Why Jesus died for our sins; Or, has zago finally gone off the deep end?

[zago]

Finding myself bored yesterday, I fired up Netflix and tried to find something to watch. I decided I was in the mood for standup comedy and gave a Doug Stanhope special a try. I wasn't at all sure about this decision, though. I've begun to find comedians to be very angry, vitriolic people and Stanhope is one of the leaders of the pack. On the other hand, this is one of the few places to find someone being real about this sham society we live in, so I gave it a try.

Stanhope had a mixture of good points and bad. I thoroughly agreed with his assessment of people drugging themselves with stimulants, anti-depressants, and boner pills to force themselves through terribly boring lives. However, I soon disagreed when he began talking about the necessity of drug abuse and depraved behavior to add character to life. He scorns the idea, for instance, that a promiscuous girl would take a look at herself and realize that she is promiscuous because of her inner insecurity. He would rather just have her admit that she has an exceptional hunger for dick.

Anyway, I thought a lot about all of these things and found that I could see through whatever needed to be seen through (god help people who believe this stuff), except for one thing. Stanhope had a little segment about how it makes no sense that Jesus would die for our sins, and I couldn't figure out whether I thought he was right or wrong. He compared it to getting kicked in the nuts for someone's mortgage, I think - totally unconnected things.

Now it hits me, and it is fairly simple, but it seems like we never get a straight answer from the church or society. Jesus dying for our sins was symbolic of god's unconditional love for humanity - he loves us so much that he would send himself down to Earth and let us judge him and punish him without protest. He has given us the ultimate freedom - the freedom to hate and desecrate him and his creations. Despite this he still loves us and forgives us always. That he died for our sins means he has proven once and for all that he even loves us at our absolute worst.

I still wonder a lot of things, there's a lot I don't know. What does this mean in the larger context? In the old testament, god called himself jealous and was known to smite the shit out of some people. Was the sacrifice of Jesus indeed symbolic that he was allowing humanity to evolve to a higher level of freedom and godliness? Has he really avoided interference with the world since then? I don't know much of the new testament after the gospels. Neither do I know the intentions of god or if he even has any, but I can clearly see the symbolic truth that is present here. I see god as existence itself--bare, empty existence. I think there are certain absolutes that go along with such a reality, including the potentials for self awareness, infinite manifestations, and within that, the freedom even to wish for existence not to exist. ALL possibilities exist or at least have the ability to be manifested. ALL of them, even the bad ones.

Deep thoughts. REALLLLLY deep thoughts.

 

[roman67]

Some peoples say it is written by the god,

 

[zago]

Drugs?

 

[WALMART]

The sacrificial lamb runs concurrent with most religious thought I've come across. Even Buddhism has Buddha sacrificing his body so that we won't have to.

 

[Totenkindly]

... He compared it to getting kicked in the nuts for someone's mortgage, I think - totally unconnected things.

Now it hits me, and it is fairly simple, but it seems like we never get a straight answer from the church or society. Jesus dying for our sins was symbolic of god's unconditional love for humanity - he loves us so much that he would send himself down to Earth and let us judge him and punish him without protest. He has given us the ultimate freedom - the freedom to hate and desecrate him and his creations. Despite this he still loves us and forgives us always. That he died for our sins means he has proven once and for all that he even loves us at our absolute worst.

I agree, he didn't really make a fair comparison on that one. Of course, his role is just to take something everyone knows and try to put a funny spin on it. Accuracy helps make it funnier, but since our culture is not as Biblically literate nowadays, people don't as easily discern the difference.

I still wonder a lot of things, there's a lot I don't know. What does this mean in the larger context? In the old testament, god called himself jealous and was known to smite the shit out of some people. Was the sacrifice of Jesus indeed symbolic that he was allowing humanity to evolve to a higher level of freedom and godliness? Has he really avoided interference with the world since then? I don't know much of the new testament after the gospels.

Well, a lot of it was explication by Paul where he attempts to build a bridge between the Old Testament and the Gospels / his knowledge of Jesus. He also tried to bring Jesus' message to Gentiles, who might not have had the OT knowledge that the Jews did as a starting point. There's a few other books attributed to a handful of Jesus' disciplines. And there's the Book of Revelation; overall, the Jews seemed to believe that Jesus was returning... and returning shortly.

