Why did God require a sacrifice of Himself to Himself?

[tavarish]

@Jaysyn- Sure he didn't need to give us free will, he could have just made mortal angels, more angels or some robots.

Yes, and he gives us the choice to accept him or spend eternity in (at the most optimistic) a place where you wouldn't want to be, although the Bible is a bit more colorful in descriptions.

What a loving God this is.

I can't even begin to tell you how much of a cop out this free will argument is. If God had wanted us to worship him, why didn't he make robots? I'm sure it would have turned out better, wouldn't it? It seems like the God of the Bible either doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, doesn't give a shit, or doesn't exist.

@Caecilian-That's why his coming is a sacrifice. I think robin williams said it best.. phenominal cosmic power, itty bitty living space. An infinite being could necessarily suffer I guess, but I'm talking about Jesus sufering.

An infinite being that could have literally solved all of man's problems and he does a bunch of parlor tricks in a place where miracle working and superstition is common. Can you get any more ambiguous? He could have solved world hunger or given insight into the world of medicine, but he decided to walk on water and turn water into wine. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming the gospels are true.

Why couldn't he, oh, I don't know, turn the shithole of a desert where he lived into a fertile land that produces crops forever? Nope, it's better to heal one or two people and then have it written about decades after the fact via a massive game of telephone. It would have been awesome if Jesus gave some insight into some scientific ventures, like the theory of relativity, or even gravity. Woops, what we got was some vague guidelines about how to treat slaves and to sell all of your shit.

Honestly? This is what happens when an infinite being comes to Earth? Especially knowing that his time is limited?

And this is supposed to be for the greater good so God can feel better about himself? How about the notion that God had to "know" what's it's like to be human and suffer? Some all-knowing deity there. "Yup, I guess being a human sucks. All is forgiven. My bad!"

[ecolox]

Yes, and he gives us the choice to accept him or spend eternity in (at the most optimistic) a place where you wouldn't want to be, although the Bible is a bit more colorful in descriptions.

What a loving God this is.

You don't seem to grasp what accepting Him means. It's like accepting the command "love your neighbor".

I can't even begin to tell you how much of a cop out this free will argument is.

I'm getting the idea you can't tell us much worth hearing.

If God had wanted us to worship him, why didn't he make robots?

Probably becaues robots are boring, duh.

I'm sure it would have turned out better, wouldn't it?

No, why do you ask? Did you think you were right?

It seems like the God of the Bible either doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, doesn't give a shit, or doesn't exist.

It would be wise to replace "the God of the Bible" with "tavarish of the Atheist Forums", and my bet is on you not existing.

An infinite being that could have literally solved all of man's problems and he does a bunch of parlor tricks in a place where miracle working and superstition is common.

God was represented here and we're told to cherish essential, correct ideas. How can you blame God? Man simply lacks the will to be without problems, because he thinks he can find a "better" way.

He could have solved world hunger or given insight into the world of medicine, but he decided to walk on water and turn water into wine. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming the gospels are true.

The irony is that He did solve world hunger and disease, man is simply unwilling to accept the solution.

Why couldn't he, oh, I don't know, turn the shithole of a desert where he lived into a fertile land that produces crops forever?

Your problem is that you require God to hand you paradise. No wonder you don't like God, spoiled rotten brats never do.

Nope, it's better to heal one or two people and then have it written about decades after the fact via a massive game of telephone.

You look right past the point and then make exclaimations. Who cares.

It would have been awesome if Jesus gave some insight into some scientific ventures, like the theory of relativity, or even gravity.

At least then the people could eat - like they do now, or not.

Woops, what we got was some vague guidelines about how to treat slaves and to sell all of your shit.

You should try it.

Honestly? This is what happens when an infinite being comes to Earth? Especially knowing that his time is limited?

You're still talking about it? I thought you would've forgotten about it this far into your post.

And this is supposed to be for the greater good so God can feel better about himself? How about the notion that God had to "know" what's it's like to be human and suffer? Some all-knowing deity there. "Yup, I guess being a human sucks. All is forgiven. My bad!"

God was just trying to help and all you can do is gripe and complain. I like being a human. It's rad.

[Minimalist]

You don't seem to grasp what accepting Him means. It's like accepting the command "love your neighbor".

