Do Christians worship a suicide victim?

[Thomas Kelly252525]

Do you think you are made of cells and that your cells control you and you are a slave to them ?

Clarify the question, please.

Maelstrom,


Some of it or all of it ?

[Ignorant]

1) this started with you describing more than the existence of God ... Your statement; quote " I don't think it helps to limit God's activity in this world ONLY to the miraculous and spectacular" [1] You have just showed you use man made evidence for "Gods activity in this world" by listing gospel in your previous answers   [2]

4) Quote from your answer "He chose this way to communicate something to us about ourselves and about God." .... If this forum and every other Christian forum/discussion/argument didn't show the "communication" wasn't clear about "God" I am lost for words   [3]


"Maybe there is a better way it could have been transmitted." well he waited somewhere between 100-250 thousand years, he could have waited another couple of thousand years and did his party tricks when technology was available to record what he wanted the relationship between God and man to be ...

As to having a "beef" with the fictional message, I am as confused as the Christians as regards that .... even for all their alleged personal knowledge   [4]

1) Notice how I wasn't proving the existence of God. If a god exists, there are helpful ways to talk about it, and there are unhelpful ways to talk about it. In that thread, I stated that I thought that the supernatural/natural dichotomy is an unhelpful way to talk about such a god (hence my quote).

2) HA. Yes. I use the gospels as evidence of what Christians believe about God's activity in the world. Do I use the gospels as evidence that the supernatural/natural dichotomy is an unhelpful one? No.  Did I use man-made evidence to support that the supernatural/natural dichotomy is an unhelpful one? No. You claimed I did, so I asked for a citation. There was none, so you apologized, I accepted.

Do I use the gospels as evidence in any discussion which does not directly deal with god-as-revealed-in-Christianity? No. Does this discussion directly deal with god-as-revealed-in-Christianity? Yes.

I think you may have misinterpreted our previous interaction.

3) Can you name a Christian sect which doesn't teach "that message about God's accompanying us through our lives of suffering ultimately to bring us to an everlasting life of joy" (me, HERE)?

Even if there is a discrepancy in the details, even this forum has a pretty good grasp on the idea that Christ died for our sins (whatever that may mean) as a means for our own eternal life (whatever that may mean). If you are suggesting that this message was inconsistently communicated throughout the centuries, then I have a homework assignment for you.

4) That much is clear given the theme and topic of this thread. 

This thread, however, is only intelligible if it is based on actual consistent things about the Christian message which HAVE been communicated. There are consistent pieces in the various criticisms and jokes about what happened. For example: Jesus knew he would die in the way he did, Jesus is god, The Father is god, Jesus's death is related (somehow) to the forgiveness of our sins, he died on a Roman cross, he did not stay dead, etc. <= Somehow, all of these things have been communicated. You are confused how they fit together, and can only conclude that Jesus committed suicide by proxy.

[Ignorant]

Some things I've often wondered about Christ's death:

1.  Why was the sacrifice of God incarnate even necessary?  God could simply have said, 'Ok, humans, here's the deal - love me big bunches and you'll get to go to heaven.  Don't love me and you get punished.'

2.  Why all the tedious mucking about with the Passion?  If it was necessary for Jesus to die, couldn't he have simply thrown himself under an oxcart or something?

3.  Since Jesus was (according to the fable) 'God made flesh', he was immortal, so his 'self-sacrifice' would have been about as troubling as a hangnail.

4.  How exactly did Jesus' brutal murder make eternal life possible?  In the context of an omnimax Being, couldn't eternal life have been an option without snuffing Jesus?

5.  Jesus knew who and what he was - his words and actions clearly demonstrate it.  He also knew what was being demanded of him.  So why did he wail and moan about being 'forsaken'?

6.  Wouldn't the Passion have made a better film if, on the Via Dolorosa, Jesus had manifested a Thompson submachine gun and sprayed his tormentors, shouting, 'You'll never take me alive, coppers!', a la Jimmy Cagney?

7.  Continuing the Cagney motif, how cool would it have been if, from the cross, Jesus had shouted, 'Top o' the world, Ma!'?

