accept something that is fatally inconsistent with itself.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:08:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 7:29:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

The word sacrifice means something. That way when someone offers up a black lamb to Satan, then later eats a pie we can use different words to describe the different actions. The former is a sacrifice, the latter is not.

Irrelevant.

When you choose to give something to God. In order to feed, calm, or please him. None of these would apply to Jesus.

Irrelevant.

Then he is not a religious sacrifice.

Ad hominem. The fact that he was a sacrifice for man does not take any religious quality from it. Events are perceived through a religious scope, just as things are perceived from a scientific vantage. Therefore, just as you can't say that any natural occurrence is irrelevant to science, you can't say that any historical event is irrelevant to religion.

Jesus is a Word of God manifest and was sent to give man the Gospel, and was thus sacrificed for man's sins, which will be forgiven if man accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior--let's translate this directly.

So he is a sacrifice to God?

I literally gave you my interpretation below it. Therefore, this is ad hominem unless you can refute my interpretation, which can serve as my rebuttal.

Jesus was born with divine knowledge and therefore, with the purpose to give man good news: that God has rescinded His wrath for every single sin committed as long as you accept what He has to say, which is, moving forward, that the means to achieving happiness and enlightenment is decency to one another. Give the tower of Babel another try.
That is a totally divergent theology. You are now claiming that being Christ-like earns salvation can you not see this is a complete 180?

No, I am not "claiming that being Christ-like earns salvation." I stated what I said in plain terms and none of it said anything about being "Christ-like." "Salvation" is a religious term akin to a political term--it's a hot-button word. The Bible doesn't actually speak on "salvation." It's a term meant to refer to saving people from going to hell by exposing them to Christianity. It's derivative of evangelism.

You're basing this on the assumption that the Bible has no moral foundation.

If a genuine divine message that the bible has no moral foundation. Only if you argue it is the product of anthropology can it actually be considered a moral work.

Can you clarify the bolded portion?

I don't see why something must derive from anthropology to have a moral foundation.

Anthropology doesn't apply to ethics. Ethos is not anthropological, it's psychological. Even considerations of the law are based on psychology more than they would anthropology.

On the other hand, religion and religious studies is considered a sect of anthropology and thus, effectively, it is a product of anthropology.

To accept the doctrine that the crucifixtion of Jesus absolves sin is to accept something that is fatally inconsistent with itself.

Well, that's still a pretty ad hominem statement.

But, that notwithstanding, the crucifixion does not absolve sins. It gives you the capacity to sin without punishment; but, it's not the certainty.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:16:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 5:48:24 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
No Chuck Norris is . . .
http://www.debate.org...

you have an obsession, which is usually not tolerated on this site.

KFC!
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:23:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:08:27 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/20/2010 7:29:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

The word sacrifice means something. That way when someone offers up a black lamb to Satan, then later eats a pie we can use different words to describe the different actions. The former is a sacrifice, the latter is not.

Irrelevant.

How is that a irrelevant? My claim is that the death of Jesus is not a sacrifice. The definition of sacrifice is direcly relevant.


When you choose to give something to God. In order to feed, calm, or please him. None of these would apply to Jesus.

Irrelevant.

Again... of the death of Jesus does not fulfill the criteria of a sacrifice... then it was not a sacrifice.


Then he is not a religious sacrifice.

Ad hominem.

Seriously?

The fact that he was a sacrifice for man does not take any religious quality from it.

He was not a sacrifice. I have demonstrated this. We are not talking about 'religious qualities'.

Events are perceived through a religious scope, just as things are perceived from a scientific vantage. Therefore, just as you can't say that any natural occurrence is irrelevant to science, you can't say that any historical event is irrelevant to religion.


I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

Jesus is a Word of God manifest and was sent to give man the Gospel, and was thus sacrificed for man's sins, which will be forgiven if man accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior--let's translate this directly.

So he is a sacrifice to God?

I literally gave you my interpretation below it. Therefore, this is ad hominem unless you can refute my interpretation, which can serve as my rebuttal.


Your interpretation fails to address my original argument, your interpretation is also self-contradictory. For clarity can you awnser the following. I am not sure what it is you are claiming to be ad hominem.

Jesus was born with divine knowledge and therefore, with the purpose to give man good news: that God has rescinded His wrath for every single sin committed as long as you accept what He has to say, which is, moving forward, that the means to achieving happiness and enlightenment is decency to one another. Give the tower of Babel another try.
That is a totally divergent theology. You are now claiming that being Christ-like earns salvation can you not see this is a complete 180?

No, I am not "claiming that being Christ-like earns salvation." I stated what I said in plain terms and none of it said anything about being "Christ-like."

You did not use that term, but that is essentially what you said. Maybe say what you mean?

"Salvation" is a religious term akin to a political term--it's a hot-button word. The Bible doesn't actually speak on "salvation." It's a term meant to refer to saving people from going to hell by exposing them to Christianity. It's derivative of evangelism.

