Lets contemplate the crucifiction

[Kilgore Trout]

Emotion has nothing to do with it. It doesn't make any logical sense to believe the universe created itself from nothing, but yet many, perhaps you, believe it to be true. It seems that those who speak of "logic" are being extremely selective about where they apply it. There are many things that defy "logic", but logic is just a descriptive word for limited human reasoning, it is not the key to understanding every fact or truth.

It's hard to take anyone seriously regarding the subject of logic when their whole diatribe is rife with logical fallacies.

 

[shmogie]

I can honestly only agree to one thing you replied with in the above - and that is that I do not understand. It is sort of a requirement of mine you see, that I understand a thing before I am willing to follow it. And certainly before I claim to worship it. I've been told quite a few times by those of belief - especially when my questions confound the issue to the point that they start making things up, or propose flimsy, inadequate excuses, excuses that many times even their fellow believers do not accept or agree upon - that God is "beyond my understanding." As such, according to my requirements, I simply cannot follow.

Also, by your own admission, can you not see that Christ then only thought he was making a sacrifice, and God knew that it was no sacrifice at all?

Your question's don't confound any issue, they simply fall way short of the reality of the issue. Of course it was a sacrifice, both knew it was. Once again, the issue is the sacrifice Christ made. Degradation of a Godly being to being in a human body, is a sacrifice in itself. Having to patiently deal with human idiots is a sacrifice in itself. Having to be restricted by the body, is a sacrifice in itself. Patiently dealing with evil people doing evil things to you is a sacrifice for this being. We haven't a clue as to what was sacrificed to bring this about, we know that because of mercy and justice all the sacrifices were made. The Protestant concept laid down by Paul, "the priesthood of all believers" means that beyond a few core beliefs, one is free to believe as one believes, provided the belief is not in conflict with those core principles, so people believe differently, so what ? Of course God is beyond your understanding, just as a F-22 Raptor is beyond the understanding of an ant on the runway. He hasn't the slightest capability of grasping any of it, and neither do you. There is much that you will go to your grave not understanding, so get used to it. There is enough evidence and logic for a rational person to believe, some do, some don't, exactly as it was foretold.

 

[shmogie]

It's hard to take anyone seriously regarding the subject of logic when their whole diatribe is rife with logical fallacies.

According to your logic. Take me seriously or not, I really couldn't care less. You must be able to prove a "logical fallacy" and" I don't like the conclusion" isn't proof of anything. Please, apply the rules of logic and get to proving.

 

[sovietchild]

Your question's don't confound any issue, they simply fall way short of the reality of the issue. Of course it was a sacrifice, both knew it was. Once again, the issue is the sacrifice Christ made. Degradation of a Godly being to being in a human body, is a sacrifice in itself. Having to patiently deal with human idiots is a sacrifice in itself. Having to be restricted by the body, is a sacrifice in itself. Patiently dealing with evil people doing evil things to you is a sacrifice for this being. We haven't a clue as to what was sacrificed to bring this about, we know that because of mercy and justice all the sacrifices were made. The Protestant concept laid down by Paul, "the priesthood of all believers" means that beyond a few core beliefs, one is free to believe as one believes, provided the belief is not in conflict with those core principles, so people believe differently, so what ? Of course God is beyond your understanding, just as a F-22 Raptor is beyond the understanding of an ant on the runway. He hasn't the slightest capability of grasping any of it, and neither do you. There is much that you will go to your grave not understanding, so get used to it. There is enough evidence and logic for a rational person to believe, some do, some don't, exactly as it was foretold.

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

quran 157-158

 

[Kilgore Trout]

According to your logic. Take me seriously or not, I really couldn't care less. You must be able to prove a "logical fallacy" and" I don't like the conclusion" isn't proof of anything. Please, apply the rules of logic and get to proving.

You're whole comment to me was a straw man. If you need help figuring out what that is, why it's a logical fallacy, and how you applied it, then let me know.

