Since you -don;t- think that jesus died for our sins, granting us some sort of vicarious redemption or atonement through substituion (and I want to reiterate here that I find it increasingly difficult to consider you a christian with every post)...how...exactly, did he die -for- his friends?  Seems like the strongest claim you could make was that he died for his own principles (and even those weren't uniquely his). Hell, at least one of his buddies claimed that he didn't even know the man....three times.

That's suicide by cop, not a sacrifice. A principled stand, perhaps.....an impressive bit of social protest, maybe...but beyond that, what?

(November 11, 2016 at 3:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Since you -don;t- think that jesus died for our sins, granting us some sort of vicarious redemption or atonement through substituion (and I want to reiterate here that I find it increasingly difficult to consider you a christian with every post)...how...exactly, did he die -for- his friends?  Seems like the strongest claim you could make was that he died for his own principles (and even those weren't uniquely his).  Hell, at least one of his buddies claimed that he didn't even know the man....three times.

That's suicide by cop, not a sacrifice.

Sorry Rhythm, my post got deleted i think as i was trying to reply to you. I wanted to say in summary what Nt wright says in his book Simply Jesus. I'll try to quote from a scholar who can put it much better than i ever will on why Jesus had to die and what it means.

Quote:There is of course much more that could be said on this subject.  But trying to boil it down and keep it simple, I think we can and must say at least this.  In Jesus’s own understanding of the battle he was fighting, Rome was not the real enemy.  Rome provided the great gale, and the distorted ambitions of Israel the high-pressure system, but the real enemy, to be met head-on by the power and love of God, was the anti-creation power, the power of death and destruction, the force of accusation, the Accuser who lays a charge against the whole human race and the world itself that all are corrupt and decaying, that all humans have contributed to this by their own idolatry and sin.  The terrible thing is that this charge is true.  All humans have indeed worshipped what is not divine and so have failed to reflect God’s image into the world.  They, and creation, are therefore subject to corruption and death.  At this level the Accuser is absolutely right.
But the Accuser is wrong to imagine that this is the creator’s last word.  What we see throughout Jesus’s public career is that he himself is being accused—accused of being a blasphemer by the self-appointed thought police, accused of being out of his mind by his own family, even accused by his followers of taking his vocation in the wrong direction.  All the strands of evil throughout human history, throughout the ancient biblical story, come rushing together as the gospels tell the story of Jesus, from the demons shrieking at him in the synagogue to the sneering misunderstanding of the power brokers to the frailty and folly of his own friends and followers.  Finally, of course, and this is the point in the story to which the evangelists are drawing our attention—he is accused in front of the chief priests and the council and in the end by the high priest himself.  He is accused of plotting against the Temple; he is accused of forbidding the giving of tribute to Caesar (a standard ploy of revolutionaries); he is accused of claiming to be king of the Jews, a rebel leader; he is accused of blasphemy, of claiming to be God’s son.  Accusations come rushing together from all sides, as the leaders accuse Jesus before Pilate; and Pilate finally does what all the accusations throughout the gospel have been demanding and has him crucified.  Jesus, in other words, has taken the accusations that were outstanding against the world and against the whole human race and has borne them in himself.  That is the point of the story the way the evangelists tell it (p. 186).

good luck!!!

IKR, even Drich can see why that excerpt fails to explain anything to me, lol.  Neverthless, even if I believed that any of it was more than a fairy tale..which I don't...and even if the account presented in that excerpt was accurate with regards to the narrative...which it isn't. (by error of convenient omission)....how would it address the seemingly inexplicable reference to yourself as being a believer in something you -don't- believe in?

So -what- if he was a scapegoat....we don't disagree on that, though I don't think that has anything to do with "dying for his friends".... lol....and again, if it wasn't substitutionary with respect to sin and atonement then in what way is he christ, and...flowing from that, in what way are you christian? In what way is he even sacrificial? Did this death please god somehow? You're describing a story in which a guy got axed because society can be real shitty.....and he decided he'd push them until they did it. That's a fairly common narrative. Again, a principled stand...impressive social protest...but why did he -have- to die, again?

I think that you'll find that the author of that book subscribes to vicarious redemption.....the author was an anglican bishop....he repackages or rebrands substitution, he doesn't challenge or deny it, not even in that passage you quoted. That explicitly lays out how he absorbs into himself the charges made against all of humanity. That is the very definition of the notion of vicarious redemption, of substitution. Let me ask you a question. What happens nxt, after he stands in for all of us, after he absorbs all of our charges? He's executed...yes? What did that do, why is it "for us"?