Do you or do not believe that the Sacrifice of Jesus, and a persons subsequent belief in that sacrifice absolves sin and saves someone from hell?


You're basing this on the assumption that the Bible has no moral foundation.

If a genuine divine message that the bible has no moral foundation. Only if you argue it is the product of anthropology can it actually be considered a moral work.

Can you clarify the bolded portion?

Assuming God to be true, and the bible to be a valid message from him then it simply records his commands and his laws. Legalities, punishment and commands are seperate concepts to a theory of what is right and wrong.

I don't see why something must derive from anthropology to have a moral foundation.

Morality is a product of humanity.


Anthropology doesn't apply to ethics. Ethos is not anthropological, it's psychological. Even considerations of the law are based on psychology more than they would anthropology.

Psychology is in the remit of anthropology.


On the other hand, religion and religious studies is considered a sect of anthropology and thus, effectively, it is a product of anthropology.

To accept the doctrine that the crucifixtion of Jesus absolves sin is to accept something that is fatally inconsistent with itself.

Well, that's still a pretty ad hominem statement.


I think you should look that term up.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:31:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 4:46:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixtion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankinds sin.

A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.
this occurance is allowed for the sacrifice. like in Chronicals of Narnia, where aslon is sacrificed but all the while he had the power to escape his death and maul all those beast, ogres and troll if he wanted to, he submitted himself so that the table would brake in two. the same with jesus. this is shown in his ordering peter to not fight off the soldiers who come and get him. Its not a fate he tried to avoid.
2: Trinitarians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.
well that's not exactly what we most trinitariens argue, the case is that because he was god he was able to perfectly resist sin, but that's actually a false teaching, he resisted purely as a man. Jesus being God is important in that he had authority to teach what he did, not perfect the sacrifice.
But its not that absurd for God to offer his only begotten Son when Abraham was willing to do it for him.
3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.
No, it does not suggest he is not Omnipotent (potent being potential for all power) but just because he can do anything does not mean he would have to 'choose' to do everything.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:38:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:31:58 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/18/2010 4:46:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixtion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankinds sin.

A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.
this occurance is allowed for the sacrifice. like in Chronicals of Narnia, where aslon is sacrificed but all the while he had the power to escape his death and maul all those beast, ogres and troll if he wanted to, he submitted himself so that the table would brake in two. the same with jesus. this is shown in his ordering peter to not fight off the soldiers who come and get him. Its not a fate he tried to avoid.

Seems like a strategic sacrifice of giving oneself up to achieve a higher goal... not a religious sacrifice.

2: Trinitarians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.
well that's not exactly what we most trinitariens argue, the case is that because he was god he was able to perfectly resist sin, but that's actually a false teaching, he resisted purely as a man. Jesus being God is important in that he had authority to teach what he did, not perfect the sacrifice.
But its not that absurd for God to offer his only begotten Son when Abraham was willing to do it for him.

Jesus is God, God is Jesus.
That is the objection.

3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.
No, it does not suggest he is not Omnipotent (potent being potential for all power) but just because he can do anything does not mean he would have to 'choose' to do everything.

Why make so much trouble for yourself then?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:44:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:23:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Irrelevant.

How is that a irrelevant? My claim is that the death of Jesus is not a sacrifice. The definition of sacrifice is direcly relevant.

You wrote:

The word sacrifice means something. That way when someone offers up a black lamb to Satan, then later eats a pie we can use different words to describe the different actions. The former is a sacrifice, the latter is not.

...which has no relevance to the definition of a sacrifice and whether it applies to Jesus. That makes it irrelevant.

Again... of the death of Jesus does not fulfill the criteria of a sacrifice... then it was not a sacrifice.

That's true, but you didn't provide the complete definition, did you? Therefore, you haven't proven that Jesus does not fit the criteria of a sacrifice. Consider this definition:

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

Then he is not a religious sacrifice.

That appeals to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

Seriously?

Yes.

He was not a sacrifice. I have demonstrated this. We are not talking about 'religious qualities'.

No, you haven't.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

Whatever a religious doctrine says is relevant to religion is relevant to that religion.

Your interpretation fails to address my original argument, your interpretation is also self-contradictory. For clarity can you awnser the following. I am not sure what it is you are claiming to be ad hominem.

Your insistence that Jesus was a sacrifice to God. My interpretation approaches your argument directly. Pardon, but it really seems as though your feigning incomprehension. What I'm saying is pretty straightforward.

You did not use that term, but that is essentially what you said. Maybe say what you mean?

I did say what I mean, despite your attempts to bastardize it. I even clarified it--may serve you better for your "comprehension" to accept my clarification.

Do you or do not believe that the Sacrifice of Jesus, and a persons subsequent belief in that sacrifice absolves sin and saves someone from hell?

That alone? No. Tell me in the Bible where it says that.

He so believeth in me? That those who believe the Word of God shall achieve enlightenment? Yes, it does say that. Says nothing of the sacrifice itself, but they do kind of go hand-in-hand.