 

[sealchan]

Have you ever thought about how bizarre the crucifixion story is? Imagine the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven. He looks down onto earth and says to himself:

• 
  Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin...
  Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human for all eternity. I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them. I HATE IT! I tried killing all the humans and animals once in the flood. That certainly did not fix the problem.
  
  So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me as a sacrifice to me. That, finally, will make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me.

How much sense does this make?

Put that way it doesn't make sense. But what if God was doing something more than trying to reform His creation? What if He was trying to prove something to Himself? And that He was afraid of having ultimately failed His own expectations? Or that He was afraid of being judged by another of His kind for having failed?

Even if the Bible doesn't make this case, it could be made by the right story-teller. After all, what more could the Bible be than a story meant to provide meaning to the lives of those who find inspiration in it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The allah of islam is not God................................

Just because you do not accept Allah as God does not make it so, Allah merely means God, just like Gud, Tuhan, Brahman, etc.. There are no doubt people of other religions who do not accept the Christian God you believe in, but that does not negate the fact the English word God means whatever other names God is in other religions and languages.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Your question's don't confound any issue, they simply fall way short of the reality of the issue. Of course it was a sacrifice, both knew it was. Once again, the issue is the sacrifice Christ made. Degradation of a Godly being to being in a human body, is a sacrifice in itself. Having to patiently deal with human idiots is a sacrifice in itself. Having to be restricted by the body, is a sacrifice in itself. Patiently dealing with evil people doing evil things to you is a sacrifice for this being. We haven't a clue as to what was sacrificed to bring this about, we know that because of mercy and justice all the sacrifices were made. The Protestant concept laid down by Paul, "the priesthood of all believers" means that beyond a few core beliefs, one is free to believe as one believes, provided the belief is not in conflict with those core principles, so people believe differently, so what ? Of course God is beyond your understanding, just as a F-22 Raptor is beyond the understanding of an ant on the runway. He hasn't the slightest capability of grasping any of it, and neither do you. There is much that you will go to your grave not understanding, so get used to it. There is enough evidence and logic for a rational person to believe, some do, some don't, exactly as it was foretold.

"It was foretold!" - this old line is another thing I have noticed gets pulled out quite often. It's like a form of reverse psychology. "See... I knew you would be a non-believer!" Almost as if there is some hope that the unbelieving person will be compelled to stay the course of disagreement by converting just so that the other will still be wrong. It's like those Looney Toons bits where Bugs goes back and forth with Elmer Fudd/Yosemite Sam and the "smarter" one ends up reversing position so the "dumber" party ends up saying the opposite of what they were arguing in the first place.

As for your "ant and the F-22" analogy - it's bad. An ant isn't tasked with pledging allegiance to the F-22 by its fellow ants. If it were, I wouldn't begrudge the ant telling his brethren to go stuff it... not one iota.

And your mini-rant about "much that (I) will go to (my) grave not understanding" - did I ever claim otherwise? All I said was I wasn't willing to worship something I didn't or couldn't understand. Do you think I don't accept my limitations or something? Do you think this is about trying to be "superior" to God? Hardly. What is there to be superior to? I ask you? Am I superior to NOTHING? I don't even claim that. You waste your breath.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Put that way it doesn't make sense. But what if God was doing something more than trying to reform His creation? What if He was trying to prove something to Himself? And that He was afraid of having ultimately failed His own expectations? Or that He was afraid of being judged by another of His kind for having failed?

Shakespear's Sonnet 116 comes to mind, however I feel that the crucifixion is an ideal that is meant to inspire you to endure ridicule from those who don't think the world can improve. Sometimes when you live in a system that is corrupt people don't see do-gooders as good people but as dangerous troublemakers and dreamers. The crucifixion should inspire you to stand up and stick out, taking it on the chin from the system and then making a point. Its, in a way, like complaining at the DMV about an injustice. Nobody else does it, and they get made at you if they're behind you in line.

