Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: Unwitting testimony is best

If you find anything useful in something I tell you you can be certain it got there unwittingly.

Harbal wrote:

Belinda wrote: Unwitting testimony is best

If you find anything useful in something I tell you you can be certain it got there unwittingly.

Are you trying to end Diogenes' quest, you scoundrel.

thedoc wrote: Are you trying to end Diogenes' quest, you scoundrel.

To be honest, doc, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: Are you trying to end Diogenes' quest, you scoundrel.

To be honest, doc, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Diogenes, the ultimate cynic, was always looking for an honest man. Your self deprecations seemed to have impressed thedoc. Who knows, as an ultra honest atheist you may even be allowed past St. Pete's customs booth.

Goke wrote:Truly there should be a better way but, it was read in the scriptures that when God was contemplating over who will be sent/sacrificed. Jesus offered himself.

Pardon? What was going on in Jerusalem at that time that 'God' needed to punish someone.

Why does an omnipotent God need to offer up His Son to sinners to crucify Him? Why does crucifying the innocent at the hands of wicked men satisfy justice. Wouldn't that only infuriate and further violate justice.
methinks humans are too superstitious and too irrational and naturally self deluding. Surely God has the power to forgive sinners without giving up His own to be mercilessly murdered at the cross. Are Christians saying that God's wrath was taken out on Jesus. And Jesus satisfied his wrath and substituted Himself in our rightful place of condemnation? Is that what victory over sin is. Jesus saving mankind from God's wrath?

Where does Satan fit into this crucifixion of Jesus? Is this salvation from Satan as well. Is this salvation from other sinners as well. Did Jesus take on sinners Satan and God's wrath all at the cross?
Where is the evidence of this event? How would one know this is true? Christians say it is so simple and obvious a child can understand it.

How come I never ever sensed God's presence?
How can you be so sure that there isn't any good in any human being? what if your wrong?
As a true Christian what is your answer to what I said?
How would I come to know God's presence?

Osgart, I think that the idea of incarnations of gods is that the god cannot be understood without a go-between in human form.

The Christ avatar/incarnation embodies certain ethics.

When I say 'Christ' I am not referring to a historical person called Jesus , or Jesus of Nazareth who may or may not have existed.I refer instead to the myth of Christ.

Christians believe that there lived such an historical person commonly referred to as Jesus, and that this historical Jesus is one and the same as the Christ of myth. I am not a Christian, but I can gain from the myth one or two ethical ideas . The ideas may be better expressed by literature other than The Bible, if only because The Bible has for centuries been established as the authentic word of God. The Bible is the work of men. However the inertia of superstition persists, as is evident by some posts right here in philosophynow.

osgart wrote:Why does an omnipotent God need to offer up His Son to sinners to crucify Him? Why does crucifying the innocent at the hands of wicked men satisfy justice. Wouldn't that only infuriate and further violate justice.

I think the notion of justice is misleading, it would suggest God having a sense of grievance, seeking some sort of revenge or remedy. Humans had already punished themselves for their disobedience to their creator; that punishment was to be cast out of Eden into this world - and to die.

Jesus also suffers that same punishment, as a man that was inevitable. We know that he didn't also deserve to die in the way and at that time that he did for the reasons that humans punish each other; Jesus wasn't a thief or a murderer.

But the point is that Jesus did NOT die. He was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven and the message is that the same can be true for ALL humans. Although we have failed our creator, and continue to act against his will - even to the extent of killing Jesus - our creator both forgives us and promises us the eternal life we had once, but forfeited.

(I am not preaching; I'm simply presenting what I understand to be how a Christian might answer your question).

osgart wrote:Why does an omnipotent God need to offer up His Son to sinners to crucify Him? Why does crucifying the innocent at the hands of wicked men satisfy justice. Wouldn't that only infuriate and further violate justice.

- The lesson of God killing Christ on the cross was extreme so it would not be forgotten.
- The lesson has not been forgotten, for thousands of years.
- Had the lesson been an abstract chain of concepts and ‘isms, it would have been forgotten.
- So, the results speak for themselves.


What was the lesson?
- Every human faces the void alone, abandoned, and forsaken.
- At that point natural law becomes the motive force and intent.
- One then spontaneously forgives.
- Life then continues, in the manner described in the lesson of natural law.
- To spontaneously forgive now, as Christ spontaneously forgave then, happens naturally.
- Just as naturally as a cry of anguish and pain torn from your throat. From your heart.
- When spontaneous forgiveness does happen, for the worst of the times done to you as was done to Jesus, then life continues as described in the story.

Q: And you may ask, what if one does not reach that point where one spontaneously forgives?
A: You will. Everyone breaks, even Jesus, although for you it may not be as a result of the worst that life has to offer.
- Or maybe it will be as a result of that, when life leaves the body perceived by man, as it happened for Jesus.