You're basing this on the assumption that the Bible has no moral foundation.

If a genuine divine message that the bible has no moral foundation. Only if you argue it is the product of anthropology can it actually be considered a moral work.

Can you clarify the bolded portion?

Assuming God to be true, and the bible to be a valid message from him then it simply records his commands and his laws. Legalities, punishment and commands are seperate concepts to a theory of what is right and wrong.

That's not true, but because with God comes perfection. Ethics are ultimately logic, after all.

I don't see why something must derive from anthropology to have a moral foundation.

Morality is a product of humanity.

So are feces, but anthropologists don't study that.

Anthropology doesn't apply to ethics. Ethos is not anthropological, it's psychological. Even considerations of the law are based on psychology more than they would anthropology.

Psychology is in the remit of anthropology.

No, they are entirely different competencies and completely separate studies. It's like comparing Chemistry and Physics.

On the other hand, religion and religious studies is considered a sect of anthropology and thus, effectively, it is a product of anthropology.

To accept the doctrine that the crucifixtion of Jesus absolves sin is to accept something that is fatally inconsistent with itself.

Well, that statement certainly appeals to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
I think you should look that term

Don't need to.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 9:07:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:44:02 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:23:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Irrelevant.

How is that a irrelevant? My claim is that the death of Jesus is not a sacrifice. The definition of sacrifice is direcly relevant.

You wrote:

The word sacrifice means something. That way when someone offers up a black lamb to Satan, then later eats a pie we can use different words to describe the different actions. The former is a sacrifice, the latter is not.

...which has no relevance to the definition of a sacrifice and whether it applies to Jesus. That makes it irrelevant.

The definition of a sacifice is entirely relevant to the a discussion on what a sacrifice is. Otherwise I might claim that sitting in a chair is a sacrifice...and so to was eating a pizza.


Again... of the death of Jesus does not fulfill the criteria of a sacrifice... then it was not a sacrifice.

That's true, but you didn't provide the complete definition, did you? Therefore, you haven't proven that Jesus does not fit the criteria of a sacrifice. Consider this definition:

You have yet to object to me definition of a sacrifice.


"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."


No...
We are discussing a sacrifice in the context of a religious sacrifice made to a God. This is all in the first post.

Please define in what way you regard the crucifixtion of Jesus to be a sacrifice.

Then he is not a religious sacrifice.

That appeals to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

Seriously?

Yes.

Why the edit? Please restore.

He was not a sacrifice. I have demonstrated this. We are not talking about 'religious qualities'.

No, you haven't.


This is all in the first post.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

Whatever a religious doctrine says is relevant to religion is relevant to that religion.

Again I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.


Your interpretation fails to address my original argument, your interpretation is also self-contradictory. For clarity can you awnser the following. I am not sure what it is you are claiming to be ad hominem.

Your insistence that Jesus was a sacrifice to God.

You addressed that by both stating that is was, and he was not.

My interpretation approaches your argument directly. Pardon, but it really seems as though your feigning incomprehension. What I'm saying is pretty straightforward.

You are arguing multiple things at once. In one breath Jesus was a sacrifice to appease God, in another he was a sacrifice in the normal ritual/religious sense but a sacrifice on behalf of man. I am obviously not going to comprehend, your position is not straightforward.


You did not use that term, but that is essentially what you said. Maybe say what you mean?

I did say what I mean, despite your attempts to bastardize it. I even clarified it--may serve you better for your "comprehension" to accept my clarification.

Do you or do not believe that the Sacrifice of Jesus, and a persons subsequent belief in that sacrifice absolves sin and saves someone from hell?

That alone? No. Tell me in the Bible where it says that.

I am asking YOU what YOU believe, what YOUR position is.


He so believeth in me? That those who believe the Word of God shall achieve enlightenment? Yes, it does say that. Says nothing of the sacrifice itself, but they do kind of go hand-in-hand.

You're basing this on the assumption that the Bible has no moral foundation.

If a genuine divine message that the bible has no moral foundation. Only if you argue it is the product of anthropology can it actually be considered a moral work.

Can you clarify the bolded portion?

Assuming God to be true, and the bible to be a valid message from him then it simply records his commands and his laws. Legalities, punishment and commands are seperate concepts to a theory of what is right and wrong.

That's not true, but because with God comes perfection. Ethics are ultimately logic, after all.

The commands of God are based on his wants, they do not always appear to be logical. Most ethical systems would tell you not to sacrifice your son to God. If God commanded this, then you should do it. It is a fallacy to mistake piety with morality, at best the two only overlap or accidentally coincide.

I don't see why something must derive from anthropology to have a moral foundation.

Morality is a product of humanity.

So are feces, but anthropologists don't study that.

Actually they do.


Anthropology doesn't apply to ethics. Ethos is not anthropological, it's psychological. Even considerations of the law are based on psychology more than they would anthropology.

Psychology is in the remit of anthropology.

