Why did Jesus have to die?

[Mole]

Why did Jesus have to die?!?!? WHY? WHY? WHY? *exasperated*

The Bible blames the Jews. The Bible says the Jews clamoured for the death of Jesus rather than the death of the criminal Barabas. The Bible quotes the Jews as saying, "Let his (Jesus') blood be upon us and upon our children".

And then for almost 2,000 years the Jews were called, "Christ killers", by good Christians. Pogroms against the Jews were organised every Easter until the final pogrom or the final solution, called the Holocaust.

 

[EcK]

Wait, so what's your problem..I'm not quite clear. I think you need to have an honest discussion with yourself. And quit misdirecting your life's confusion (on me). Lol

rolls eyes

I'm not going to have a discussion where a statistically unlikely and unproven story is magically elevated as equal to rational discourse.
think what you will. I dont even feel like oneupmanshipping you right now. just. bleh.

 

[Coriolis]

But even his own disciples abandoned him....It wasn't just the rulers and those in power.

Also not surprising, given human nature. Many of Jesus' followers, like James and Paul, eventually faced their own violent deaths as did many early Christians.

Describing it as a fairy tale might make you feel a little bit better about your views but the reality is that there's a strong tradition there, strong heritage based upon the wisdom of generations. You've only got contemporary conceit and its ebbing away.

We have strong traditions about Santa Claus as well. I would certainly be willing to put Jesus in the same category. Both, after all, are based on the life of a historical person.

For me that's the difference between Christianity and any other world religion what so ever, God in every other religion is distant from human life and experience, I dont think that the various avatars in the Hindu religion experienced anything like Jesus either. God is accused by many, although its rhetorical athiests in the main, for causing or complicity in much suffering but when you think about it he experienced some of the worst possible suffering first hand and personally in the incarnation and death of Jesus. I think to a lesser extent he experiences it with every life and death in humankind but that's me, based on some pretty outlandish Jungian theories.

Not so in the least. Gods in the Greco-Roman tradition walked the earth in physical form, and loved and even lusted just as we do. Krishna frolicked with the milkmaids, in a relationship still reenacted in ritual drama. To the extent that Jesus experienced this aspect of humanity, the Christian establishment has done its best to expunge it from the official record. As for violent death and resurrection, other forms of god have endured this, too, e.g. Osiris. Even Odin suffered on the World Tree before receiving the wisdom of the runes.

 

[Beorn]

rolls eyes

I'm not going to have a discussion where a statistically unlikely and unproven story is magically elevated as equal to rational discourse.
think what you will. I dont even feel like oneupmanshipping you right now. just. bleh.

Genuine question: What do statistics have to do with historical veracity and in what sense are you using the term?

 

[Lark]

The Bible blames the Jews. The Bible says the Jews clamoured for the death of Jesus rather than the death of the criminal Barabas. The Bible quotes the Jews as saying, "Let his (Jesus') blood be upon us and upon our children".

And then for almost 2,000 years the Jews were called, "Christ killers", by good Christians. Pogroms against the Jews were organised every Easter until the final pogrom or the final solution, called the Holocaust.

I dont think its alright to blood slander Christians because they, alledgely, were involved in that in the past.

Although I'm sure saying so makes me an anti-semite, I like the Merchant of Venice too, if that's any use in perpetuating that particular lie.

 

[Lark]

We have strong traditions about Santa Claus as well. I would certainly be willing to put Jesus in the same category. Both, after all, are based on the life of a historical person.

A lot of people have done but I wouldnt/dont.

Not so in the least. Gods in the Greco-Roman tradition walked the earth in physical form, and loved and even lusted just as we do. Krishna frolicked with the milkmaids, in a relationship still reenacted in ritual drama. To the extent that Jesus experienced this aspect of humanity, the Christian establishment has done its best to expunge it from the official record. As for violent death and resurrection, other forms of god have endured this, too, e.g. Osiris. Even Odin suffered on the World Tree before receiving the wisdom of the runes.

