Do Christians worship a suicide victim?

[madog]

 

So basically all your evidence and faith for the most extraordinary claims imaginable are based on some Fishermen claiming to have been disciples of the son of God decades after his apparent Crucifixion ..... [3]

 

 

 
 
3) No

 

? So the New Testament wasn't based on the fishermen's claims? who else could have told the story other than the odd apparent eye witness that could only speak about one event they had seen? ...

The Character in the stories didn't write anything, without the apostles the particular story called the New Testament wouldn't exist or at least in its present form .... 

So I would be interested in what is your basis for your belief in this character "Jesus the son of God" ? and what was the basis for that belief?

[Losty]

In my experience Christians tend to state that their "Jesus" chose to allow the crusifiction and had the power to stop it?

Is that suicide or delusion? 

People do envoke suicide by willfully making a sudden threatening move when in the sights of police marksmen to knowingly end their own life ....

Personally I find that a cowards way out, as they could have ended their own life without involving others .... Apparently this "Jesus" character could have saved his own life with Woo as some other suicide victims could have saved their own life by not making a sudden move ....

Dog.

Personally, I find the notion that there is a cowardly way to end your own life to be a disturbing idea. Is there a right and wrong way to become so mentally ill that you can no longer bear to live? Is there a brave vs cowardly way to be so desperate to end your life?

[madog]

In my experience Christians tend to state that their "Jesus" chose to allow the crusifiction and had the power to stop it?

Is that suicide or delusion? 

People do envoke suicide by willfully making a sudden threatening move when in the sights of police marksmen to knowingly end their own life ....

Personally I find that a cowards way out, as they could have ended their own life without involving others .... Apparently this "Jesus" character could have saved his own life with Woo as some other suicide victims could have saved their own life by not making a sudden move ....

Dog.

Personally, I find the notion that there is a cowardly way to end your own life to be a disturbing idea. Is there a right and wrong way to become so mentally ill that you can no longer bear to live? Is there a brave vs cowardly way to be so desperate to end your life?

I have not got to the position that the pain of living is so bad that the only alternative is to end it .... I cannot YET imagine so much pain that ending life is the only option, but would not describe that as being mentally ill, nor judge those unfortunately in that position ...

But if someone is going to end their life ....  involving others just to make a grand gesture, when there are other options, appears to me to be both selfish and cowardly ...

[Losty]

I would venture to guess that people who go the death by cop route are, more often than not, mentally ill. Haven't done any research on it though.

[madog]

I would venture to guess that people who go the death by cop route are, more often than not, mentally ill. Haven't done any research on it though.

Actually I didn't introduce that phrase .... But regardless of the phrase, in my opinion, someone that decides to die by purposefully going into a situation that will end their life, regardless of whether it is to make a grand gesture, is committing suicide.

I know the religious like to use the word sacrifice .... but if you sacrifice another human being for Woo it is still murder in my opinion. It follows that killing yourself for woo is suicide ...


So if the death of the Jesus character was the God characters doing then it was murder ....

If the Jesus character knew the Character would murder him if he followed a particular path and with that knowledge continued along that path it was suicide ....

[madog]

4)  I am not trying to interpret text as it didn't come from the alleged messenger .... you keep trying to make me go forward in time and work back .... [4]

5) I don't deny fishermen wrote stories, set decades after the main character died, that propelled them into scriptures as apostles, all that tells me is they made themselves pretty important with their claims of being the disciples of the son of God. Yes that would further their own ends ... [5]

6) Very few theists or atheists agree on anything so nothing new there .... [6]

4) This isn't an interpretation? "Laying down his own life purposefully is suicide ..."

5) Great. Now, if you care to intelligently discuss those made up stories (as you said you wanted to do HERE: "I can discuss someones fictional message without believing in the credibility of the message ... stop being silly"; and began to do in the OP), understanding the fictional world the authors created will be a great help in doing that. Agreed?

4) yes I'll give you that .... I am interpreting a story that came through text in the bible ....

5) I believe I have been doing that? In the world they created the "God" character had the power to achieve his objectives without sacrificing his son (himself) .....