No, they are entirely different competencies and completely separate studies. It's like comparing Chemistry and Physics.


Oh dear... that really has to go into the hall of shame. If you have read any anthropology you will see a clear overlap. In addition at least one physicist working on physics has gained the Nobel prize for chemistry.

On the other hand, religion and religious studies is considered a sect of anthropology and thus, effectively, it is a product of anthropology.

To accept the doctrine that the crucifixtion of Jesus absolves sin is to accept something that is fatally inconsistent with itself.

Well, that statement certainly appeals to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
I think you should look that term

Don't need to.

Seriously look up ad hominen.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 9:17:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2010 6:21:59 PM, jharry wrote:
This seems to be based on "if God exists", so that is how I will address it.

Not as such, but fine go ahead.

I'm glad you agreed.

Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankind's sin.

He atoned original sin, He made a way to Heaven for us all. God promised His people they would one day be redeemed. See Sheol.

Atonement suggests a period of corrective punishment or exemplary conduct in order to make up for past transgressions. It can not be done by proxy. The crucifixion of Jesus is (better and/or also) described as a sacrifice.

Please explain. Did you ever look up Sheol?


A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.

This appeals to a gospel that few if any denominations,sects or Faiths consider true or valid.

No it does not. Re-read what I typed.

Your correct, I miss read that part. Please explain how it was an accident.

And the Jews let a known killer and thief loose so they could have Jesus crucified.

Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.

And?

They believed they worshiped the Father or Yahweh. So #1 is out.

Number 1 is only out if you establish that the Jews recognised the divinity of Jesus and willfully offered him up as a blood sacrifice to himself. I don't you have actually read the point properly? Or I've not made it clear.

Why would they have to recognize His divinity to make His sacrifice meaningful??

2: Trinidadians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.

Jesus gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. He was giving up himself for us. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

If you are a trinitarian what you have just said is,
God gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. Except that he did not because he was still God and still in heaven. He was giving up himself for us, though giving himself to what and for what reason is unclear. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

I don't believe Jesus was in Heaven when He was on earth, are you sure you understand the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity?

Does that make sense to you?

No because I don't believe what you assume I do.

3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.

Sin is opposition to God. Being that God is without sin anyone or thing that is stained with sin cannot remain in His presence. It's not His problem, it is ours.

Neither the Romans nor the Jews set themselves up in opposition to God, both groups were very pious. This whole sin business seems very poorly defined.

Please explain why this matters.

I will try to summarize here to establish a better understanding.

You believe Christ's death was an accident?

You believe people would have to understand or accept what Jesus was doing and Who He is to make His sacrifice worth redemption?

Please forgive my ignorance, I have never seen this argument before. It is a very interesting one, I would live to continue this conversation. I also hope to do a "start over" between you and I. Maybe let the past be the past and move on?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 9:24:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 9:07:55 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
...which has no relevance to the definition of a sacrifice and whether it applies to Jesus. That makes it irrelevant.

The definition of a sacifice is entirely relevant to the a discussion on what a sacrifice is. Otherwise I might claim that sitting in a chair is a sacrifice...and so to was eating a pizza.

Hahaha.

Again... of the death of Jesus does not fulfill the criteria of a sacrifice... then it was not a sacrifice.

That's true, but you didn't provide the complete definition, did you? Therefore, you haven't proven that Jesus does not fit the criteria of a sacrifice. Consider this definition:

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

You have yet to object to me definition of a sacrifice.

Hahaha.

No...
We are discussing a sacrifice in the context of a religious sacrifice made to a God. This is all in the first post.

You said "Jesus was not the perfect sacrifice." That, I've already proven is untrue. Now, you're giving it some sort of impossible context. No, Jesus is not the perfect sacrifice to God. But, nothing in the Bible supports this context, so it's all nonsense.

Please define in what way you regard the crucifixtion of Jesus to be a sacrifice.

"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

Then he is not a religious sacrifice.

That appeals to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

Seriously?

Yes.

Why the edit? Please restore.

Because it's the definition of ad hominem. It stays as it is, thanks.

This is all in the first post.

See infra.

Again I have no idea what you are trying to argue here.

Yeah, I know. Hehe.

Your insistence that Jesus was a sacrifice to God.

You addressed that by both stating that is was, and he was not.

No, I didn't. Please show me where I stated that He was.

My interpretation approaches your argument directly. Pardon, but it really seems as though your feigning incomprehension. What I'm saying is pretty straightforward.

You are arguing multiple things at once. In one breath Jesus was a sacrifice to appease God,

Don't recall saying that, please quote.

in another he was a sacrifice in the normal ritual/religious sense

Don't remember saying that, either. Please quote.

but a sacrifice on behalf of man.

Indeed.

I am obviously not going to comprehend, your position is not straightforward.

Lots of static, I see. Might need a little more liberal thought.

You did not use that term, but that is essentially what you said. Maybe say what you mean?