Did you read you read the bit about avatars in Hinduism? I know that Gods have walked the earth in physical form in Greco-Roman traditions, I dont share the view that any attempt was made to expunge that from the official record BTW, but they are unlike Jesus and couldnt be described as true God and true man, they are an entirely different species of being altogether.

 

[Lark]

God is within us and without us, regardless of religion. We need no bridge to commune with God. The most holy men in history have communed directly with God! If we are to be like Jesus, then instead of finding a demi-god to worship, we should just open our hearts and minds to the Lord, Abba.

There's a version of this in Jung's thinking and even a version of this in atheist form in Fromm too.

 

[Lark]

And this from someone who believes the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries is a form of light pollution.

And what a pity Jesus wasn't enlightened enough to say even one word against institutional slavery although he was surrounded by it.

Institutional slavey is one of world's oldest and greatest evils. Jesus could have followed the example of Spartacus (109-71BC) and opposed institutional slavery. But Jesus chose to remain silent and silence is complicity.

So we had to wait 1,800 years to the Enlightenment for institutional slavery to be abolished for the first time in human history by the House of Commons in 1833.

At which point we ordered the Royal Navy into the Atlantic to sink all American slave ships. And the Americans, discovering that discretion was the better part of valour, stopped transporting slaves across the Atlantic.

But nothing daunted, today the Americans are regaling us with a propaganda film called, "Lincoln". No expense is spared to leave us with the impression that President Lincoln freed the slaves, when in fact it was the guns of the Royal Navy that put an end to the Atlantic slave trade.

OK lets do this thing.

Institutional slavery was challenged by Jesus, evidence that it was not.

Institutional slavery was disappearing across most of the Roman Empire and Europe largely had abolished it under pressure from Christian campaigns and cultural underpinnings by the time it became an issue in the house of commons, made an issue incidentially there, not because of the enlightenment but because of the enduring Christian abolitionist cause which considered slavery unconscienable.

The Royal Navy had nothing to do with domestic slavery within the US, whether additional slaves were being transported from other countries or not is a moot point when it can exist and be reproduced within the borders of a massive country like the US.

Your historical revisionism is complete and utter bullshit.

If anything capitalism and development eradicated slavery, it became institutionally obsolete, neither the so called enlightenment nor political liberalism had anything to do with it, they've sure as hell had little to do with its reinvention and reintroduction globally, they've done a great job of greasing the wheels for a culture in which, particularly women and children, can be bought and sold.

 

[EcK]

Genuine question: What do statistics have to do with historical veracity and in what sense are you using the term?

Occam s razor, many world interpretation of quantum uncertainty. Big bang and pre big bang considered as quantum events.
All that stuff

 

[Society]

Wait, so what's your problem..I'm not quite clear. I think you need to have an honest discussion with yourself. And quit misdirecting your life's confusion (on me). Lol

i think [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION] is saying that if you can resurrect at will, you aren't actually sacrificing your life - you might be going through a very painful and unpleasant experience in doing so, but because you basically have the capacity to survive death, in essence, death is no longer fatal, so you are not actually giving up your capacity to live and walk on this earth.

it's like jumping and taking a bullet to your chest when you have the prefect bullet proof vest. incredibly painful, but your not sacrifice your life.

 

[Beorn]

Occam s razor, many world interpretation of quantum uncertainty. Big bang and pre big bang considered as quantum events.
All that stuff

Got it. It's just that when you make claims that someone is wrong based on statistics it gives the impression that your position is data driven and the opposing position is not. Which is clearly not the case, as the basis of your opposition as indicated above is a preference for a different theory based on your own application of a particular principle. It's not merely that the other person is not aware of the data that you're aware of.

 

[Coriolis]

A lot of people have done but I wouldnt/dont.

Did you read you read the bit about avatars in Hinduism? I know that Gods have walked the earth in physical form in Greco-Roman traditions, I dont share the view that any attempt was made to expunge that from the official record BTW, but they are unlike Jesus and couldnt be described as true God and true man, they are an entirely different species of being altogether.