Neither do I know the intentions of god or if he even has any, but I can clearly see the symbolic truth that is present here. I see god as existence itself--bare, empty existence. I think there are certain absolutes that go along with such a reality, including the potentials for self awareness, infinite manifestations, and within that, the freedom even to wish for existence not to exist. ALL possibilities exist or at least have the ability to be manifested. ALL of them, even the bad ones.

The OT and NT describes God as active and personal, rather than void, although there might seem to be differences in character that Christianity has always attempted to reconcile. so I don't think the Bible sees God as bare, empty existence. There's also the nature of autonomy vs God being in control of all things, and since we have set the two up in Western thought as contradictory, arguments trying to reconcile the two seem unfulfilling.

But I personally see the world as full of a free range of options, and structure as imposed on what matter exists and eventually breaking down. it's just that human beings might be limited to their choices (as opposed to 100% full range) due to upbringing / cultural imprint, and context, and language.

The sacrificial lamb runs concurrent with most religious thought I've come across. Even Buddhism has Buddha sacrificing his body so that we won't have to.

Yup, that theme seems to run across a large variety of belief -- it seems to be a generally revered "human" value if there is such a thing.

 

[Snoopy22]

Because God sent him to die for our sins, he also asked that if it was his will, that this cup should pass from him (perhaps he won’t be as accepting of all our little excuses as many of us would like to believe). One simple reason of many.

 

[Ene]

This is actually the question I addressed initially in my blog. It took seven long installments to do it, so I won't re-try here, but I do invite you to go over and read if you like [it's in the NF blog section on this forum]. If you do decide to read, go to the beginning entry and read the first seven or so. I did take a sidestep to answer a few questions about other topics along the way. I did it in analogy form, but the concept is basically the same. I can't say that I have answered your questions, but perhaps I may have said something that you could use for fueling your own conclusions.

 

[Cellmold]

America sounds like the worst mental case you could receive as the new intern at the asylum.

I'm joking of course, I think all countries are like that to a greater or lesser degree.

'Meruca is the worst though

 

[Totenkindly]

America sounds like the worst mental case you could receive as the new intern at the asylum.

I'm joking of course, I think all countries are like that to a greater or lesser degree.

*nod*

"Simply the worst..."

 

[Society]

i realize your playing with this on a conceptual level, but it might be worth point out that despite pedantic legal record keeping which remains to this day, all investigations into roman ruins here have failed to find anything that can be indicated to be him. the only terrorist on death row without a criminal record.

 

[Mole]

Jesus died to redeem us from Original Sin.

Original Sin was committed by Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden, and since then all children have been born in Original Sin.

But Genetics tells us there was no Eve and Adam, so we can deduce there was no Original Sin and no children are born in Original Sin.

So we must look elsewhere for an explanation for the death of Jesus.

 

[Mole]

So we must look elsewhere for an explanation for the death of Jesus.

And we don't have to look far.

For the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam were founded by a God when he ordered Abraham to tie up his son Isaac and slaughter him.

So the Abrahamic religions were founded by a child abusing God.

And then this same God went on to torture his own Son to death.

And today we have one of these child abusing religions in the dock of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse.

 

[Thalassa]

Um, duh, it's about unconditional love, but congratulations on finally getting it.

I shouldn't be so nasty. I was born and raised in the South, forced to go to Sunday school, have actually read the Bible (yes I know what it says) and in my adult life admire and glean the wisdom from the underlying New Testament truths that are also present in Taoism and Zen Buddhism, for starters.

NO, I was sitting on the beach today, thinking "I deserve good things, not because I am perfect or "good" but because I am a child of God. And all people deserve good things, because they are all children of God. And if every person on the planet realized this, they'd stop hurting each other and God's creation, and things would be as they are meant to be."

All sin is is separation from God. That's why pride is the blackest/deadliest sin in Catholocism, because it's the illusion that you don't need God. And Satan is the master of illusion, and in Hinduism Maya means illusion, the illusion of suffering.

I actually learned all this via studying Taoism and yoga (which tends to lean on forms of Hinduism and Zen Buddhism for its truths, and Zen Buddhism is influenced by Taoism, that's what separates it from "regular Buddhism" and some people think that Jesus and therefore Christianity is influenced by Jesus studying in the far East with the Buddhists and Hindus).

I'm actually thankful for my background in Christianity because it gives me a "comparative religion" without having to take the course, which is intellectually helpful.

No really, congratulations on finally realizing it, I wish everyone would. I'm sorry for my snarkiness.