I did say what I mean, despite your attempts to bastardize it. I even clarified it--may serve you better for your "comprehension" to accept my clarification.

Do you or do not believe that the Sacrifice of Jesus, and a persons subsequent belief in that sacrifice absolves sin and saves someone from hell?

I am asking YOU what YOU believe, what YOUR position is.

That alone? No. Tell me in the Bible where it says that.

I don't see why something must derive from anthropology to have a moral foundation.

Morality is a product of humanity.

So are feces, but anthropologists don't study that.

Actually they do.

"The science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind."

Does not include feces, nor psychology, which is:

"The science of the mind or of mental states and processes."

Psychology is in the remit of anthropology.

No, they are entirely different competencies and completely separate studies. It's like comparing Chemistry and Physics.


Oh dear... that really has to go into the hall of shame. If you have read any anthropology you will see a clear overlap. In addition at least one physicist working on physics has gained the Nobel prize for chemistry.

The commands of God are based on his wants, they do not always appear to be logical. Most ethical systems would tell you not to sacrifice your son to God. If God commanded this, then you should do it. It is a fallacy to mistake piety with morality, at best the two only overlap or accidentally coincide.

Gyahahaha.

Well, that statement certainly appeals to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
I think you should look that term

Don't need to.

Seriously look up ad hominen.

Haaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 9:28:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:38:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:31:58 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/18/2010 4:46:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixtion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankinds sin.

A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.
this occurance is allowed for the sacrifice. like in Chronicals of Narnia, where aslon is sacrificed but all the while he had the power to escape his death and maul all those beast, ogres and troll if he wanted to, he submitted himself so that the table would brake in two. the same with jesus. this is shown in his ordering peter to not fight off the soldiers who come and get him. Its not a fate he tried to avoid.

Seems like a strategic sacrifice of giving oneself up to achieve a higher goal... not a religious sacrifice.
It is possible for a fair amount of overlap

2: Trinitarians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.
well that's not exactly what we most trinitariens argue, the case is that because he was god he was able to perfectly resist sin, but that's actually a false teaching, he resisted purely as a man. Jesus being God is important in that he had authority to teach what he did, not perfect the sacrifice.
But its not that absurd for God to offer his only begotten Son when Abraham was willing to do it for him.

Jesus is God, God is Jesus.
That is the objection.
an unexplained one then. why cant an incarnation of God take the penalty for our sins on himself just because he is an incarnation?
3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.
No, it does not suggest he is not Omnipotent (potent being potential for all power) but just because he can do anything does not mean he would have to 'choose' to do everything.

Why make so much trouble for yourself then?

you mean why choose to allow the free choice to sin? that is the only proper way to love, love being what guides God's choices.
or do you mean why not just forget the crimes of Sin without a penalty? cause that would not be justice. Giving consequences for our actions is the right thing to do.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 10:17:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 9:17:45 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2010 6:21:59 PM, jharry wrote:
This seems to be based on "if God exists", so that is how I will address it.

Not as such, but fine go ahead.

I'm glad you agreed.

Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankind's sin.

He atoned original sin, He made a way to Heaven for us all. God promised His people they would one day be redeemed. See Sheol.

Atonement suggests a period of corrective punishment or exemplary conduct in order to make up for past transgressions. It can not be done by proxy. The crucifixion of Jesus is (better and/or also) described as a sacrifice.

Please explain. Did you ever look up Sheol?

The above is an explanation, and the exact definition of hell is not important (if anything it's just another tangent to bash Christianity with). We can just take it as read that hell = relatively ungood afterlife.

A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.

This appeals to a gospel that few if any denominations,sects or Faiths consider true or valid.

No it does not. Re-read what I typed.

Your correct, I miss read that part. Please explain how it was an accident.


Accident is the wrong word. An external event beyond the control of the Christian cult? As in it was not the Christians, nor Messianic Jews that offered Jesus up as a sacrifice... but the Jews because they were stupid and the Romans because they were tyrants.

And the Jews let a known killer and thief loose so they could have Jesus crucified.

Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.

And?

...

That is the argument... am I talking a foreign language?


They believed they worshiped the Father or Yahweh. So #1 is out.

Number 1 is only out if you establish that the Jews recognised the divinity of Jesus and willfully offered him up as a blood sacrifice to himself. I don't you have actually read the point properly? Or I've not made it clear.

Why would they have to recognize His divinity to make His sacrifice meaningful??

See definition of sacrifice.


2: Trinidadians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.

Jesus gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. He was giving up himself for us. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

If you are a trinitarian what you have just said is,
God gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. Except that he did not because he was still God and still in heaven. He was giving up himself for us, though giving himself to what and for what reason is unclear. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

I don't believe Jesus was in Heaven when He was on earth, are you sure you understand the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity?

Well no I don't fully the doctrine because no one does. but I at least know what it states.


Does that make sense to you?

No because I don't believe what you assume I do.


Maybe state your beliefs, and we can go from there!

3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.

