• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus's Death. Was That Unnecessary?

As an atheist, do you agree with Dawkins' assessment of Jesus's death?

  • no, but he does have one or two valid points in his answer

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
In this recent thread, people discussed why we need Jesus as savior.
This thread is about how his death was necessary according to the Bible.

According to Jewish tradition, there needs to be a sacrifice in order that the sins of mankind should be absolved.
Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins calls Jesus's death, a human sacrifice, "the most disgusting idea" he has ever heard.


(see Minute 3:19 of this video:)

However, Jesus's death was necessary for at least two reasons.
Here is the second one, as I see it: there needs to be a real compensation for all the damage that man does to His creation. Bible talks about it in Matthew 20:28.
Man damages his creation but can't pay.
So, Jesus offers his life for anyone who believes. On judgement day, believers can step before God and "pay" with this, as if it was a token given to believers only. And God accepts.

Richard Dawkins forgets this second aspect of Jesus's death.

Since God accepts Jesus's death as a real compensation, this death must have been of value for God.

In my opinion, this value consists of but is not limited to:

1) demonstrating what would probably happen if God showed up again without using his extra powers...
2) presenting an example of what would happen/ of what happens if someone behaves normally. This serves as education for mankind. And God loves mankind.
3) having had the opportunity to show up on earth at all (without using extra -powers). If God wanted to heal some sick and give a lesson on ethics, then death is what people want him to be subjected to. This death comes with the territory of God's appearance on earth and Jesus was the one willing to undergo it - including the torture.
I mean if God does not want to use extra powers every single time and present himself as truely human.

So this was of true value for God. Please also consider all the working hours that Jesus spent on earth.
Jesus is kind enough that anyone believing in him may claim this "money" as a token for compensation on judgement day, this is at least my interpretation of what I read in the Bible.

Thomas
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I know I always play the role of the defender of Atheists... (lol:p)...but in this case, I perfectly understand his reaction.
He didn't mean to offend the Christians' religious sentiment. He was that emotional because he is very often asked why he has become an Atheist, despite his Anglican background.
And since he is supppsed to justify himself, he went wild for an instant.

Back to the topic...he kinda has a point.
Because the necessity of the sacrifice is not in the Gospels. It is a late elaboration by Augustine of Hippo.
What I mean: Augustine misinterpreted the sacrifice, which has a deeper theological meaning.
Jesus fell victim of the men' s brutality. Which represented the sins of the world. By falling victim, he forgave the sins of the world as victim (hostia).

Ans sins are never a necessity. Sins are often the result of free will. And of chance, of course.
 
Last edited:

Colt

Well-Known Member
In this recent thread, people discussed why we need Jesus as savior.
This thread is about how his death was necessary according to the Bible.

According to Jewish tradition, there needs to be a sacrifice in order that the sins of mankind should be absolved.
Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins calls Jesus's death, a human sacrifice, "the most disgusting idea" he has ever heard.


(see Minute 3:19 of this video:)

However, Jesus's death was necessary for at least two reasons.
Here is the second one, as I see it: there needs to be a real compensation for all the damage that man does to His creation. Bible talks about it in Matthew 20:28.
Man damages his creation but can't pay.
So, Jesus offers his life for anyone who believes. On judgement day, believers can step before God and "pay" with this, as if it was a token given to believers only. And God accepts.

Richard Dawkins forgets this second aspect of Jesus's death.

Since God accepts Jesus's death as a real compensation, this death must have been of value for God.

In my opinion, this value consists of but is not limited to:

1) demonstrating what would probably happen if God showed up again without using his extra powers...
2) presenting an example of what would happen/ of what happens if someone behaves normally. This serves as education for mankind. And God loves mankind.
3) having had the opportunity to show up on earth at all (without using extra -powers). If God wanted to heal some sick and give a lesson on ethics, then death is what people want him to be subjected to. This death comes with the territory of God's appearance on earth and Jesus was the one willing to undergo it - including the torture.
I mean if God does not want to use extra powers every single time and present himself as truely human.

So this was of true value for God. Please also consider all the working hours that Jesus spent on earth.
Jesus is kind enough that anyone believing in him may claim this "money" as a token for compensation on judgement day, this is at least my interpretation of what I read in the Bible.

Thomas
Dawkins speaks the truth, that's why it angers people.

Jesus taught his Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven 3+ years before the tragic rejection and murder.

* Jesus didn't teach the atonement doctrine, that speculation occurred after Jesus left among sacrifice minded followers who still could just not comprehend receiving forgiveness out of the Fathers Love, salvation by faith and the responsibility that comes with being a spirit born son of God.

* Humans who are too proud to receive a gift without squaring up the account in return, cant grasp being forgiven by a Loving God. So to them the whole God as a heavenly accountant-doctrine makes sense.

* God is a Loving and forgiving Father, that's the core of everything Jesus taught.


The Gospel changed after Jesus left.




.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Dawkins is a professional 'talking head'. Even most atheists know he's just another paid fool in media-land.

However, since his job is to be provocative, it can be beneficial to consider his provocations. Especially the ones that seem to bother us, most.
I agree with Dawkins. Based on the narrative, Its easily seen as a human sacrifice with a blood requirement. It also is a suicide.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Just FYI. Your statement is incorrect/not correct. Jewish tradition does not teach that sacrifice is needed in order to absolve sins from mankind.

But ...

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murderer’s verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, the unintentional murderer is not exiled. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who was already exiled now emerges with the death of this High Priest, with regard to one who was not yet exiled, is it not right that he should not be exiled? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: And perhaps with regard to this one, who was already exiled, his sin was atoned for by his exile, and therefore the death of the High Priest facilitates his return, but that one, who was not yet exiled, no, his sin was not atoned for and the death of the High Priest should not prevent his exile. The Gemara rebuts: Is it his exile that atones for his sin? It is the death of the High Priest that atones for his sin, and the High Priest died.

- Makkot 11b

So, not sacrifice/absolution, but death/atonement.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
In this recent thread, people discussed why we need Jesus as savior.
This thread is about how his death was necessary according to the Bible.

According to Jewish tradition, there needs to be a sacrifice in order that the sins of mankind should be absolved.
Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins calls Jesus's death, a human sacrifice, "the most disgusting idea" he has ever heard.


(see Minute 3:19 of this video:)

However, Jesus's death was necessary for at least two reasons.
Here is the second one, as I see it: there needs to be a real compensation for all the damage that man does to His creation. Bible talks about it in Matthew 20:28.
Man damages his creation but can't pay.
So, Jesus offers his life for anyone who believes. On judgement day, believers can step before God and "pay" with this, as if it was a token given to believers only. And God accepts.

Richard Dawkins forgets this second aspect of Jesus's death.

Since God accepts Jesus's death as a real compensation, this death must have been of value for God.

In my opinion, this value consists of but is not limited to:

1) demonstrating what would probably happen if God showed up again without using his extra powers...
2) presenting an example of what would happen/ of what happens if someone behaves normally. This serves as education for mankind. And God loves mankind.
3) having had the opportunity to show up on earth at all (without using extra -powers). If God wanted to heal some sick and give a lesson on ethics, then death is what people want him to be subjected to. This death comes with the territory of God's appearance on earth and Jesus was the one willing to undergo it - including the torture.
I mean if God does not want to use extra powers every single time and present himself as truely human.

So this was of true value for God. Please also consider all the working hours that Jesus spent on earth.
Jesus is kind enough that anyone believing in him may claim this "money" as a token for compensation on judgement day, this is at least my interpretation of what I read in the Bible.

Thomas

I like the logic that people are already one with god so they don't need a sacrifice because their union and service to god Is a sacrifice. So animals and humans wouldnt be a sacrifice for others.

I'd say sin is not what you're born with so it doesn't pull out from god. The idea is that our egos etc (mind and actions) of the outside world did that. Without such influences that vary by culture one is closer to god.

But I agree. Human sacrifice is highly horrific and barbaric no matter how you justify it. We sacrifice animals lives and eat it in a communion. We shouldn't do that with humans.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Dawkins is a professional 'talking head'. Even most atheists know he's just another paid fool in media-land.

However, since his job is to be provocative, it can be beneficial to consider his provocations. Especially the ones that seem to bother us, most.
"EVEN atheists"
Never can resist any chance for a slight.

We know it only says something about the
one doing it.

Do you ?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Just FYI. Your statement is incorrect/not correct. Jewish tradition does not teach that sacrifice is needed in order to absolve sins from mankind.

Wouldn't absolve be akin to reconciling one's self with god?

What did animal sacrifice mean if not a means to reconcile one (if that's true?) with god?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Interesting how so many people miss the point. Resurrection is the point, not death.

It's not just resurrection. Death/life/resurrection is the point. Just people are focused on death (i.e. sin, blood, and sacrifice) cause without it one can't be with god.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
I agree with Dawkins. Based on the narrative, Its easily seen as a human sacrifice with a blood requirement. It also is a suicide.
The 'narrative' is a story that can be interpreted in several ways. Dawkins, like most atheists, insists on interpreting the story in the most superstitious manner, and then rejecting it on that basis. It's quite the 'straw man' act.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
I know I always play the role of the defender of Atheists... (lol:p)...but in this case, I perfectly understand his reaction.
He didn't mean to offend the Christians' religious sentiment. He was that emotional because he is very often asked why he has become an Atheist, despite his Anglican background.
And since he is supppsed to justify himself, he went wild for an instant.

Back to the topic...he kinda has a point.
Because the necessity of the sacrifice is not in the Gospels. It is a late elaboration by Augustine of Hippo.
What I mean: Augustine misinterpreted the sacrifice, which has a deeper theological meaning.
Jesus fell victim of the men' s brutality. Which represented the sins of the world. By falling victim, he forgave the sins of the world as victim (hostia).

Ans sins are never a necessity. Sins are often the result of free will. And of chance, of course.

Hard to see it as man's brutality if it was
all planned from the beginning of time.

In the event, the fantastic illogical of God killing
himself to pay himself for his creation breaking his rules is a bit much for this person .

What the heck kind of payment is torture, anyway?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I have always found the idea that forgiveness needs a sacrifice to be odious. I've forgiven a lot of people for a lot of things in my time, and I've never asked for a sacrifice -- I've never asked for anything at all. How did I get to be so much more forgiving than God?

But worse still, the sacrifice of Jesus was supposed to be for even such little sins as being descended from Adam! Or having naughty thoughts about the girl (or boy) next door. The very idea is ludicrous, to me.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
The 'narrative' is a story that can be interpreted in several ways. Dawkins, like most atheists, insists on treating the story literally, and then rejecting it on that basis. It's quite the 'straw man' act.

Oh, so you realize it didn't really happen.

What kind of act involves pretending it did?

What you fail to grasp is that the way to,
read "God" is as a character in a novel.

None of the characters or events rise above
the level of characters in a semi historical novel
full ofvmagic realism. Didnt you ever notice?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
You see insults where there are none. Often.

I called it a "slight" and your response
confirms how little you can resist the chance.

How does this sound?

"Even" Christians sometimes are able to grasp
the obvious.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Even most atheists know he's just another paid fool in media-land.
he's not a fool.
And he is largely popular. This video, again, almost has 60k likes, which is a lot. For my videos as a comparison, I don't get 10 (not 10 k, I mean 10;)).
So, he can't be a fool.
Here on RF, last time I opened up a thread on his ideas, the atheists voted 13 to 9 to his favor.
Even here on RF, in which even the atheists are critical of darkmatter2525, a prominent atheist youtube channel, people largely share his ideas on faith.
So, he's definitely not a fool, I think.
 
Top