Stolen from the Greeks....back when they still worshiped the Olympian gods. You thus glibly repeat what is a pagan mantra. Whoever invented your 'jesus' wasn't even original!

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus

[Caecilian]

You don't seem to grasp what accepting Him means. It's like accepting the command "love your neighbor".

Stolen from the Greeks....back when they still worshiped the Olympian gods. You thus glibly repeat what is a pagan mantra. Whoever invented your 'jesus' wasn't even original!

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus

No, of course not- not original at all. And furthermore: actually intended to be unoriginal.

I've started reading Thomas Thompson's The Messiah Myth. Its an interesting book, well-argued but often heavy going (lots of long scriptural quotations). Thompson's position seems to be this:

'Jesus' is essentially a literary device. The teachings attributed to 'jesus' come from a variety of sources- Hebrew, Aramaic, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek. In practice, its impossible to say which teachings originally come from where, since the entire region had a shared set of spiritual-religious tropes. Some of the sayings of 'jesus' are demonstrably identical (or nearly so) to the sayings in much older texts.

The 'jesus' figure, like 'david' and 'moses' has the literary role of repeating already well-known sayings. He isn't intended to be original, or real- and according to Thompson, early christians would not have regarded him as a historical figure.

Makes sense to me.

[annatar]

You don't seem to grasp what accepting Him means. It's like accepting the command "love your neighbor".

Stolen from the Greeks....back when they still worshiped the Olympian gods. You thus glibly repeat what is a pagan mantra. Whoever invented your 'jesus' wasn't even original!

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus

hah! same as muslims
"A man is not a believer who fills his stomach while his neighbour is hungry." said muhammed.
there is no creativity among prophets i guess

You don't seem to grasp what accepting Him means. It's like accepting the command "love your neighbor".

one good statement doesn't make whole belief true. next command you will have to accept would be "start a holy crusade." or "burn witches at stake" or "brush your teeth."

[Welsh cake]

Why did God require a sacrifice of Himself to Himself?

Well its either because the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god of the Bible failed to find a rational solution to the problem that didn't involve blood sacrifices, or, more likely, the culture of the time were really into sacrificing shit, you name it, animal, mineral or vegetable, they'd sacrifice it regardless.

Times haven't changed much - people still sacrifice things all the time, politicians often do it with their decency, integrity and creditability.

[Minimalist]

The 'jesus' figure, like 'david' and 'moses' has the literary role of repeating already well-known sayings. He isn't intended to be original, or real- and according to Thompson, early christians would not have regarded him as a historical figure.

I did not know that Prof. Thompson had also taken on the jesus-crowd. Along with Niels Peter Lemche, Philip R Davies, and Keith Whitlam he is one of the the modern proponents of the Bible Is Bullshit school of thought but I thought he focused on the OT. For one reason or another Thompson is the only one of the 4 that I have not read as yet. You have now motivated me to correct that gap, Caec!

[Caecilian]

I did not know that Prof. Thompson had also taken on the jesus-crowd. Along with Niels Peter Lemche, Philip R Davies, and Keith Whitlam he is one of the the modern proponents of the Bible Is Bullshit school of thought but I thought he focused on the OT. For one reason or another Thompson is the only one of the 4 that I have not read as yet. You have now motivated me to correct that gap, Caec!

A lot of The Messiah Myth is about David- who Thompson sees as a sort of earlier version of jesus. So the OT does figure prominently in the book.

I like Thompson. Its the most convincing explanation for the appearance of christianity that I've encountered so far. But then I'm still very much in the early stages of finding out about this stuff.

Your posts on this forum have been a big stimulus pushing me in the direction of studying the origins of christianity. For which, many thanks min.

[Minimalist]

It's a big question between the Centrists (Finkelstein, Mazar, Dever to a degree) and the Minimalists like Thompson, et al. The bible-thumpers, of course, think the whole fucking thing is real and can be safely dismissed for the crackpots they are!

Finkelstein notes that there are serious anachronisms in the whole David story which he contends move it down to the 7th century BC. I'll give one example:


Goliath's armor.

1 Samuel 17

4 A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. He was over nine feet [a] tall. 5 He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels [b] ; 6 on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. 7 His spear shaft was like a weaver's rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels.

This is a fairly reasonable description of a Greek hoplite.