It is very hard to have an intelligent discussion when the story is so ridiculous. It is made harder because there are so many interpretations of the story from cherry picking and interpretations by those with their own agenda .... 

So what is so intelligible about me choosing the bits that suit my conclusion or is that reserved for all those Christians from all the thousands of denominations that choose the bits that suit their conclusions?

The story: bits and pieces as to include all the interpretations would take a book as big as the bible ....

The Jesus character they created was also the God character that was sacrificing himself, so arguably it was murder if the God caused the death .....  or suicide if the Jesus purposefully allowed his own death ....

Note I didn't write the story where a father set up events that would kill his son who was in fact himself, and a son who willingly went along with events that would lead to his own death when in fact it was the death of his father ....

But according to the story neither the father or the son died .....  so not a sacrifice. what did they give up?

My suicide claim is based on the fact that the Jesus character went along with events that he knew would lead to his own death according to the story tellers .... 

Simply put, jumping in front of a train is still suicide even though the train killed you ... The fact the person believed his/her children would be better off if he/she was dead doesn't mean it isn't suicide even if they are correct about their children ....

[madog]

6) Very few theists or atheists agree on anything so nothing new there .... [6]

 
6) Exactly, they don't agree on much. So when scholarly atheists and theists DO agree that the narratives about Jesus are not vicarious suicide narratives, it should make someone who shares your opinion stop and consider the possibility that you don't have all of the information to form your own intelligent judgment.

I have not seen where scholarly theists and atheists have come to an agreement over whether the Jesus character committed suicide by his actions?  Please show me where ....

Maybe you should be telling Christians, most of which are indoctrinated and often haven't read a bible fully "that you don't have all of the information to form your own intelligent judgment"  ....

[Ignorant]

Freely going into a situation with fore knowledge that it will kill you is still suicide, if there is another option.... A train may have killed you but putting yourself in a position where it will hit you is suicide ....

This is what I was talking about. If I have to accept that definition to discuss this topic... then the game is rigged. Doesn't seem like you're open to a discussion about it.

You brought in apostles and the apostolic history [1] ......  The apostles are primary the 12 disciples of "Jesus the son of God", unless you mean them in another way? ... [2]  

Just using the apostles as proof of anything is an attempt to prove Jesus is the son of God [3] ... If their was no Jesus son of God their would be no apostles   [4]

1) Yes, because you asked me (HERE, #3) how I know anything about what I claim to know about Jesus's message (my answer HERE, #4). I don't understand how it is surprising that the apostles and the apostolic history have anything to do with what I claim to know about the Jesus story today in 2016 CE.

2) Yup, that's them.

3) Would you mind connecting those dots for me? Where have you seen me propose the argument of the type: 1) The Apostles are proof of X, therefore, Jesus is the Son of God. <= I have explicitly documented and affirmed the exact opposite in my previous post HERE. 

4) I don't follow (and neither does your conclusion). If I can propose at least one alternative possibility, then your claim here is just false. Allow me: If there was a merely human Jesus, there would be apostles. There, that was easy.

? So the New Testament wasn't based on the fishermen's claims? [1] who else could have told the story other than the odd apparent eye witness that could only speak about one event they had seen? ... [2]

The Character in the stories didn't write anything, without the apostles the particular story called the New Testament wouldn't exist or at least in its present form .... [3]

So I would be interested in what is your basis for your belief in this character "Jesus the son of God" ? and what was the basis for that belief? [4]

1) You asked if ALL of my evidence and faith is BASED on a 1st century Palestinian Jewish fisherman's claims. I said no. If I disagreed with the proposition in your question, here are the only possible things I could have said yes to and remain consistent with my no to your question:

a) NONE of my evidence and faith is BASED on a 1st century Palestinian Jewish fisherman's claims. <= Clearly, this one isn't the case given my previous comments on the subject. You, however, immediately concluded that this was the only other possibility.

b)  Some of my evidence and faith is NOT BASED on a 1st century Palestinian Jewish fisherman's claims. <= Consistent logic would dictate that I must say yes to this if I say no to your question

c) Some of my evidence and faith is BASED on a 1st century Palestinian Jewish fisherman's claims. <= Consistent logic would dictate that, due to my rejection of your question, a) being false, and b) being true, that this also must be true.