Both your statements are simply reflections of your own beliefs, how you choose to interpret the information available. This does not negate the parallels that are there, just means you choose to override them to give special status to Jesus. Nothing wrong with that on a personal level. Most of us, after all, also give special status IRL, to our family or best friends, for instance. It doesn't mean other people are any less good, or worse parents, or worse friends, they just aren't ours.

 

[EcK]

Got it. It's just that when you make claims that someone is wrong based on statistics it gives the impression that your position is data driven and the opposing position is not. Which is clearly not the case, as the basis of your opposition as indicated above is a preference for a different theory based on your own application of a particular principle. It's not merely that the other person is not aware of the data that you're aware of.

uh.. Sorry but since when are the core principles of Christianity based on any data-backed theory?
I must have missed that breaking news about proof of the paranormal. Damn it, me and my lack of interest for TV.

 

[EcK]

I know that Gods have walked the earth in physical form in Greco-Roman Elder Elf traditions, I dont share the view that any attempt was made to expunge that from the official record BTW, but they are unlike Jesusunicorns and couldnt be described as true God and true manfairy creatures, they are an entirely different species of being altogether.

lets play the equivalents-to-point-out-how-ridiculous-you-sound game!

 

[Beorn]

uh.. Sorry but since when are the core principles of Christianity based on any data-backed theory?
I must have missed that breaking news about proof of the paranormal. Damn it, me and my lack of interest for TV.

I'm not saying that the core principles of Christianity are based on data. I'm saying the dispute is not based on data. Here's a helpful quote from a man who knew a thing or two about the relationship between data and theories.

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover."

-William of Ockham

 

[Mole]

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths".

- William of Ockham.

"Faith is believing something we know isn't true".

- Victor of Canberra.

 

[Beorn]

"where knowledge falls short, faith completes a relationship."

-Beorn of 'Murrica

 

[Coriolis]

"Only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover."

-William of Ockham

Yes. And the difference between theological truths and, say, scientific truths is the second are objective and verifiable, while the first are subjective and personal. You cannot "prove" Christianity, one way or another. One might be able to prove that a person called Jesus lived at the beginning of our Common Era and was eventually executed by the Romans, but any significance attached to that is outside the scope of objective data. You can, however, assert the truth of Christianity in your life and understanding, and no one can assail that because it is your personal belief.

 

[Beorn]

Yes. And the difference between theological truths and, say, scientific truths is the second are objective and verifiable, while the first are subjective and personal. You cannot "prove" Christianity, one way or another. One might be able to prove that a person called Jesus lived at the beginning of our Common Era and was eventually executed by the Romans, but any significance attached to that is outside the scope of objective data. You can, however, assert the truth of Christianity in your life and understanding, and no one can assail that because it is your personal belief.

That's a false dichotomy. I believe there are two kinds of faith. A faith that springs from God's saving grace and is extended unto salvation and faith that springs from God's common grace and allows all people to function in the world. Ockham is referring to the former.

I've explained many times before that all beliefs whether they are theological or scientific are founded on unprovable presuppositions. The real difference is that there's broader consensus for presuppositions that are required for science than there is for presuppositions required for religious belief. My religious beliefs account for that difference.

 

[Coriolis]

That's a false dichotomy. I believe there are two kinds of faith. A faith that springs from God's saving grace and is extended unto salvation and faith that springs from God's common grace and allows all people to function in the world. Ockham is referring to the former.

I've explained many times before that all beliefs whether they are theological or scientific are founded on unprovable presuppositions. The real difference is that there's broader consensus for presuppositions that are required for science than there is for presuppositions required for religious belief. My religious beliefs account for that difference.

There are no such things as scientific beliefs, unless you could the beliefs of individual scientists in non-scientific matters, like religion. There is probably broader consensus for many religious assertions than for much of science, simply because more people busy themselves with religion than with science, and it takes far more work to establish or validate a scientific theory than simply to accept a religious claim.