This is how my mind works when the wife's out of house and there's nothing good on telly.

Boru

Well, here are my own thoughts:

1) It wasn't "necessary". It was the way God wanted to reconcile the world to himself. As it turns out, it simultaneously serves as a model of loving God big bunches, even when you suffer unjustly, because God is there suffering unjustly with you. He promises that death is not the end, and that loving him big bunches actually makes you divinely human (like Christ). If you don't love him big bunches, the best you can do is make yourself into a full and happy human. Think: Dante's first circle of hell "only so far afflicted, that [they] live desiring without hope".

2) In the passion, Christ is suffering every evil the world has and will ever know. That includes every death, every injustice due to war, every natural evil and every moral evil. All actual historical evil concurring with the suffering of Jesus in the passion. It wasn't necessary. He wanted to do it, and he wanted to do so in that way. You may not think it gets the point across, and that's fine, but dying in front of the oxcart wouldn't either.

3) Jesus is the Word-made-flesh. He was a man just as truly as he was God. Insofar as he is God, he is immortal. Insofar as he is man, he is mortal. The man-who-is-united-to-God-in-person, Jesus, actually suffered and died. In other words, the human nature which is united to God in the person Jesus actually suffered and died. As said above, his suffering was not merely his own individual suffering, but his individual suffering concurred with the entirety of suffering within the cosmos past present and future. The point being: God suffers with us [in his passion] any evil we experience and every evil which exists, and he promises to give us divine life after we die (and demonstrates that through Jesus's death and resurrection).

4) Eternal life could have been an option without Jesus's passion. God chose to reveal eternal life to us in this way. How does it work? There are several theological traditions which attempt an account (even within the Catholic tradition there are several).

5) First, read Psalm 22, especially the turn of tone at verses 23 and following. Also, since he suffered all evil concurrently, his humanity even suffered the experience of being abandoned by God. Even within that experience of abandonment, he entrusts himself to the Father's plan => in his abandoned humanity, he trusted the Father's promise to raise him up.

6) Ha. That certainly would have been more in line with Mel Gibson's film history.

7) Well, while there was no gas explosion, at least there was an earthquake. AND his mom was there.

[Ignorant]

Some things I've often wondered about Christ's death:

1.  Why was the sacrifice of God incarnate even necessary?  God could simply have said, 'Ok, humans, here's the deal - love me big bunches and you'll get to go to heaven.  Don't love me and you get punished.'

I've asked a similar question to Thomas Kelly several times already. He's responded to other points in my posts, but conveniently ignores that one. 

To reiterate, why did "God" need the sacrifice at all?

It's his universe, his rules, why not just forgive humanity?

He didn't.

[madog]

1) this started with you describing more than the existence of God ... Your statement; quote " I don't think it helps to limit God's activity in this world ONLY to the miraculous and spectacular" [1] You have just showed you use man made evidence for "Gods activity in this world" by listing gospel in your previous answers   [2]

4) Quote from your answer "He chose this way to communicate something to us about ourselves and about God." .... If this forum and every other Christian forum/discussion/argument didn't show the "communication" wasn't clear about "God" I am lost for words   [3]


"Maybe there is a better way it could have been transmitted." well he waited somewhere between 100-250 thousand years, he could have waited another couple of thousand years and did his party tricks when technology was available to record what he wanted the relationship between God and man to be ...

As to having a "beef" with the fictional message, I am as confused as the Christians as regards that .... even for all their alleged personal knowledge   [4]

1) Notice how I wasn't proving the existence of God. If a god exists, there are helpful ways to talk about it, and there are unhelpful ways to talk about it. In that thread, I stated that I thought that the supernatural/natural dichotomy is an unhelpful way to talk about such a god (hence my quote).

2) HA. Yes. I use the gospels as evidence of what Christians believe about God's activity in the world. Do I use the gospels as evidence that the supernatural/natural dichotomy is an unhelpful one? No.  Did I use man-made evidence to support that the supernatural/natural dichotomy is an unhelpful one? No. You claimed I did, so I asked for a citation. There was none, so you apologized, I accepted.

