Philosophy Now Forum

It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

True. He did not need to be sacrificed:

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bibl ... zar_16.htm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

Not at the time. The Israelites traditionally settled their debts to their god by the sacrifice of livestock: something pure and valuable from their herds had to be killed.

Leviticus 4:3 -- If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

The bullock is the biggest sacrifice prescribed for collective guilt. But the people had been so very naughty that nothing they owned was sufficient to atone for all their cumulative sin; therefore, much as He wanted to, God could not forgive them. Them's the rules. But, since He is merciful, He solved this problem by engendering a son for the express purpose: he would grow up to be the "unblemished young bullock" of sufficient value to offset the sin of all Israel. (Not intended for use by Romans, Galatians, Phoenecians and sundry other robe-tail riders. That was Jesus' innovation. Sed: What the hey, if I have to go through all that, might as well up my price.)

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

What did you have in mind?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

What did you have in mind?

Just have the war to end all wars (seems to work out in the movies).

PhilX

Immanuel Can wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

What did you have in mind?

Well anybody can die, it would have been far more impressive to have gone on living indefinitely. I mean, if he was still around now, it would be a lot more difficult to not take him sreiously.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

What did you have in mind?

Well anybody can die, it would have been far more impressive to have gone on living indefinitely. I mean, if he was still around now, it would be a lot more difficult to not take him sreiously.

Not such a hot idea Harbal. Think about the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

God is not particularly merciful. In fact i suffered more than Christ over the 20yrs that i have known God to exist - especially in 2003. Just last month when i considered that - yes i did suffer more, the sage or God\'God' stated to me "You Did".

I remain a Christian, fuck nose why.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

What else would people have understood.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's said it was done for the salvation of mankind. Wasn't there a better way?

PhilX

What did you have in mind?

Just have the war to end all wars (seems to work out in the movies).

PhilX

I'm not seeing how that would help. What would that do...kill everybody? I'm not sure how that amounts to "salvation."

No, I mean, if, as you say, it was "done for the salvation of mankind," what kind of "better way" would you imagine there being? It's an honest question.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
What did you have in mind?

Just have the war to end all wars (seems to work out in the movies).

PhilX

I'm not seeing how that would help. What would that do...kill everybody? I'm not sure how that amounts to "salvation."

No, I mean, if, as you say, it was "done for the salvation of mankind," what kind of "better way" would you imagine there being? It's an honest question.

Can you accept positive evolution?

PhilX

Immanuel Can wrote: I'm not seeing how that would help. What would that do...kill everybody? I'm not sure how that amounts to "salvation."

I remember a saying that has been attributed to the US Marines,

"We don't decide of the enemy is good or evil,
That is God's job,
Our job is to arrange the meeting."

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Can you accept positive evolution?

PhilX

Evolution is neither positive nor negative, evolution is only change to fit a changing environment. There is no such thing as "positive evolution". Salvation has nothing to do with evolution.

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm not seeing how that would help. What would that do...kill everybody? I'm not sure how that amounts to "salvation."

Besides, god had already tried it with flood. Load of good that did.

Immanuel Can wrote:No, I mean, if, as you say, it was "done for the salvation of mankind," what kind of "better way" would you imagine there being? It's an honest question.

Come, come, Mr Can; I think you are feigning a lack of imagination. Can you really not think of a better way to forgive someone than to have them torture your son to death?

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Can you accept positive evolution?

PhilX

Evolution is neither positive nor negative, evolution is only change to fit a changing environment. There is no such thing as "positive evolution". Salvation has nothing to do with evolution.

From a certain POV, you're right. Since the goal is to live our lives to the fullest, then evolution that meets that goal has to be positive. As for salvation, maybe God has somehow arranged it that, indirectly, salvation can result.

PhilX