(November 11, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: IKR, even Drich can see why that excerpt fails to explain anything to me, lol.  Neverthless, even if I believed that any of it was more than a fairy tale..which I don't...and even if the account presented in that excerpt was accurate with regards to the narrative...which it isn't. (by error of convenient omission)....how would it address the seemingly inexplicable reference to yourself as being a believer in something you -don't- believe in?

So -what- if he was a scapegoat....we don't disagree on that, though I don't think that has anything to do with "dying for his friends".... lol....and again, if it wasn't substitutionary with respect to sin and atonement then in what way is he christ, and...flowing from that, in what way are you christian?  In what way is he even sacrificial?  Did this death please god somehow?  You're describing a story in which a guy got axed because society can be real shitty.....and he decided he'd push them until they did it.  That's a fairly common narrative.  Again, a principled stand...impressive social protest...but why did he -have- to die, again?

I think that you'll find that the author of that book subscribes to vicarious redemption.....the author was an anglican bishop....he repackages or rebrands substitution, he doesn't challenge or deny it, not even in that passage you quoted.  That explicitly lays out how he absorbs into himself the charges made against all of humanity.  That is the very definition of the notion of vicarious redemption, of substitution.  Let me ask you a question.  What happens nxt, after he stands in for all of us, after he absorbs all of our charges?  He's executed...yes?  What did that do, why is it "for us"?

Nice talking to you Rhythm, I'll try to address it later God willing! You have many good questions. BTW paper mario rocks! (looking at your avatar) Just bought paper mario for Wii U virtual console lol.

Edit; just realized your avatar may not be specifically related to paper mario, not sure if you played it. Please let me know.

(November 11, 2016 at 5:32 pm)ParagonLost Wrote: Edit; just realized your avatar may not be specifically related to paper mario,

No, that's a very different kind of Mario in his avatar.

(November 11, 2016 at 2:45 pm)ParagonLost Wrote: I don't believe in a God that has foreknowledge of future events. Except for the fact that i think Jesus knew if he continued doing what he did, raising awareness for the kingdom of God: he would get killed.

Yes, but we would assume that God is intelligent and has foresight on levels far beyond our own. Even if he does not know how the future will unfold, he understood that the scenario he created in the garden could lead to rebellion. He might have been disappointed by their actions, but devastated? It was his experiment; he controlled all of the variables. The outcome was within the range of possibilities. He could have re-tooled things and run it again and hoped for a better outcome.

Quote:What i think of the distinction is that it has to do with sins, Jesus died by our sins, not for our sins. But we all know how some people interpret sin. The idea that  someone is obsessed with their sin, or the idea that sin is so cosmic and we should be worried about what sex you sleep with, constantly eager to claim what is a sin or not. I think sin is absence of love and when we don't love or be compassionate we are sinning. Am i doing what is lovely? John mentions that love has no greater place in the heart than to sacrifice ones life for their friends.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, it's a very different interpretation of sin and atonement than I recall from my time as a Christian or from the active Christians on this forum. And I'm not even sure where to start in order to get on the same page, so I'll just leave this unresponded to, if you don't mind.

(November 11, 2016 at 5:47 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(November 11, 2016 at 5:32 pm)ParagonLost Wrote: Edit; just realized your avatar may not be specifically related to paper mario,

No, that's a very different kind of Mario in his avatar.

lol

(November 11, 2016 at 2:30 pm)ParagonLost Wrote:

---

---

(November 11, 2016 at 5:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Erm, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. If "god" just means whatever you want it to mean, then what are we even discussing? You're either pulling our leg, or just injecting loaded terms into everyday experiences for no apparent reason.

Have you read Sam Harris? Just curious, because he describes the same phenomenon although more in a Buddhist context

I haven't read him, but I've read some of his work.

If he does indeed say that, then he's also just playing with words for no good reason. I've heard he has a weird thing for Buddhism. I don't understand why.

A long running, well documented, and constantly studied cultural fixation with the orient and other peoples mysticism.

As for the authors play on words....the field of christendom requires water from time to time, to keep it from getting stale like all the other religions and suffering their fates. The old description is no longer appealing, people have moved on, and this creates a need and a market for people who can explain an old idea in a new way. It allows adherents to think that their faith has somehow changed and been made more accurate, as they have.

It makes it relevant, to them, where the old way no longer seems so. The sheer irony here is lost on exactly as many of them that who don't realize the ad copy is all that's changed, like OP. Stuck in limbo, where he doesn't believe in the things he points to -as- his beliefs and their justifications.