Sin is opposition to God. Being that God is without sin anyone or thing that is stained with sin cannot remain in His presence. It's not His problem, it is ours.

Neither the Romans nor the Jews set themselves up in opposition to God, both groups were very pious. This whole sin business seems very poorly defined.

Please explain why this matters.


Because otherwise you would have no problem with this statement.
"The blood of Jesus absolves us from quibbleboit."

Surely sin needs to be defined for your theology to begin to make sense.


I will try to summarize here to establish a better understanding.

You believe Christ's death was an accident?


Already addressed.

You believe people would have to understand or accept what Jesus was doing and Who He is to make His sacrifice worth redemption?

This is awnsered by the very definition of what a sacrifice is.


Please forgive my ignorance, I have never seen this argument before. It is a very interesting one, I would live to continue this conversation. I also hope to do a "start over" between you and I. Maybe let the past be the past and move on?

Oh I only just saw this. You would like to re-address the OP? Shall I try and rephrase the OP?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 12:18:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 10:17:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/20/2010 9:17:45 AM, jharry wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2010 6:21:59 PM, jharry wrote:
This seems to be based on "if God exists", so that is how I will address it.

Not as such, but fine go ahead.

I'm glad you agreed.

Christianity, or at least most of it's branches, holds that the crucifixion of Jesus served as a sacrifice to atone for mankind's sin.

He atoned original sin, He made a way to Heaven for us all. God promised His people they would one day be redeemed. See Sheol.

Atonement suggests a period of corrective punishment or exemplary conduct in order to make up for past transgressions. It can not be done by proxy. The crucifixion of Jesus is (better and/or also) described as a sacrifice.

Please explain. Did you ever look up Sheol?

The above is an explanation, and the exact definition of hell is not important (if anything it's just another tangent to bash Christianity with). We can just take it as read that hell = relatively ungood afterlife.

A sacrifice, in the religious context is where a human offers up something of value to appease, please or sustain a deity.

In the situation of Jesus, this does not seem to apply.
1: Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons, by people who did not worship him or his 'father'. Gospel of Judas aside his death is generally regarded as in effect an accident.

This appeals to a gospel that few if any denominations,sects or Faiths consider true or valid.

No it does not. Re-read what I typed.

Your correct, I miss read that part. Please explain how it was an accident.


Accident is the wrong word. An external event beyond the control of the Christian cult? As in it was not the Christians, nor Messianic Jews that offered Jesus up as a sacrifice... but the Jews because they were stupid and the Romans because they were tyrants.

And the Jews let a known killer and thief loose so they could have Jesus crucified.

Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.

And?

...

That is the argument... am I talking a foreign language?


They believed they worshiped the Father or Yahweh. So #1 is out.

Number 1 is only out if you establish that the Jews recognised the divinity of Jesus and willfully offered him up as a blood sacrifice to himself. I don't you have actually read the point properly? Or I've not made it clear.

Why would they have to recognize His divinity to make His sacrifice meaningful??

See definition of sacrifice.



2: Trinidadians hold that Jesus is God, they argue that if he were not it would not have been a perfect sacrifice intended to buy us back from the bondage of sin. In truth it is absurd for God to sacrifice himself to God.

Jesus gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. He was giving up himself for us. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

If you are a trinitarian what you have just said is,
God gave up His rightful place in Heaven to become human. Except that he did not because he was still God and still in heaven. He was giving up himself for us, though giving himself to what and for what reason is unclear. So we could be cleansed and enter Heaven and see God. And that is where the Trinity comes in.

I don't believe Jesus was in Heaven when He was on earth, are you sure you understand the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity?

Well no I don't fully the doctrine because no one does. but I at least know what it states.


Does that make sense to you?

No because I don't believe what you assume I do.


Maybe state your beliefs, and we can go from there!

3: This elaborate machination suggests that God is not omnipotent, and that sin instead of merely being disobedience to a deadbeat dad is some supernatural force that God is beholden to.

Sin is opposition to God. Being that God is without sin anyone or thing that is stained with sin cannot remain in His presence. It's not His problem, it is ours.

Neither the Romans nor the Jews set themselves up in opposition to God, both groups were very pious. This whole sin business seems very poorly defined.

Please explain why this matters.


Because otherwise you would have no problem with this statement.
"The blood of Jesus absolves us from quibbleboit."

Surely sin needs to be defined for your theology to begin to make sense.


I will try to summarize here to establish a better understanding.

You believe Christ's death was an accident?


Already addressed.

You believe people would have to understand or accept what Jesus was doing and Who He is to make His sacrifice worth redemption?

This is awnsered by the very definition of what a sacrifice is.


Please forgive my ignorance, I have never seen this argument before. It is a very interesting one, I would live to continue this conversation. I also hope to do a "start over" between you and I. Maybe let the past be the past and move on?

Oh I only just saw this. You would like to re-address the OP? Shall I try and rephrase the OP?

Lol. No. Never mind. :)

Maybe it is best that I explain my belief on the subject and then go from there.