 

[Mole]

Um, duh, it's about unconditional love,

Rather than being about unconditional love, its about power and absolute power over women and children.

There is only one person who will love you unconditionally and that is your mother.

But if our mother was unable to love us unconditionally, we can fantasize about a God who loves us unconditionally.

The problem with fantasizing about a God rather than mourning the loss of a mother's unconditional love, is that we are less likely to be able to love our own children unconditionally.

 

[Thalassa]

Rather than being about unconditional love, its about power and absolute power over women and children.

There is only one person who will love you unconditionally and that is your mother.

But if our mother was unable to love us unconditionally, we can fantasize about a God who loves us unconditionally.

The problem with fantasizing about a God rather than mourning the loss of a mother's unconditional love, is that we are less likely to be able to love our own children unconditionally.

Um, no.

Leaving the forum again. Take care.


Good luck on getting it. I suggest Taoism. Because it makes the "concept" or "idea" of God god-less, non-human and impersonal, but ever-present and the formless thing that gives all things form. I think Ni types really like this (while Si types love their human-esque God). I think that's why I finally got it. And I wonder still if you dear Victor are in the Fi/Ni loop from the depths of hell.

 

[Mole]

ever-present and the formless thing that gives all things form.

A formless thing, ever-present, watching me all the time, even when I am asleep, and won't even let me go in death - I am going to have to talk to my therapist about this.

 

[Polaris]

If you allow someone to kill you, you're showing an extraordinary willingness to let them do as they please. An extraordinary willingness to let someone do as they please can easily be an expression of malevolence, as when you choose to allow someone to bring harm onto themselves. This is particularly true when that harm comes onto them through a pitfall that you deliberately set in their path. There is no particular reason that God has to punish people for performing certain acts. Purely by manipulating circumstances, he could make every human endeavor harmless or rewarding. But instead he chooses to fill the world with unnecessary suffering, punishing people for breaking the most arbitrary laws imaginable. He didn't need to set these laws in place; if, purely as a matter of taste, he couldn't bear not to inact them, he still might have stopped us from breaking them, and saved himself cause for anger and violence. And he could have done this without causing the slightest harm to his favorite pet (or theologians' favorite pet), freedom. If I exercise force on you or cut you off from the choices that would otherwise be available to you, I don't diminish your freedom in the least--on the contrary, a person never feels his freedom more keenly than when he is a slave or a prisoner. Instead, anger and violence are the norm for God, or so the Bible tells us. God drowned every living thing on the planet except those aboard a small boat, and right now there are countless billions roasting in the eternal torture chamber of hell. And yet so many Christians will seize upon this one tiny act of God letting people kill his son--it really is a tiny act compared with all of suffering that God has instigated--and say it proves that he is a wonderful and loving God. In my opinion, the only thing it proves is that he's a lunatic. "I will let you kill my son, so that I may then permit myself to refrain from torturing you in hell forever, provided you choose to worship and serve me." It's ridiculous and a completely unnecessary bother. And how on earth letting someone murder you and then sending them off to hell demonstrates that you love them is a real mystery to me; murder is as far from a consummation of love as anything can get. And Jesus's crucifixion has nothing whatsoever to do with me, anyway--I'm not the one who murdered him--you can't tell me that I brought about an event that occurred 2000 years before I was born. I don't even wish Jesus had been murdered; I would have liked for everyone to have been nice to him. If I'm not guilty of murdering Jesus and, in fact, never even met the man, I can not be condemned for his death. If I'm not the one who murdered Jesus, then with regard to forgiveness, I'm in exactly the same position I would be in if I had lived thousands of years before his appearance on this earth or if he had never walked this earth at all. That is to say, Jesus's crucifixion neither gave me something to be forgiven for, nor did it involve me making any sort of amends for the things I have done. What it did was give God an unnecessary excuse to forgive unnecessary sins.

If I were to say that Jesus's crucifixion is meant to stand for something, I would say that it's meant to stand for the suffering that we cause God by disobeying him.