Logic Square

2) See above. Clearly the apostolic witness is SOME of my evidence upon which I base my historical conclusions as well as my faith.

3) Exactly

4) I've already told you that. See THIS AGAIN #4. With the additional, and no doubt unsatisfactory for you, elaboration that the "basis" of faith is God himself who gives it as a gift. The history of the events and message themselves, the history of the transmission of those events and message, the underlying anthropology and philosophy inherent in the message and events transmitted, the continuity of the ancient transmitting community with the community of the present day [i.e. all of those being evidence] converge and concur with [i.e. as opposed to "demonstrate that"] my own experience within human reality of encountering the divine author of the message through today's apostolic community and receiving that message as true on his divine authority.

[madog]

[more to come in an additional post]

I posted this in another thread, but it is pertinent as regards the story/message being told .... The story is rehashed from previous events in the storytellers lives, so they were most probably creating a church from rehashed history ...

This guy has a lot of good stuff, but this video covers some of the history that is relevant .... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzbp8ZiXpnc

---

Below is details of him on wiki ... if you want to check him out ... he has a doctorate in ancient history from Columbia University, etc ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

[Ignorant]

4) yes I'll give you that .... I am interpreting a story that came through text in the bible ...

Great. We've agreed on something!

5) I believe I have been doing that? In the world they created the "God" character had the power to achieve his objectives without sacrificing his son (himself) .....

Really? Then why would it matter, in a discussion about whether or not Jesus's passion is vicarious suicide, whether or not Jesus himself actually wrote the story down (which you have continuously challenged me on)? Also, statements like this:

"If "God" wanted his message clearly recorded he would have used his son to record his message not those that were already sinful in his eyes."

This does not assume the world of the author's invention in order to understand it. In their world, God didn't send his son to write down his own message. Your insistence that the world invented by the author's should have included this aspect is not a serious engagement with that world. Instead, given that God did not send his son to write down his message in the world of the authors, an intelligent question to ask about the text is, "why" rather than "they made a mistake". 

It is made harder because there are so many interpretations of the story from cherry picking and interpretations by those with their own agenda .... 

=). I really enjoyed this statement, especially given the next one.

So what is so intelligible about me choosing the bits that suit my conclusion or is that reserved for all those Christians from all the thousands of denominations that choose the bits that suit their conclusions?

I think you meant "unintelligible". Clearly, I find their cherry picking and conclusions as inadequate as yours. Do you want to try to understand the message in the fullest sense possible, or would you rather use logical fallacies to suit your conclusion? You don't strike me as someone who typically does that. So why do it here?

The Jesus character they created was also the God character that was sacrificing himself, so arguably it was murder if the God caused the death .....  or suicide if the Jesus purposefully allowed his own death ....

This hinges on two inadequate assumptions: 1) your assuming that you adequately grasp the meaning of Trinity and the incarnation, and 2) your assumption that you adequately grasp the concept of suicide (which, Lotsy has already pointed to inadequacies)

you have shown a reluctance to budge on either of those.

But according to the story neither the father or the son died .....  so not a sacrifice. what did they give up?

Are you sure about that? It is pretty evident from the text that the authors claim that Jesus died, and stayed dead until the third day. Do you want to engage with that piece of the story or ignore it?

I have not seen where scholarly theists and atheists have come to an agreement over whether the Jesus character committed suicide by his actions?  Please show me where ....

Exactly. They haven't. I haven't even seen an atheist scholar come to that conclusion. Why? Probably because it's not a scholarly conclusion given the information in the text. They come to all sorts of other conclusions... you might check those out.

Maybe you should be telling Christians, most of which are indoctrinated and often haven't read a bible fully "that you don't have all of the information to form your own intelligent judgment"  ....

What makes you think that I don't?