Do I use the gospels as evidence in any discussion which does not directly deal with god-as-revealed-in-Christianity? No. Does this discussion directly deal with god-as-revealed-in-Christianity? Yes.

I think you may have misinterpreted our previous interaction.

3) Can you name a Christian sect which doesn't teach "that message about God's accompanying us through our lives of suffering ultimately to bring us to an everlasting life of joy" (me, HERE)?

Even if there is a discrepancy in the details, even this forum has a pretty good grasp on the idea that Christ died for our sins (whatever that may mean) as a means for our own eternal life (whatever that may mean). If you are suggesting that this message was inconsistently communicated throughout the centuries, then I have a homework assignment for you.

4) That much is clear given the theme and topic of this thread. 

This thread, however, is only intelligible if it is based on actual consistent things about the Christian message which HAVE been communicated. There are consistent pieces in the various criticisms and jokes about what happened. For example: Jesus knew he would die in the way he did, Jesus is god, The Father is god, Jesus's death is related (somehow) to the forgiveness of our sins, he died on a Roman cross, he did not stay dead, etc. <= Somehow, all of these things have been communicated. You are confused how they fit together, and can only conclude that Jesus committed suicide by proxy.

1) ... 2) you are just playing games here I said you use man made evidence to this statement " I don't think it helps to limit God's activity in this world ONLY to the miraculous and spectacular" I wasn't complaining about you using man made evidence for "God" but his activity on earth ... I am finished with this issue .... it is going no where   

3) The communication wasn't/isn't clear .... if you think the confusion about the "Jesus" character is clear and it was what  he wanted, then what a shitty guy ....

If the confusion wasn't of his doing but because of man, we only have what has been passed down .... how do you know that the message received was what he intended to be passed down .... His message might have been don't fuck with the jews or they'll nail you to a cross ....

4)  consistent things about the Christian message which HAVE been communicated. And your evidence for that is stories passed down and written, edited, interpreted, etc, etc for 2000 years from stone-age man    

[Ignorant]

1) ... 2) you are just playing games here I said you use man made evidence to this statement " I don't think it helps to limit God's activity in this world ONLY to the miraculous and spectacular" I wasn't complaining about you using man made evidence for "God" but his activity on earth ... I am finished with this issue .... it is going no where   [1]

3) The communication wasn't/isn't clear .... [2] if you think the confusion about the "Jesus" character is clear and it was what  he wanted, then what a shitty guy .... [3]

If the confusion wasn't of his doing but because of man, we only have what has been passed down .... how do you know that the message received was what he intended to be passed down .... His message might have been don't fuck with the jews or they'll nail you to a cross .... [4]

4)  consistent things about the Christian message which HAVE been communicated. And your evidence for that is stories passed down and written, edited, interpreted, etc, etc for 2000 years from stone-age man    [5]

1) Fair enough

2) The core message and aspects of that message are clear. The implications drawn from that core is less clear.

3) I don't think that.

4) First, whatever I "know" about this original message is through faith in the message-as-transmitted-by-a-particular-community. I readily admit this knowledge to be faith, not a conclusion of syllogism. Whether I am Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc., I believe in the message of Jesus as it is mediated through a particular historical community. As a Catholic, I believe "that the message received was what he intended to be passed down" because of the historical line of apostolic succession present in the hierarchy of the church, as well as the historical continuity of today's Catholic faithful with the ancient Christians of the 1st century. In addition to that historical continuity of the community itself, I find that there is also the historical continuity of the message itself, traceable from the accounts of Christians in the New Testament, to the written accounts of Christians in the following centuries, through to the Councils of those centuries, all the way to today's teachings. Developments occurred over 2000 years of reasoned reflection and making theological connections based on various philosophical principles. I know it's Christ's message because of faith. While historical evidence does not definitively demonstrate that scientifically, I also find that the Catholic teaching is the most [historically] defensible one historically [as the same teaching of Christ].

5) No. My evidence of this statement is that many atheist individuals (i.e. people who lack faith) on an atheist internet forum can accurately articulate many of the essential aspects of Christ's message, even if they reject the sense of the whole. If an atheist can articulate and criticize Christ's message, somehow they received a message to criticize.