Trinity.

Father Son Holy Spirit.

Father is God, the Father is not the Son. The Son is God, the Son is no the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son and so on.

One God, three Persons.

There is no need for any person besides the two in agreement to make the sacrifice sufficient.

I can make an agreement with you that positively effects others without their knowledge or consent.

I can give you season tickets to what ever venue that you like, if you agree to a covenant or contract. The gift is there whether you knew it was , whether you choose it or decline. I didn't ask you or consult you before I made the tickets possible. There is no logical reason for why you must be involved to make the tickets real or available. The only time your knowledge or agreement of the tickets is when discussing the agreement for transfer of the tickets.

Jesus Christ gave up His place to become one of us. He lived a sinless life, He had no need for a saviour. He is the Saviour. His innocent Blood was what was given up freely (regardless of circumstances) for us, without or knowledge or agreement. The is NO need for said agreement to make sacrifice sufficient. None.

I asked you to look up Sheol, it is NOT Hell. Sheol is a place of the dead where everyone went before Christ came to be one of us. Abraham to the greatest sinner. One side is comfort other side is torture. But NOT Hell.

When Jesus died on the Cross He went to Sheol because He was human. BUT, because He had not sinned Death had no hold on Him. He had broken the seal that had been placed on the gates from the time that Adam first sinned. Adam sealed the gates, Jesus broke it. Man was no longer chained to this place that he acquires through his sin. Jesus broke the chains. The Blood of animals could never remove the sin from our soul.

God has foretold this from day one. He has always promised that the chains would be broken forever.

The gift is there. You don't have to desire or chose it to be. But it is there. He is on the other side of the door, all you have to do is knock.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 2:21:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I say Jesus is a symbolic sacrifice. It won't sastisfy most Christians, especially when I don't even consider myself one. (Mostly because I cannot get behind any Christian faith save for maybe westbro baptist church cause we both hate gays... lulz!) But consider this...

Jesus sacrificed himself to "save our sins". What does this mean? Well maybe it's less literal, and more like "stop feeling sorry for yourself you emo retards!" Maybe it's meant to, even if Jesus did let himself get nailed to a cross to prove it, that man has no responsibility to other men, that he has no cross to bare. Jesus bared it for him. We shouldn't feel bad about the kind of people we are, or the things we feel, or the thoughts we have. That deepdown, we are justfied, because we are human beings. And we all have to deal with ALOOOOT of crap. So backoff!!! lol...

This might sound nihilistic. As if to say there is no right or wrong, but thats not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is that just because there is a right and wrong, doesn't mean you have to be burdened with that for the rest of your life. That you should not have to be wracked with guilt and punishment. We know you're a scumbag. But frankly... who isn't? We should distinguish between the REAL scumbags, the ones that just hault life all together, versus the occassional scumbag. Sometimes you just got to let things go and pick your battles. Maybe thats what was meant by forgiveness. Because there's just not enough time in the world to hold a grudge against everybody. So some might think that my priorities are a little bit skewed holding homosexuals to a worse degree then serial killers, rapists, and credit card theives. But you know what? I don't care. Because I don't have to care. Jesus cared for me. Even if it wasn't some magic way to get on God's good side, Jesus let himself get all kinds of tortured and mutilated so that I would wake up that I don't owe anyone anything. That for the most part, people are stupid and pathetic little pieces of crap that should die a horrible death. So I'm not going to feel bad about my views coming off as a bit "extreme". I mean hell. You could argue it either way. I'm "extreme" against gays in a conservative way, and "extreme" against other criminals in a liberal way. I see a case about some guy murdering three kids, and I think "yeah, that guy's a lunatic. But you know what? Those kids were probably bullies and tormented some other poor kid anyway." I think of Warhammer 40k's Inqusiition quote...

"Innocence proves nothing". lol! And when you think like that, you just become desensitized to all that news porn the media tries to feed you. It's easy to condemn the guy who kills several children. What a waste of my time. I'm going to go after some little rat who nobody is paying attention too. Cause that little sneaky butthole thinks they can get away with it. Just because everyone else is stupid enough to dwell on the child killer.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 8:07:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.
Lol! Secular heresy!

CN is getting double pawnd by JHarry & Ren!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 10:37:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/21/2010 8:07:54 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.
Lol! Secular heresy!

CN is getting double pawnd by JHarry & Ren!

I am not getting pawned, the basic tenets of my argument have been ignored. I never used the phrase secular heresey and it bears no relation to the above quote.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 11:13:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/21/2010 10:37:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/21/2010 8:07:54 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.
Lol! Secular heresy!

CN is getting double pawnd by JHarry & Ren!

I am not getting pawned, the basic tenets of my argument have been ignored. I never used the phrase secular heresey and it bears no relation to the above quote.

With that kind of logic, it's no wonder you think that the basic tenets of your argument have been ignored! In fact, the only person ignoring arguments is your self. You've done so extensively with Ren & I am waiting to see your response to JHarry.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 11:19:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/21/2010 11:13:37 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/21/2010 10:37:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/21/2010 8:07:54 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.
Lol! Secular heresy!

