Philosophy Now Forum

I have always found this idea rather puzzling, that the death of Jesus is represented as a human sacrifice.

To me it never made much sense to me. The usual response from Xians is the stock phrase "he died to save our sins", or something like that.
This seems in compatible with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient god. Why would god have to act in this way. The other phrase in "explanation" is "God gave his only begotten son,".

There are a few contradictions here. If a god is omnipotent, then he can beget as many sons as he wishes. But there are bigger issues. "Gave" in what way? Gave to whom? To fulfil what moral law? To whom is such an act appealing to? Surely this implies that God is acting to a standard beyond himself in some way; that he was imperfect.

So how does killing a rabbi, save our sins? To what universal Karma does God have to appeal to, what higher order of good?

Having studied sacrifice in the ancient world, this act is even more puzzling to the modern world. The Greeks were smart. The slaying of the fatted calf had many functions. It meant that everyone got to eat, before the meat rotted, that it was a massive carnival act of communion that brought the community together. God/s got to share in the feast. Greeks would select the 'special bits" (actually stuff like the spleen and pancreas that were unpalatable), the bits that only gods would favour. They would be burned and the smoke ascending to heaven would indicate god/s pleasure.
The bottom line is that giving to god meat and other libations would bring favour from the divine will.

This is the spirit in which Jesus's death was seen 2000 years ago. But this is not the sort of God that Xity later insisted upon. The Crucifixion seems incompatible with a limitless god, but a petty one.

Any thing missed?

Think he was a masochist. This video explains it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF0zO7uANMI

I think Little Miss Rarity was Jebus (Jebus was a woman.)

Consciousness is holy . So what you do in consciousness can be a sin against it. Jesus was explaining consciousness in a parable form. In doing that he was put to death which he new he would be. Cos to do it he had to break some of the laws of some made up half local religious bull. He jesus was was describing nonlocality as conscience to the local event. Universal love.

I am an agnostic. However, I have speculated on the philosophical problem of an omniscient God sacrificing himself.
Google "math chicken paradox" Chicken is a game where two cars race towards each other on a collision path. The first person to swerve loses and is a chicken.
Suppose "A" is a mortal omniscient being. "B" is a normal human. If they play chicken B will always win! *
Perhaps God became not all knowing because he is all powerful and so therefore must also have the power of not knowing.
* If "B" decides to never swerve he will always win. "A" knows that B will never swerve and so must ( we are assuming that "A" acts in his own best interest.) swerve. To make this clearer, imagine chicken played by two mortal, not omniscient people. It would be a winning strategy to show your opponent that you made it impossinle for your car to swerve or slow down during the contest.

raw_thought wrote:I am an agnostic. However, I have speculated on the philosophical problem of an omniscient God sacrificing himself.
Google "math chicken paradox" Chicken is a game where two cars race towards each other on a collision path. The first person to swerve loses and is a chicken.
Suppose "A" is a mortal omniscient being. "B" is a normal human. If they play chicken B will always win! *
Perhaps God became not all knowing because he is all powerful and so therefore must also have the power of not knowing.
* If "B" decides to never swerve he will always win. "A" knows that B will never swerve and so must ( we are assuming that "A" acts in his own best interest.) swerve. To make this clearer, imagine chicken played by two mortal, not omniscient people. It would be a winning strategy to show your opponent that you made it impossinle for your car to swerve or slow down during the contest.

So, for your "game" God should always be a chicken. That is omniscient. A logical proof of the existance of an omniscient being. In fact, as God loves humanity, He would never let B crushing. What should be your conclusion? A chicken God? That is B?
Actually not knowing is not powerful.

I am confused. How is my argument (actually I did not create the chicken paradox. It is validated math. I simply took omniscient being and applied it to God and the crucifixion ) a proof that an omniscient being exists?
God would be "chicken" in that he would swerve. It has no connection to character.
The conclusion would be the same, God would swerve. If God is willing ( or not willing) to sacrifice his life for another is superfluous. The only important conclusion is that an omniscient being will always lose at chicken. If he chooses to not swerve,he will die and that is still losing.

raw_thought wrote:I am confused. How is my argument (actually I did not create the chicken paradox. It is validated math. I simply took omniscient being and applied it to God and the crucifixion ) a proof that an omniscient being exists?
God would be "chicken" in that he would swerve. It has no connection to character.
The conclusion would be the same, God would swerve. If God is willing ( or not willing) to sacrifice his life for another is superfluous. The only important conclusion is that an omniscient being will always lose at chicken. If he chooses to not swerve,he will die and that is still losing.