Spoiler: sonnet 116 by Shakespear

Shakespeare's Sonnet 116:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand’ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Even if the Bible doesn't make this case, it could be made by the right story-teller. After all, what more could the Bible be than a story meant to provide meaning to the lives of those who find inspiration in it?

Its a bit more than that, but it doesn't provide the meaning. Lives already have meaning.

 

[sealchan]

This whole concern with who is being logical and who is not...the problem is that with the "problem of origins" there is no logical answer. It is a mystery. Either something can come from nothing (illogical or, perhaps, simply irrational, yet axiomatically true) or there was always something before from which something after came (simple, causational logic with the inelegance of infinitude). Neither is a priori defined to be true in any logical context other than the perspective of limited human knowledge and speculation. I mean which is more logical? An infinitie universe that was never created, or a universe which wasn't and then suddenly was?

Logic has nothing to contribute to this discussion.

To contemplate such things is to invoke imagination and creative thinking. That, in and of itself, enriches the mind and satisfies the soul. Neither science nor faith in the form of mythic creation stories has anything substantial on each other at this point, but the stories that either tell can be spiritual instructive.

 

[shmogie]

"It was foretold!" - this old line is another thing I have noticed gets pulled out quite often. It's like a form of reverse psychology. "See... I knew you would be a non-believer!" Almost as if there is some hope that the unbelieving person will be compelled to stay the course of disagreement by converting just so that the other will still be wrong. It's like those Looney Toons bits where Bugs goes back and forth with Elmer Fudd/Yosemite Sam and the "smarter" one ends up reversing position so the "dumber" party ends up saying the opposite of what they were arguing in the first place.

As for your "ant and the F-22" analogy - it's bad. An ant isn't tasked with pledging allegiance to the F-22 by its fellow ants. If it were, I wouldn't begrudge the ant telling his brethren to go stuff it... not one iota.

And your mini-rant about "much that (I) will go to (my) grave not understanding" - did I ever claim otherwise? All I said was I wasn't willing to worship something I didn't or couldn't understand. Do you think I don't accept my limitations or something? Do you think this is about trying to be "superior" to God? Hardly. What is there to be superior to? I ask you? Am I superior to NOTHING? I don't even claim that. You waste your breath.

You sure extrapolate a lot of subliminal messages that weren't intended. No "reverse psychology " lol, just a simple fact that was written 2,000 years ago, and you are an example of the truth of this fact, "some will believe and some won't". Why does that bother you so much ? Your twisted syntax in describing how, in your mind, this reverse psychology is supposed to work is hilarious, the essence of victimhood. The F-22 analogy is quite appropriate, you stated you didn't "understand " God, and I heartily agreed, using the analogy to show the relative amount of understanding you can never have. By your use of the language, I suspect you are a Brit. If so, you might have to ask someone about this reference, or look it up on the internet. Your postings remind me of Abbot and Costello's " who's on first " bit, a real hoot

 

[shmogie]

Just because you do not accept Allah as God does not make it so, Allah merely means God, just like Gud, Tuhan, Brahman, etc.. There are no doubt people of other religions who do not accept the Christian God you believe in, but that does not negate the fact the English word God means whatever other names God is in other religions and languages.

You must admit that the moslem god has a plethora of unsavory and brutal characteristics, and if you were to ask a Middle Eastern Christian if they were the same, you would be told no. Nevertheless, I make no pretense of being an arabic linguist, and I accept your explanation.

 

[shmogie]

You're whole comment to me was a straw man. If you need help figuring out what that is, why it's a logical fallacy, and how you applied it, then let me know.

Your entire response is bogus, I don't think you know the rules of logic, thus making it whatever you say it is, bad boy

 

[shmogie]

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

quran 157-158

Right out of the devils handbook, written by his maniacal blood drenched, pedophile prophet, well done, don't mind if I think it is all crazy nonsense as are most things in the koran and hadith. Sorry, but those who were there attested to it, what this thuggish reprobate dreamed up 600 years later means jack.