CN is getting double pawnd by JHarry & Ren!

I am not getting pawned, the basic tenets of my argument have been ignored. I never used the phrase secular heresey and it bears no relation to the above quote.

With that kind of logic, it's no wonder you think that the basic tenets of your argument have been ignored! In fact, the only person ignoring arguments is your self. You've done so extensively with Ren & I am waiting to see your response to JHarry.

The only valid response has been Jharry's last post (yea I know is he becoming a valid member... wierd) that actually does not address the OP directly, it sidesteps it with apparently good reasons. Feel free to show me where the OP has actually been directly addressed.

It is quite clear you are posting out of tribalism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 11:26:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 12:18:50 PM, jharry wrote:
When Jesus died on the Cross He went to Sheol because He was human. BUT, because He had not sinned Death had no hold on Him. He had broken the seal that had been placed on the gates from the time that Adam first sinned. Adam sealed the gates, Jesus broke it. Man was no longer chained to this place that he acquires through his sin. Jesus broke the chains. The Blood of animals could never remove the sin from our soul.

So what you should said to the OP was... the crucifixtion of Jesus was not a religious sacrifice in the way that you have defined. It was not analogous to say offering up an animal sacrifice so that God will send the rains for instance.

You are basically saying that the crucifixtion is the same context as say... someone who falls on a grenade to save their unit, or the man whose hand was trapped under a boulder and had to amputate it to attain freedom.

This still creates so many questions however. Does that the mean that actual act and circumstances of the crucifxtion are irrelevant? So long as Jesus at some point died, be that stoned by angry pharisess or simply from old age the mission would have been accomplished.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 11:53:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/21/2010 11:19:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/21/2010 11:13:37 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/21/2010 10:37:39 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/21/2010 8:07:54 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/19/2010 1:58:08 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons, at the behest of the Jews on account of being a heretic. This seems to preclude his status as a sacrifice.
Lol! Secular heresy!

CN is getting double pawnd by JHarry & Ren!

I am not getting pawned, the basic tenets of my argument have been ignored. I never used the phrase secular heresey and it bears no relation to the above quote.

With that kind of logic, it's no wonder you think that the basic tenets of your argument have been ignored! In fact, the only person ignoring arguments is your self. You've done so extensively with Ren & I am waiting to see your response to JHarry.

The only valid response has been Jharry's last post (yea I know is he becoming a valid member... wierd) that actually does not address the OP directly, it sidesteps it with apparently good reasons. Feel free to show me where the OP has actually been directly addressed.
Of course it has, you've just dismissed it.

You wrote (A) "Jesus was killed by the Romans for secular reasons"; (B) "on account of being a heretic (accused by Jews)"; and (C) "Jesus was killed for what were ultimately secular reasons." At least A & C are coherent; B is flat out wrong. So which is it anyways?

To make a long story short: Jesus was crucified for MANY reasons, none of which detract from Christianity. Like Ren wrote & you chose to ignore: " If Jesus was, in fact, divine, then the act was divine despite why people assumed they were killing Him." What you trivially call "ultimate" is pure conjecture on your part.

BTW, the Jews accused Him of REBELLION before the Romans, as the Romans could give 3 shites about Jewish heresy.

It is quite clear you are posting out of tribalism.
I am, but not exclusively.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 3:08:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/21/2010 11:26:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/20/2010 12:18:50 PM, jharry wrote:
When Jesus died on the Cross He went to Sheol because He was human. BUT, because He had not sinned Death had no hold on Him. He had broken the seal that had been placed on the gates from the time that Adam first sinned. Adam sealed the gates, Jesus broke it. Man was no longer chained to this place that he acquires through his sin. Jesus broke the chains. The Blood of animals could never remove the sin from our soul.

So what you should said to the OP was... the crucifixtion of Jesus was not a religious sacrifice in the way that you have defined. It was not analogous to say offering up an animal sacrifice so that God will send the rains for instance.

Well C_N, I was having trouble interpreting the OP. You had mentioned telling you what I believed and that is what I did.

Basically, I guess. You talked about His death being an accident and for secular reasons, which is false. What happened has been foretold since the beginning.


You are basically saying that the crucifixtion is the same context as say... someone who falls on a grenade to save their unit, or the man whose hand was trapped under a boulder and had to amputate it to attain freedom.

Not exactly but close, but not the boulder. But with a more profound reason. Saving your unit from death is saving their life in this life, which is a very powerful action. Jesus saved us in this life and the next. The soldier saves a dozen men, Jesus saved all men, well His Passion made it openly and easily available anyway.

This still creates so many questions however. Does that the mean that actual act and circumstances of the crucifxtion are irrelevant? So long as Jesus at some point died, be that stoned by angry pharisess or simply from old age the mission would have been accomplished.

Why are the questions relevant?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen