• 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

ppp

Well-Known Member
uuh, did I say people always have a free will?
Actually I don't recall scripture that say there is always free will.
You didn't specify, nor did you qualify. Are you now saying that people do not always have free will?
Let me put it that way, once you sin too often, God may put some sort of autopilot into the soul of the persons involved to make their decisions more predictable. Predictable in a sense that their future decisions are an exact copy of those made so far. I guess.
This has two implications:
  1. God commits evil actions using humans as mere puppets for his will.
  2. Once you "sin too often," God actively prevents you from changing your ways merely for the sake of 'predictability'.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
I forgot to add that the friend does not charge you anything for his service.
That's why we say "free gift of the cross".

God sacrificed his son, according to the Bible (John 3:16). It's not the other way round.
It wasn't man that sacrificed Jesus.
Are you asking me in which way does this help then?
The moment God says it's a valid compensation and enough to please him and to be a bit less sad about the ocean, for example... then it is done.


no, God was the one sacrificing someone, see above.
Jesus set an example and all the other martyrs that came later have a story that they can read. This story is about what happened to their predecessor.
I meant it in this way.

I forgot to add that the friend does not charge you anything for his service.
That's why we say "free gift of the cross".


Whether my friend chooses to collect the debt or not, I'd still owe him. And if my friend can just tell me the debt I owe is forgiven without collecting anything from me, why didn't god just say that the debt humanity owed was forgiven without having to sacrifice anyone in the process?

God sacrificed his son, according to the Bible (John 3:16). It's not the other way round.
It wasn't man that sacrificed Jesus.

I don't see how that changes anything. The message remains the same: If you want god's forgiveness, someone has to die.

Are you asking me in which way does this help then?
The moment God says it's a valid compensation and enough to please him and to be a bit less sad about the ocean, for example... then it is done.

But what kind of a being would consider killing his own son as valid compensation for anything? It's sounds completely illogical to me. God is upset - you say- because humans were polluting. And he decides the only way to compensate for dirtying the rivers is to kill his own son. But how did Jesus dying, at least for a couple days, do anything to clean up the rivers? And for some reason killing his own son somehow makes him feel LESS sad about the polluted rivers?. None of it makes any sense whatsoever.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
You didn't specify, nor did you qualify. Are you now saying that people do not always have free will?
yes, I am sure that, according to the Bible, God took free will from a human in at least one case: Exodus 4:21.
If he takes away free will once, he might do so more often.

Once you "sin too often," God actively prevents you from changing your ways merely for the sake of 'predictability'.
No, I didn't say "merely".
This may have other purposes, as well.
 
Last edited:

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Your questions are of very good quality, you don't just sweep the issue aside.
And if my friend can just tell me the debt I owe is forgiven without collecting anything from me, why didn't god just say that the debt humanity owed was forgiven without having to sacrifice anyone in the process?
that's a good question, for instance.
1/ God might not agree to do without a compensation. This is at least how Matthew 20:28 might be interpreted or Hebrews 10:26.
2/ Jesus did agree to die without receiving any compensation from humankind.

Seems odd.
But that's how it might be, in my view. This is at least how the whole story could make perfect sense, in my view.


One comparison:
At a point in my life, I couldn't pay rent.
Sadly.
My landlord did not cancel the debt.
But a friend of mine from the church I attend offered me to give me some money so I could pay the last 2 rents.
I was enthusiastic about it.
Know what: my friend gave me the money - for free.
That was a great experience.

But my landlord was a good guy also.
He just happened to want to have the rent, which is totally fine.
You see: two good guys: the one said I want the rent, the other said I pay it for free.
This is how different good guys can be at times.

By the way it was a great feeling to receive help like this. After this, God made it possible that I could pay rent every single time.
I don't see how that changes anything. The message remains the same: If you want god's forgiveness, someone has to die.
Here, you raise a point that @1213 evoked already.
Forgiveness for the sins can be free. This is what 1213 has explained well, in my view.
Compensation for the damage might not, as Matthew 20:28 shows that there is still compensation that needs to be paid.
This is how I read this verse, at least. It is not about forgiveness of sins.
But what kind of a being would consider killing his own son as valid compensation for anything? It's sounds completely illogical to me.

But how did Jesus dying, at least for a couple days, do anything to clean up the rivers?[...]And for some reason killing his own son somehow makes him feel LESS sad about the polluted rivers?. None of it makes any sense whatsoever.
If Mankind would have given him a bunch of flowers in return... an God feels less sad... which I doubt, I mean just in case... then that's the way it is. Even if the rivers don't get cleaned up by the bunch of flowers.
However, bunches of flowers can make people less sad, at times.
Even if they don't clean the rivers up.
My point is: the moment God says he regards the compensation as paid.... this is how it is and the debt no longer exists.
Moreover, my point also is Jesus's death does have a true value for God, for it set an example that all future martyrs that are killied just for being Christians could study.
So, this does have a very practical benefit for God.
Even if this does not refer to the rivers, in detail, but... it's not only the rivers that are polluted.

At this point you may ask: how does this death address pollution in general?
Well, Christianity criticises greed. And greed is often what produces pollution (since polluting makes great sense economically).
But if the first Christians who promoted their new stance against greed... almost always got killed, these at least have a good story to read in the Bible about Jesus getting killed, too.


EDITED to indicate that this is how it might make sense. Maybe there are other factors that I don't see that would make perfect sense also.
 
Last edited:

Colt

Well-Known Member
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”
can you please specify why it makes sense to post a blanket Bible verse here, in your view?
Whom are you alluding to?
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
can you please specify why it makes sense to post a blanket Bible verse here, in your view?
Whom are you alluding to?
Killing Jesus was a sin, it was the will of the Devil.

Jesus went FIRST to his own with the Original Gospel; salvation by faith, forgiveness by repentance and receiving it.

We weren't supposed to reject his Gospel, we weren't supposed to kill Jesus as a theoretical sacrifice to God to pay a fictitious sin debt.

The atonement doctrine was a post-cross speculation that developed after Jesus left.

If the Jews would have accepted Jesus' Gospel then they would be preaching it today from the 2nd Temple and Jesus would have simply returned to Heaven.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
yes, I am sure that, according to the Bible, God took free will from a human in at least one case: Exodus 4:21.
If he takes away free will once, he might do so more often.


No, I didn't say "merely".
This may have other purposes, as well.
Basically you are saying that humans didn't kill Jesus; God did, using humans as hand puppets.

Or are you changing your mind now and saying that a person or group of persons could have stopped the event?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Basically you are saying that humans didn't kill Jesus; God did, using humans as hand puppets.

Or are you changing your mind now and saying that a person or group of persons could have stopped the event?
Humans killed Jesus.
In my opinion, it is possible that God "froze" the way the Pharisees dealt with others. So it was predictable that they would kill him.
Very much in the way God "froze" the way Phoroah operated in Exodus 4:21.

Are you trying to shift the blame to God so then?
In a way that the Pharisees are absolutely blameless in murdering Jesus?

No, they get the blame.
They could have deplored the fact that something possessed them ... however they saw themselves as the big heroes, see Matthew 5:5, for instance.
In fact, they fully agreed with what they were doing.
A mere handpuppet cannot regret the way they operate or deplore their self or the nature within.

Thomas
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Are you trying to shift the blame to God so then?
I am saying that you cannot have it both ways. If, as you claim, that God takes away free will, then everything that occurs during that time is God's doing and God's fault. The action taken is the fault of the will directly behind the action. Period.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
I am saying that you cannot have it both ways. If, as you claim, that God takes away free will, then everything that occurs during that time is God's doing and God's fault. The action taken is the fault of the will directly behind the action. Period.
ok.
The Pharisees wanted it. They had the will and they did it.
So you can't have it both ways Joe.
IF the ones wanting the death are guilty... then this applies to the Pharisees well.
Mark 12:7.
BTW this what they often wanted, as Bible teaches. Killing prophets was the thing they indulged in often...

BTW, I'm not saying that the Pharisees at this point necessarily did not have free will. I never said this.
If they didn't, they could at least have deplored the way they operated, I think.

As a comparison, other people are unhappy with the way they are and with the way they behave... nothing of this sort with the Pharisees.


EDITED to add last 2 paragraphs
 
Last edited:

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
But don't you believe that there was prior divine prophecy that it would happen?
If humans could have stopped it, then that means that humans are capable of thwarting God's plans and rendering divine prophecy false. Correct?
God forsaw how they would act.
Look at the story of Jonah:
Jonah predicted Niniveh will fall. Jonah 3:4.
However, Niniveh repented and all of a sudden God changed plans. Jonah 3:10.
That's how it works normally.

Might have happened in the case of Jesus, too.
I guess! I am not a superheroe knowing all things that could have happened also...
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
God forsaw how they would act.
Look at the story of Jonah:
Jonah predicted Niniveh will fall. Jonah 3:4.
However, Niniveh repented and all of a sudden God changed plans. Jonah 3:10.
That's how it works normally.

Might have happened in the case of Jesus, too.
I guess! I am not a superheroe knowing all things that could have happened also...
So, you think that people both could have, and should have stopped what you view as Jesus' sacrifice.

If you had a time machine, and could go back and stop it, would you?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
If you had a time machine, and could go back and stop it, would you?
that's hypothetical.
Difficult to answer.

What would I have done when I was a German 1933 (post elections in March)? Would I have tried to stop Hitler? No. I would have fled to another country.
He was elected into power. They wanted him.

Same with Israel back then, I think. It seems to me, everybody was just fine with the leaders who almost always killed the prophets that God sent them.

For me, democracy means letting the other side prevail if they really want a dictator.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Jesus's Death. Was That Unnecessary?

Jesus' death on the Cross was not all necessary, so he did no die on the Cross. "God-the-Father" or Allah saved Jesus from a cursed death on the Cross. Jesus was treated in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea by Nicodemus- the Physician, and when Jesus was cured enough to travel, Jesus came out of the tomb and migrated from Judea out of the hands of the Jews and the Romans. This was exactly what should have happened as per the clues very much in the NT Bible itself, leaving others aside, I understand. Right, please?

Regards
I am not an Atheist. I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.




.
Dear God! I agree with you on this!
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Forgiveness has nothing to do with “compensation,” “sacrifice,” or “cost.” Dawkins is correct here. The Anglican bishop on stage was wrong when he said that forgiveness is costly.

The English word forgive is a compound word. The “for” part comes from the word that means the “fore” part of a boat. When fishermen would be out in the bay fishing, they placed one man in the “fore” of the boat, to watch for other boats. When one came too near, he would call “fore,” and then the men could push the oncoming boat away from them. The energy of the oncoming boat was pushed back toward that boat, and thus not absorbed by the first boat.

When we “for-give” someone, we give the negativity (inherent in the wrongdoing) back to that person, rather than absorbing it ourselves. God takes the negativity of our sinful actions and gives that energy back to us.

Why? Because when we do wrong, it costs us some of our life-energy. We push that energy toward others in hurtful acts. That’s energy we need to be healthy. when God forgives, and pushes that energy back to us, God is returning life-giving energy to us. If there is a “cost” to forgiveness, it’s in our being able to take back the energy we put out there to begin with. We have to open ourselves to receive it.

No blood atonement was necessary. No sacrifice is needed. Jesus forgave them. He pushed their energy back to them. An ultimate act of love is the paradigm for forgiveness, not an “ultimate sacrifice.”
 
Top