Or, did it happen that way for Jesus? Did his life leave the body perceived by man?
- Weren't there sightings of him after that fateful day?

Disclaimer:
I am not preaching; I'm simply presenting an interpretation of the facts as presented in the story.

Londoner wrote: I think the notion of justice is misleading, it would suggest God having a sense of grievance, seeking some sort of revenge or remedy.

Quite a bit of your explanation I find quite winsome. Yet I'm not entirely so drawn to this particular statement.

My tendency would be to look at it another way. If I may indulge in a little wordplay, let me suggest that we can think of "justice" as meaning you get "just what you deserve." No more, no less. What you sow you reap. What you've done, you pay for. I think that's probably what we have in mind when we talk about a "justice system," or about "seeing justice done." Does that seem to you to reflect a normal understanding of the idea?

Now, in a sense, we all want to see justice. We want to get just what we think we deserve. Moreover, we want people who have done bad things to get what they deserve as well. So we mount a kind of criticism against injustice. We say, "God, if you're really so fair, so just, why do you allow injustice?" We look at the Hitlers and Stalins. We look at the mass-murderers, the rapists, the pornographers, the Wall Street thieves, the politicians and Hollywood celebrities who are discovered, at long last, to have been sexual predators, and we consider their victims. And we ask why this has been allowed to go on. Where has justice been, all this time?

Moreover, we look at good people who didn't seem to get "just what they deserve." We look at Terry Fox, dying young with cancer. We look at Theresa, who spent her life in Calcutta slums and died in poverty. Of young children beaten to death by abusive parents...and so on. And again we say, "When will this be made fair? Where is the justice due both to the innocent and the guilty? Who is in charge of this place anyway?"

If God doesn't have a sense of grievance, we certainly do. And I don't think we're wrong to have it. Isn't it unjust that the violent, despots, perverts, liars and extortionists thrive, while the kind, the naïve, the guileless, the poor and the harmless are trodden beneath their feet? Shouldn't we feel aggrieved when we see such things?

And are we wrong to ask God why He is apparently not doing anything about it?

(I have more thoughts, but it's only fair that I pause there to hear what you think.)

osgart wrote:
Why does an omnipotent God need to offer up His Son to sinners to crucify Him? Why does crucifying the innocent at the hands of wicked men satisfy justice. Wouldn't that only infuriate and further violate justice.

The sacrifice was an illusion, no one can punish an innocent man who has committed no crime. The perpetrators were jealous of Jesus's power and wanted that power for them self believing they lacked that power...and how dare this innocent lamb supersede that power..so they had him killed not knowing that that person Jesus was their own power they didn't know they had, and is why God sacrificed his son, which was himself as a man, he knew that Jesus himself as a man would find strength to bear it..God already being the lion heart that can bear all pain without harm.

God already knows there's no death or suffering the torture of others. Because he knows that what ever others do to you, or what you do to others .. is only ever you doing it to yourself. So god showed by example how to forgive yourself by example. That's how much he loves you, because he loves really himself. Love is all forgiving... when you love you set yourself and other free, love is not demanding..it's free, you are truth and fair which is reliable and honest and that's what justice is. It's knowing yourself and loving yourself... and forgiving yourself.

So God swallowed all the pain himself already knowing death and sin was an illusion, and made this self-sacrifice so that life as a mortal man which is really God having multiple experiences would never have to suffer the pain of death and torture ever again. He showed his love for you by pretending to be a man so that you too as man could learn to love yourself and forgive yourself as he did by example through the embodiment of Jesus Christ as a man....God showed us how to die in order to be born again...risen from the dead into his kingdom which is eternal love and freedom.. You are only ever once born so cannot die.

I'm preaching and don't care, because I care.

"What did Jesus mean when He said, 'It is finished'?" ...his last sayings on the cross,

He meant man owes nothing to God for their sinful nature... that the debt was all paid in full. He was declaring the debt was wiped away completely and forever. Because no one can persecute or harm you other than you yourself. Love never says you owe me.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Now, in a sense, we all want to see justice. We want to get just what we think we deserve. Moreover, we want people who have done bad things to get what they deserve as well. So we mount a kind of criticism against injustice. We say, "God, if you're really so fair, so just, why do you allow injustice?" We look at the Hitlers and Stalins. We look at the mass-murderers, the rapists, the pornographers, the Wall Street thieves, the politicians and Hollywood celebrities who are discovered, at long last, to have been sexual predators, and we consider their victims. And we ask why this has been allowed to go on. Where has justice been, all this time?

Moreover, we look at good people who didn't seem to get "just what they deserve." We look at Terry Fox, dying young with cancer. We look at Theresa, who spent her life in Calcutta slums and died in poverty. Of young children beaten to death by abusive parents...and so on. And again we say, "When will this be made fair? Where is the justice due both to the innocent and the guilty? Who is in charge of this place anyway?"