 

[Repox]

Have you ever thought about how bizarre the crucifixion story is? Imagine the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven. He looks down onto earth and says to himself:

• 
  Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin...
  Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human for all eternity. I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them. I HATE IT! I tried killing all the humans and animals once in the flood. That certainly did not fix the problem.
  
  So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me as a sacrifice to me. That, finally, will make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me.

How much sense does this make?

The story doesn't make sense because it is probably not true. If you do scholarly research, you discover son of God and crucifixion stories didn't emerge until 40 to 50 years after Jesus was murdered. Here is a good reference for those ideas, The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. Prior to Jesus movement leaders circulating those stories, Jesus was regarded as a wise man or sage. My personal opinion is Jesus was God, and God is a duality. Therefore, we would have Jesus referring to himself as two persons.

 

[Kenny]

My main beef with the story is that, from an aesthetic standpoint, an all powerful being can make no meaningful "sacrifice."

Now juxtapose that with God, in human form, offering His life to save yours. Does He truly stand to lose ANYTHING if His human form dies? No.

How can a "sacrifice" be termed as such with no associated cost to the one making the sacrifice?

I disagree--at least within the context of Christianity!

When God swore on Himself that He would bring it to pass, the associated cost was His very being. He stood to loose everything He created.

 

[Kenny]

Lastly, you would also likely claim that you speak according to the knowledge that God bestows on you, would you not? If this is the case, then any inconsistencies you bring to the table, any failure of logic that shows flaw enough to allow denunciation of your words as untruthful, well... they almost prove that God isn't influencing your communications as a witness, don't they? If not, then what are these issues and inconsistencies indicative of?

Strawman

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Have you ever thought about how bizarre the crucifixion story is? Imagine the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven. He looks down onto earth and says to himself:

• 
  Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin...
  Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human for all eternity. I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them. I HATE IT! I tried killing all the humans and animals once in the flood. That certainly did not fix the problem.
  
  So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me as a sacrifice to me. That, finally, will make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me.

How much sense does this make?

No maybe they expected him to evolve. Like what they had done to Nero. But he seemed not to like it very much and needless to say that maybe they didn't recognize him.
Just a theory.
And the woman; represent by three Mary's primarily who you never see again, and pilot's wife who was the only one that said don't crucify him. Then all you see is new Adams and supposedly friendly control button for um satan. A little prideful I guess.
People in a society are ignorant relatively speaking so even the cringe thought that you are attacked by the very same theories that pretend to be helpful or loving, sometimes aren't. Then they claim oh evolve. The love doesn't surpass you, it's what they said afterwards that basically isn't helpful. Throwing up new things doesn't work you have the same things that didn't recognize Jesus himself who could heal, and expected evolution.
I don't, just a theory. Maybe.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

The dying and ressurecting demigod myth is as old as Osiris and Tammuz/Dumu-zi.

Tammuz means "Twin Born" and was lover of Isis, who, (some versions of E. of Gilgamesh) also descended into "hell" or the underworld like it is said Jesus (p) did.

Tammuz is also the reason Judah Thomas is called the twin, Tammus or Thomas are definitely descended from the word/god Tammus, it is even the month of Gemini (I think).

Now if Judah Thomas the Apostle and brother of Jesus (p) is called the twin, but never said to BE anyone's twin, what is the point.

Ancient authors borrowed from even more ancient myths to create the death and ressurection story of Jesus (p), and they could probably not resist leaving a clue as is done many times in the Bible.

"Weeping for Tammuz" is condemned in the OT because Tammuz is a foreign idol, but Hebrew women do it anyway.

They also weep for "the twin" of Tammuz in the Gospels, Jesus (p).

Likewise, Jesus is said to have ressurected and descended to hell where Tammuz was when Ishtar went to rescue him.

Tammuz is the source of the traditions of Christmas also, even the date, the birthday and ressurection of all sun gods were at where Christmas and Easter are now.

Oh evolve story.
I like kinda don't see the apostles again they get covered up with stuff like this.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God's main attributes or qualities are: love, justice, mercy, and wisdom.

In light of that -- explain hell.