The Trinity Explained

[The Omnissiunt One]

Christ's sacrifice was for humanity; through His sacrifice and actions, He sent a message to humanity of God's love and devotion. He was setting an example by which to live so as to bring oneself closer to God's grace and love. Those who learned from that sacrifice were who the sacrifice was for; those who did not learn from the sacrifice were unaccepting of God in the first place, and remained(or remain to this day) that way. The sacrifice was not to appease God's wrath towards sin; it was to relieve people of their sin, via learning from the sacrifice and message, so that they would not condemn themselves to a life seperated from God.

It was an act of love and tolerance, is that so hard to understand?

That interpretation makes some sense, but not much. Was there not another way of demonstrating his love than torturing part of himself/his son? It seems like a pretty bizarre way of conveying a message to me. Anyway, it was my understanding that the very act of the crucifixion allowed God to forgive us, not that it taught us a lesson in order that we be forgiven.

[fr0d0]

As DBP pointed out, this argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Well I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion.

Jesus was the sacrifice that fulfilled the need for further animal sacrifices. The OT deals with such sacrifices as methods for atonement for sins and pleasing Yahweh. To take this method of divine appeasement seriously (setting aside the question as to how do gods benefit from blood on their alters again and why a human sacrifice is the ultimate sacrifice), this is like paying the entire balance on a credit card instead of the minimum payments. Correct?

You made a typo right? It removed the need for other sacrifice.

It's not so much that gods are benefited rather how people feel forgiven. The need for it is human.

No it's never fully paying up a debt. No one accepts the forgiveness and suddenly steps over a line into perfection. This is the direct method of removing the obstacles that would otherwise rob you of the claim to attain perfection... after being made perfect yourself via forgiveness. It's an ongoing process... an aim.

If so, the same rules apply. Animal sacrifices were made TO Yahweh to atone for sins. These are like minimum payments to a credit card company. Along comes Jesus to be the ultimate sacrifice. He's like paying off the balance in full. So we (theoretically) benefit as our sins are forgive (the debt is paid off, as Christians often like to say in their analogies). So Jesus paid for our sins? Who did he pay? He didn't pay us, as you don't pay a debtor for their own debts. You pay the creditor, Yahweh. Just as you pay the credit card company to have our debts forgiven, Jesus was sacrificed TO Yahweh to pay for our sins.

Jesus paid for our sins yes. Jesus, fully human and fully God made himself the sacrifice so that our debts were paid. You must be thinking that Jesus wasn't God to continually draw your conclusions. Otherwise your summation is totally illogical.

Also, it wasn't Yahweh who drove in the nails and raised the cross.

Yahweh, being wholly good, cannot commit evil. Evil is the opposing force.

[Watson]

When you love someone, you are usually willing to die for them. No? Now imagine being willing to die for the whole of humanity. Not only dying, but willingly allowing yourself to be hurt, humiliated, and tortured to show your love for all of those people, some of whom couldn't give two shits less about you. All this, without interfering with anyone's free will directly, but helping those who understand be forgiven.

[fr0d0]

Presuming to speak for other religions as well, are we?

Absolutely. If they did and I knew about it I'd rationally choose them over my own. Do you know better?

[Anomalocaris]

Yahweh, being wholly good, cannot commit evil. Evil is the opposing force.

Is Yahweh omnipotent and omniscient or not? If so, whence come evil? why the need to pay for a sin later when he presumably could have studied his own "intelligent" design ahead of time, recognized the inbuilt propensity to sin, and corrected the shortcoming before Garden of Eden?

---

When you love someone, you are usually willing to die for them. No? Now imagine being willing to die for the whole of humanity. Not only dying, but willingly allowing yourself to be hurt, humiliated, and tortured to show your love for all of those people, some of whom couldn't give two shits less about you. All this, without interfering with anyone's free will directly, but helping those who understand be forgiven.

Willing to die for something seems much less a sacrifice when death is but a formality that ends before too long with resurrection. Any tiny residue of sacrifice associated with running a risk in attempting this disappears completely when omnipotence is known to be shepherding the temporarily dead along the path to resurrection. So at best the so called "sacrifice" is a investment fully expected to at least break even. Which is not surprising given how this charade is well received in the modern megachurchs preaching "wealth gospel". Less naive minds might also detect a more than passing resemblence to sadomasochistic sexual fantasies, where the participant suffers convincingly but leaves without lasting harmed in the end; which might account for some of the orgasmatic behaviors common at revival meetings.

If you think he is willing to be hurt, humiliated, and turtured for real, then why the fervent fanatical obsequious praises?

---

Presuming to speak for other religions as well, are we?

Absolutely. If they did and I knew about it I'd rationally choose them over my own. Do you know better?

Yes, Buddhism is much less annoying because its followers who I have came into contact with keep their irrationality to themselves and engage their fellow men on a more rational basis. I prefer all religions to fall out of public life, but if they can't all go at once, I would will most others to go before Buddhism.

[fr0d0]

Why aren't I 10 foot tall with the ability to manipulate planets with my thoughts. That's just the way it is chuck. No point whining on about what could have been.

Anwser is we don't know. this physical reality works, and we don't have the intelligence to work out a viable alternative.

Yahweh is the positive force. He isn't the negative force, but that negative force exists in opposition.

[theVOID]

You aren't implying that us atheists are an evil force against god are you fr0ds?

I don't think he exists, plain and simple, call it a negative position if you like, but it's got nothing to do with a 'negative force'.

[Anomalocaris]

Why aren't I 10 foot tall with the ability to manipulate planets with my thoughts. That's just the way it is chuck. No point whining on about what could have been.

Anwser is we don't know. this physical reality works, and we don't have the intelligence to work out a viable alternative.

Yahweh is the positive force. He isn't the negative force, but that negative force exists in opposition.

I see the very last grain of rational inquery falling down the spinal column out the bottom.

[DeistPaladin]

When you love someone, you are usually willing to die for them. No? Now imagine being willing to die for the whole of humanity.

Again, refer to my post on understanding cause/effect and motive. When Bruce Willis' character detonated the nuclear bomb inside the killer asteroid to save humanity (and also bring the horrible movie to a close, thereby saving the audience as well), it was a story of a sacrifice to save all of humanity. We understand the motive (the character couldn't wish the asteroid away; it was out of his or anyone else's control) and the cause/effect (well, a laughably unrealistic cause/effect but the concept was that blowing up the asteroid from within would save the world).

Yahweh can simply choose to forgive. The blood sacrifice doesn't help anything. It was just senseless torture and bloodshed.

[Watson]

'Just forgive' is an idotic concept in its entirety, and you can't possibly find it morally accetable. We have the power to let loose or pardon killers on death row if we so choose. Does the prisoner, assuming he really is guilty, learn anything from his crime if he is forgiven and let loose? Hopefully, but probably not; the lesson he probably learns is 'I can get away with murder/rape/anything!'

The 'blood sacrifice' was the method in which Jesus taught God's message of love and selflessness to humanity. Those who understood the lesson learned from it, those who did not understand did not learn.