No one is in charge, you have to live and die in agony just like every body else does, like Jesus did ..who is none other than God himself.Only God suffers, not man. Man is just one of the many experiences God is having as embodied consciousness.

It's not about deserving is it? what about all the little bunnies that die every day ..did they deserve to die. . do you cry over them..why place so much importance on human life ..has human life got more value than that of a bunny rabbit?

Saying that it's not fair and not deserving is like saying ..Does A filthy rich person who has perfect health, who is living the good life and reaching the grand age of 100 years .. then one night died a painless death in their sleep unknowing that he'd even passed deserve that life...would that person ever make such a claim to have deserved that life? ..no, he would be in no position to make such a claim if he hadn't known any other life. All lives are the experiences of God alone not man, ''it's not up to man who is walking even to direct his step'' no one knows if people having dire lives are thinking do they deserve this life ..comparing lives to others is the work of the insecure ego/devil ..not God.


And are we wrong to ask God why He is apparently not doing anything about it?...yes, don't petition God. God gave man his life. Why reject it, kill yourself if you don't like it...No man knows the ways of the Father until he confronts and overcomes his own shadow self... Every one is assigned a particular role in life...that he has to either accept or be cast out into pity me land. It's not that Life is not fair..it's not fair when unfairness becomes an issue, when it's my unfairness...because it's no ones or everyone's unfairness, ...adversity or good fortune are both our teachers, they are Gifts from God in order that we're able to understand the bigger picture...

.

Dontaskme wrote:And are we wrong to ask God why He is apparently not doing anything about it?...yes, don't petition God...

I disagree. I think you're being unfair to the people who want to ask the question. It's a good one, one most people ask themselves at some time in life, and one that any worldview needs to be able to respond to.

Why should injustice be "allowed"? And if there's a God, what need He fear from our "petitions"?

Are you worried He has no answer?

Immanuel Can wrote: I If I may indulge in a little wordplay, let me suggest that we can think of "justice" as meaning you get "just what you deserve." No more, no less. What you sow you reap. What you've done, you pay for. I think that's probably what we have in mind when we talk about a "justice system," or about "seeing justice done." Does that seem to you to reflect a normal understanding of the idea?

I think it blurs some contradictory notions. 'What you've done, you pay for' suggests some sort of set tariff; this is the crime - that is the punishment for that crime. But we also have justice in the sense of 'what you deserve', where the 'you' is more personal, it has its own history, its own situation. In that case, the tariff can vary from case to case, we make allowances (most obviously for children, or those with mental disabilities, but also in cases of trauma, or unusual stress). There is the notion that since people are not identical, to treat them equally would be un-just.

If God doesn't have a sense of grievance, we certainly do. And I don't think we're wrong to have it. Isn't it unjust that the violent, despots, perverts, liars and extortionists thrive, while the kind, the naïve, the guileless, the poor and the harmless are trodden beneath their feet? Shouldn't we feel aggrieved when we see such things?

Again, in those lists, there is a mixture of terms that describe 'how people are' mixed with 'what they do.' So, for example, if somebody is a pervert, then is it right to punish them for being what they are? Similarly, if I am too 'guileless' to take advantage of people, then you cannot say I am virtuous since I have no choice in the matter. And if you feel aggrieved when you see behaviour you don't like, that too is presumably a reflection of your own character.

And are we wrong to ask God why He is apparently not doing anything about it?

What should God do? He could end your sense of aggrievement by removing your sensibility! (For example, presumably a sociopath is not aggrieved by sociopathic behaviour in others, since they would see it as normal.) Or he could remove deviance by making everybody exactly alike; they would not only have to have identical minds, but also live in identical circumstances. (The paradox would be that if God did this, we would not know he had done it, since we would have lost the ability to judge).

God has actually done this for everything else in creation. A cat eating a bird does not think of its behaviour as either good or bad, nor is it judged by other cats...or even by birds.

It is different with humans, we can and do concern ourselves with justice. And although we accept not everybody is alike, nor do we think most people are entirely bound by 'who they are'. And I think that it is this special character of humans that is supposed to come from God, we are in God's image in that we share something of their creator's consciousness and (unlike the cat) we can and do judge ourselves using 'the moral law within me'.

(Incidentally, when I give this sort of argument I think we should recall it was historically put forward not as part of some 'proof of God' but by people who already have absolute certainty that God exists. I think this certainty derived from the argument from design; something must have made this world, something must have ordered it. It may not work with us today, but I think we have to accept that for a long time it was considered that no rational person could doubt there must have been a Creator.

So of course if you don't believe in God, then explanations about why Jesus was crucified won't convince to become a believer. It is an internal argument; it makes a certain sense within the context of Christianity. I took it that if you posed a question that starts ' If God is so merciful... then you are inviting others to suppose, for the sake of the discussion, that there is a God.)