Hoplites arose in Greece in the 8th century BC and by the 7th were in service throughout the Med either as locally-raised troops or as mercenaries. The thing is, by the 7th century BC both Judah and Philistia were part of the Assyrian Empire. The Philistines as a conquered state and the Judahites as a vassal. It is exceedingly unlikely that the Assyrians would have tolerated their subject peoples fighting with each other. It wasn't good for business. However, by the late 7th century the Egyptians had freed themselves from Assyrian rule and under a king named Psammetichus were employing hoplites in their army as kind of the panzer division of their day. Egypt and Assyria allied themselves against Babylon (and eventually lost). Finkelstein's view on the politics of the time has Judah watching as the Assyrians were forced to evacuate the area to deal with the growing success of the Babylonian revolt and casting a covetous eye on some of the richer areas to the north (like Galilee.) But Egypt also had an eye to re-gaining these areas which they had lost in the 12th century BC. Hence, all of sudden we start to see these tales of "poor little Israel" overcoming mighty Egypt with the help of 'god.' It was a nice tale to rally the people behind an impossible war effort. Psammetichus' son, Necho, moved into Canaan in support of his Assyrian allies and summoned the king of Judah (named Josiah in the OT but there is no archaeological attestation for any such person) to Megiddo where he had him killed and replaced him on the throne with someone more to his liking. The much later author of Chronicles gives "Josiah" a heroic battle to die in but the earlier tale seems more likely and in it he is simply whacked...mafia style.

[tavarish]

You don't seem to grasp what accepting Him means. It's like accepting the command "love your neighbor".

Forced compassion. Nice. It's not enough to love someone on my own volition, but I have to be commanded to do it.

Probably becaues robots are boring, duh.

So we're here for God's amusement?

It would be wise to replace "the God of the Bible" with "tavarish of the Atheist Forums", and my bet is on you not existing.

Have you ever had a conversation with God on an internet message forum? How about in person?

I can demonstrate that I exist - can your God?

An infinite being that could have literally solved all of man's problems and he does a bunch of parlor tricks in a place where miracle working and superstition is common.

God was represented here and we're told to cherish essential, correct ideas.

Like slavery and death for blasphemy. Great, wholesome ideas.

How can you blame God? Man simply lacks the will to be without problems, because he thinks he can find a "better" way.

Actually, it's demonstrably proven that we have found better ways - for literally everything without the help of any supernatural force. We tend to fix things by ourselves over time and learn from our mistakes. You can't will yourself to be without problems, it's the way of the universe - entropy is a fickle bitch.

He could have solved world hunger or given insight into the world of medicine, but he decided to walk on water and turn water into wine. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming the gospels are true.

The irony is that He did solve world hunger and disease, man is simply unwilling to accept the solution.

Actually, please tell me what the solution to the problem of world hunger and disease is. This could actually be the most important discovery ever. I'm all ears.

Your problem is that you require God to hand you paradise. No wonder you don't like God, spoiled rotten brats never do.

I'm sorry, I'm not the one proclaiming that I'll get everlasting reward for believing something and not dependent on my character or actions, and apparently I'm the one that is spoiled rotten?

An infinitely capable being comes down to Earth and does some magic tricks to impress some incorrigible people in an undeveloped part of the world two thousand years ago, and you expect me to believe that? That's like having the power to do anything you like for a day, and you spend the day lighting farts.

It's ridiculous that people actually believe this.

Nope, it's better to heal one or two people and then have it written about decades after the fact via a massive game of telephone.

You look right past the point and then make exclaimations. Who cares.

And what's the point?

It would have been awesome if Jesus gave some insight into some scientific ventures, like the theory of relativity, or even gravity.

At least then the people could eat - like they do now, or not.

This doesn't make sense.

Woops, what we got was some vague guidelines about how to treat slaves and to sell all of your shit.

You should try it.

Would you like to trade slaves? I'm afraid one of mine will die if I beat him once more. Can't have that now, can we?

God was just trying to help and all you can do is gripe and complain. I like being a human. It's rad.

God was trying to help? Excuse me, but that's a shitty way of rectifying a situation. "I can help all of these people, but I will only help a few and then die and leave them to their own devices." I'm sure any one of us could have done a much better job than Jesus did in such an area, and I doubt any of us are proclaimed to be "all-loving".

Absolutely ridiculous.