 

[zago]

If you allow someone to kill you, you're showing an extraordinary willingness to let them do as they please. An extraordinary willingness to let someone do as they please can easily be an expression of malevolence, as when you choose to allow someone to bring harm onto themselves. This is particularly true when that harm comes onto them through a pitfall that you deliberately set in their path. There is no particular reason that God has to punish people for performing certain acts. Purely by manipulating circumstances, he could make every human endeavor harmless or rewarding. But instead he chooses to fill the world with unnecessary suffering, punishing people for breaking the most arbitrary laws imaginable. He didn't need to set these laws in place; if, purely as a matter of taste, he couldn't bear not to inact them, he still might have stopped us from breaking them, and saved himself cause for anger and violence. And he could have done this without causing the slightest harm to his favorite pet (or theologians' favorite pet), freedom. If I exercise force on you or cut you off from the choices that would otherwise be available to you, I don't diminish your freedom in the least--on the contrary, a person never feels his freedom more keenly than when he is a slave or a prisoner. Instead, anger and violence are the norm for God, or so the Bible tells us. God drowned every living thing on the planet except those aboard a small boat, and right now there are countless billions roasting in the eternal torture chamber of hell. And yet so many Christians will seize upon this one tiny act of God letting people kill his son--it really is a tiny act compared with all of suffering that God has instigated--and say it proves that he is a wonderful and loving God. In my opinion, the only thing it proves is that he's a lunatic. "I will let you kill my son, so that I may then permit myself to refrain from torturing you in hell forever, provided you choose to worship and serve me." It's ridiculous and a completely unnecessary bother. And how on earth letting someone murder you and then sending them off to hell demonstrates that you love them is a real mystery to me; murder is as far from a consummation of love as anything can get. And Jesus's crucifixion has nothing whatsoever to do with me, anyway--I'm not the one who murdered him--you can't tell me that I brought about an event that occurred 2000 years before I was born. I don't even wish Jesus had been murdered; I would have liked for everyone to have been nice to him. If I'm not guilty of murdering Jesus and, in fact, never even met the man, I can not be condemned for his death. If I'm not the one who murdered Jesus, then with regard to forgiveness, I'm in exactly the same position I would be in if I had lived thousands of years before his appearance on this earth or if he had never walked this earth at all. That is to say, Jesus's crucifixion neither gave me something to be forgiven for, nor did it involve me making any sort of amends for the things I have done. What it did was give God an unnecessary excuse to forgive unnecessary sins.

If I were to say that Jesus's crucifixion is meant to stand for something, I would say that it's meant to stand for the suffering that we cause God by disobeying him.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that was hard to read. But look, I did anyway 'cause it was some smart stuff. Consider your audience - organize your thoughts.

My thoughts:

I recently experienced (and currently) a lot of anger towards god, and it appears (at least) that you relate. Why would he do this to me? Why would he make me suffer?

I dunno. Maybe you're right.

Then again, I'm holding out on this one. I'm not sure the pain we experience in this life is such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Would the universe truly be infinite without the experience of pain? Would it truly be infinite without the experience of separation, of disobedience?

There's other ways to look at it even still. Look at how a good parent raises a child. Does he shield the child from every single bad experience? Of course not. He knows that in the end it is best for the child to learn and cry some tears occasionally. Maybe this sort of world is even more fulfilling than one where everything is good. Maybe it is more exotic.. more to experience.

Would we be able to play this play at all without the illusion of choice?

 

[Polaris]

"Organized thought" is an oxymoron.

I love Yahweh, because without him there would be no such thing as that epitome of psychological insight called the third book of Genesis. I also hate him, because he's a bit of a jerk and has inspired a lot of other people to be jerks, as well.

While a parent can't rid the world of suffering and so might feel compelled to allow difficult lessons to be learned by a child that the child might be better prepared for life, God can prevent suffering altogether. The human parent has a good reason to expose his child to certain forms of suffering; God does not. The idea that a world with pain might be more fulfilling than one where there is no pain is one that I reject as a justification for suffering. If God is omnipotent, there is nothing stopping him from creating a world with no pain in it and plenty of fulfillment. (What you said exemplifies one of the peculiarities of theological argumentation: one moment, a theologian will say that God is omnipotent, and next thing you know, the theologian will start making arguments that assume there are limitations on God's power. I realize that what you said wasn't an argument so much as it was free speculation, but it illustrates one of the things that bugs me about theology, and I wanted to point it out.)

It's possible for something to matter very little in the grand scheme of things and yet, on a personal level, be very pressing indeed.

 

[Mole]

While a parent can't rid the world of suffering and so might feel compelled to allow difficult lessons to be learned by a child that the child might be better prepared for life, God can prevent suffering altogether. The human parent has a good reason to expose his child to certain forms of suffering; God does not.

Natural Selection proceeds by reproduction.

Natural Selection cares not a whit about our suffering, as long as we reproduce.