Ok, now I see. Thank you.
(sorry, I'm not English mother-tongue, sometimes I don't catch the sense at once)

Thank you!
You have restored my faith in humanity! When I saw a reply had been made my heart sunk. I have posted on internet sites and the majority of responses when my point is made clear are ad hominums. People hate to admit that someone other than themselves have a valid point.
Sir,
You are smart and have class!

raw_thought wrote:Thank you!
You have restored my faith in humanity! When I saw a reply had been made my heart sunk. I have posted on internet sites and the majority of responses when my point is made clear are ad hominums. People hate to admit that someone other than themselves have a valid point.
Sir,
You are smart and have class!

I am pleased, thank you. I always read to increase my knowledge. (actually I "try" to read).

What I find strange is the number of Christians who believe that substitutionary atonement is somehow moral.

I have argued this in many different ways and while some lurkers and many non-theists have agreed, most Christians on the boards have not.

They cannot justify it but almost none have dropped that free ticket into heaven that they have sold their souls to Satan for. Mythical Satan to you and I but not to them of course.

I hate to see poor morals in people.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:What I find strange is the number of Christians who believe that substitutionary atonement is somehow moral.

What I find strange is that you appear not to understand this most basic of concepts: If God exists, God is, by definition, the ultimate standard for morality. If substitutionary atonement is that which is determined by God to be the best path, it cannot be anything other than moral. Christians believe in God, ergo...

It was a very simple message at the time, it said that Jesus came to free us from the sin that had enslaved us. Of course very simple messages don't really last in an ever more sophisticated world, so since The Bible can never change, the message remains open to ridicule in a more modern era. Which of course any source of information should be, be it a science paper, a book on philosophy or whatever. Religion has a get out of jail free card only on one thing, that is that The Bible is perfect, but as historians have shown not just the history is lacking and the evidence is lacking but everything it says is now subject to what we like to call in philosophy an honest reasonable ability to explain it. Hence The Bible does not by magic as an ancient and classical tomb get to just be true because someone says so: some council decides what is included in it or not, or indeed such inequitable means have ever made history more apt, because they said so.

The Bible is a book like any other book, it has its truths and it has questionable things in it filtered through the minds of weak and mortal and fragile and fickle men, subject in the same way to any falsehood and weakness men are subject to. The Bible is no more true, even The Gospels, than any other book is true just because fallible men say so.

Of course it makes no sense, because it's a load of shit.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Of course it makes no sense, because it's a load of shit.

Interesting, but not helpful.

I was trying to unpack the understanding that the believer has, to find out what sense it makes to them.

Christians tasked with the job of teaching me when I was young were forever making the same stock statements about 'salvation' and 'redemption' and NONE of it made any sense. I was not a stupid child, but I found myself resisting their teaching, because it appeared to be a "load of shit".

But I'm not interested in repeating my opinion; I was trying ti illicit the 'logic' of the believer and how they manage to make sense of this nonsense.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I have always found this idea rather puzzling, that the death of Jesus is represented as a human sacrifice.

To me it never made much sense to me.

I had exactly the same opinion until many years after God made itself aware to me, and all the preachers seem to attempt to convey to us with such certainty that they actually understand it and unfortunately have been painting an inaccurate picture of God ever since.

Let me, if you will attempt to explain what i have come to understand. "Heaven" and "Hell" do exist right here on Earth, i use quotes because each subject are open opinion as to what these states, or some people more ofter refer to them as 'places', actually are.

I have had experience of both, but unfortunately far more of the hell. Its is actually in the buy bull that one will hate ones life to attain heaven.

So getting back to Christ. In my case i had an abortion, in agreement with my partner at the time i was quite young barely employed etc etc.. Many years later God made itself aware to me in a very nasty way. Over the years it basically kicked me in the ass, mentally and physically when i have digressed from what appears 'it' wanted from me in life - to be my best. I wouldn't wish hell on my worst enemy, if i had one. When in the thick of it i considered that i quite possibly was Hitler or the like in a past life.
Sometimes this 'treatment' went on for over 3 months and i can tell you ive hated God more than you or anyone can ever imagine. As i stated above, this painted picture of God by the preachers falls far from the truth of God.
Occasionally God, or a sage (thats another story readable on my website) would communicate with the words 'get heaven' to me. And the times i have had a taste of it...well its something worth having Faith to gain.

So to get back to Christ. I state this with no word of a lie, over the earlier years while under God's duress and many times i shouted alone just fucking nail me to a crucifix.

So do i want heaven? Yes i do. Can i hate God & Christ? No i can't. If Christ comes through for me in what has been projected in relation to true love..i will as i have in the past shed more than a few tears for that man.

Is this any clearer or just more confusing...it makes more sense for me than it did when i was a mere believer.
ps. Its been confirmed i didnt kill a soul...fortherecord.