[madog]

4) First, whatever I "know" about this original message is through faith in the message-as-transmitted-by-a-particular-community.  

I'll answer this as a whole ..... But as the faith card has been invoked I am pretty sure I will be talking to myself ....

In short, an "Almighty God" sent an illiterate son to earth because it is claimed (loosely speaking) he wanted to teach man "the truth" and "save him"

Apparently he gave this "son" some parlor tricks rather than the power or will to use the pen to personally record his/Gods message (literacy)  but left that to the flawed recipients of the message to Communicate to the rest of mankind 

[Ignorant]

4) First, whatever I "know" about this original message is through faith in the message-as-transmitted-by-a-particular-community.  

I'll answer this as a whole ..... But as the faith card has been invoked I am pretty sure I will be talking to myself .... [1]

In short, an "Almighty God" sent an illiterate son to earth because it is claimed (loosely speaking) he wanted to teach man "the truth" and "save him" [2]

Apparently he gave this "son" some parlor tricks rather than the power or will to use the pen to personally record his/Gods message (literacy)  but left that to the flawed recipients of the message to Communicate to the rest of mankind  : [3] 

1) I was trying to give you a full and honest answer about how I know something. It includes both historical criteria and data, as well as faith that a teaching is true. In the case of the former: that a given teaching is the most historically consistent with the first Christian community. In the case of the latter: the truth of the given teaching about Christ. That the first Christian community taught that Jesus freely gave his life in the passion, died, and was raised from the dead, all in connection with our reconciliation with God and future eternal life is true. I find that the particularly Catholic teaching on those subjects to be the most internally coherent and historically consistent. Did Christ suffer and die and rise from the dead in such a way that I am reconciled to God and am promised divine happiness? Anyone who claims to know that in any way other than faith is not speaking well. I was just trying to give a concisely comprehensive answer to the question you asked.

2) If Luke 4:17-21 can be trusted historically (which I am sure you would dispute), then he wasn't illiterate. Anyway, yes, God sent his Son because he wanted to teach man the truth and to save him.

3) And here we are, in spite of his flawed recipients, discussing that very message. Choose what you're criticizing, an actual message which could be subject to criticism (in which case your first post is intelligible) or a method of transmission you find inadequate (in which case your first post is poorly aimed).

[madog]

3) And here we are, in spite of his flawed recipients, discussing that very message.  

Whether the Jesus character was illiterate or not the story tellers chose parlor tricks and a suicidal extravaganza to Communicate the "God" characters message ... 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.

The actual message, if it were true would have taken a page .... There was no need for the New Testament, as sects could have made up their own stories then interpreted them to suit their own agenda ... Oh wait they did that anyway 

We are here now discussing a fictitional characters message dreamed up from those flawed story tellers, I dispute you have any verifiable Historical evidence 

[Ignorant]

Whether the Jesus character was illiterate or not the story tellers chose parlor tricks and a suicidal extravaganza to Communicate the "God" characters message ... 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. [1]

The actual message, if it were true would have taken a page .... There was no need for the New Testament, as sects could have made up their own stories then interpreted them to suit their own agenda ... Oh wait they did that anyway    [2]

We are here now discussing a fictitional characters message dreamed up from those flawed story tellers, [3] I dispute you have any verifiable Historical evidence  : [4] 

1) Would he now? Interesting take given #3

2) Indeed they did. Can you name one of those sects and the community today that is historically continuous with it?

3) Yup, here we are. If we are discussing that message "as-it-was-dreamed-up", then it can't also be said to have been inadequately communicated over 2000 years. So like I said HERE, your beef is with the message, not its mode of transmission.

4) Do I have verifiable historical evidence that demonstrates that Jesus is the Son of God, rose from the dead, and that his death reconciles us to God? No. 

Is there verifiable historical evidence regarding a continuously traceable teaching-about-Jesus extending from the Apostles to the present day within a particular community which is also historically continuous with the the community of the Apostles? Yes.