Why did Jesus have to die?

[1487610420]

To become a superstar.

 

[Beorn]

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.

You are quite the zealous true believer. You won't even acknowledge that all your knowledge comes by faith.

In order to know anything don't you have to rely on your senses and your mental faculties?

How do you KNOW you can trust them?

 

[Mole]

You are quite the zealous true believer. You won't even acknowledge that all your knowledge comes by faith.

In order to know anything don't you have to rely on your senses and your mental faculties?

How do you KNOW you can trust them?

We know we can't trust them, for 200,000 years we believed the Sun went round the Earth. And it was only by applying evidence and reason in the Enlightenment did we discover to our surprise the Earth went round the Sun.

And by applying evidence and reason we have discovered surprise after surprise after surprise. So you can imagine that some of think this is a surprise party, rather than the antechamber to Hell and Heaven.

 

[Coriolis]

You are quite the zealous true believer. You won't even acknowledge that all your knowledge comes by faith.

In order to know anything don't you have to rely on your senses and your mental faculties?

How do you KNOW you can trust them?

I would be interested in knowing how your beliefs rely on your senses. My beliefs rely on internal impressions and judgments - just the "feeling" that they are right. I do look for supporting evidence, and certainly for internal consistency, but I don't expect to be able to offer objective evidence for them, or for them to be reproducible by anyone else. (This is part of how I interpret the idea of a "personal relationship with God". My relationship with God will not be like anyone else's, just as my relationship with any human would not be.)

When I accept a scientific explanation for something, on the other hand, I do so based on evidence and observations available to anyone. In fact, reproducibility is an essential requirement for a scientific explanation. I trust it because it is reproducible, and can be used to predict future events with success. When reproducibility or predictive ability fail, I know it is not a sound explanation, and requires further investigation. This is indeed part of what makes science exciting, that plus working out answers to new questions we are just starting to explore.

 

[1487610420]

Occupational Hazards.

 

[Beorn]

We know we can't trust them, for 200,000 years we believed the Sun went round the Earth. And it was only by applying evidence and reason in the Enlightenment did we discover to our surprise the Earth went round the Sun.

And by applying evidence and reason we have discovered surprise after surprise after surprise. So you can imagine that some of think this is a surprise party, rather than the antechamber to Hell and Heaven.

Well, we know you're pretty lousy when it comes to evidence. So why don't we just stick to reason right now?

Is human reason merely the result of purposeless chemical reactions in the brain or is human reason reliant on laws of logic?

I would be interested in knowing how your beliefs rely on your senses. My beliefs rely on internal impressions and judgments - just the "feeling" that they are right. I do look for supporting evidence, and certainly for internal consistency, but I don't expect to be able to offer objective evidence for them, or for them to be reproducible by anyone else. (This is part of how I interpret the idea of a "personal relationship with God". My relationship with God will not be like anyone else's, just as my relationship with any human would not be.)

When I accept a scientific explanation for something, on the other hand, I do so based on evidence and observations available to anyone. In fact, reproducibility is an essential requirement for a scientific explanation. I trust it because it is reproducible, and can be used to predict future events with success. When reproducibility or predictive ability fail, I know it is not a sound explanation, and requires further investigation. This is indeed part of what makes science exciting, that plus working out answers to new questions we are just starting to explore.

I still don't think your understanding how fundemental I'm getting here. I'm questioning how you trust what you see, smell, touch, taste, hear, and what your brain is telling you about those things.

Also, I do need to know where you stand, as the bold makes me unsure of whether you are atheistic, agnostic, or theist.

 

[Coriolis]

I still don't think your understanding how fundemental I'm getting here. I'm questioning how you trust what you see, smell, touch, taste, hear, and what your brain is telling you about those things.

Also, I do need to know where you stand, as the bold makes me unsure of whether you are atheistic, agnostic, or theist.

Actually, you don't, as it has nothing to do with the soundness of my position. I do not always trust the input of my senses; I am aware of too many ways in which they can be fooled. I already described the circumstances in which I do trust objective, physical evidence and conclusions logically derived from it.

 

[Beorn]

Actually, you don't, as it has nothing to do with the soundness of my position. I do not always trust the input of my senses; I am aware of too many ways in which they can be fooled. I already described the circumstances in which I do trust objective, physical evidence and conclusions logically derived from it.

Ok, so you rely on logic.

Same question to you that I asked Victor:


Is human reason and processing of logic merely the result of purposeless chemical reactions in the brain or is human reason reliant on laws of logic?

 

[Stigmata]

To guilt-trip you into waking up early on Sunday and going to Church. Not only did Jesus die for your sins, he's apparently meant to hold it over your head for all of eternity as a means of extortion.

What did we learn today, kids? Always keep an eye on your own finances. Why? Because Jesus left his multi-million dollar empire in the hands of terrible accountants.

 

[Coriolis]

Ok, so you rely on logic.

Is human reason and processing of logic merely the result of purposeless chemical reactions in the brain or is human reason reliant on laws of logic?

I use logic, as I use many other tools. Sound logic cannot make up for inaccurate assumptions or other flawed input, though. (Garbage in - garbage out.)

The mental capacity we call human reason is the result of brain physiology, just as our bipedalism is the result of our skeletal and muscular structure. We can exercise our ability to reason by employing principles of logic, just as we take advantage of our muscles and skeleton every time we walk around. In short, as humans we have many native abilities which we can choose to employ in different ways.

 

[Lark]

I dont believe any metaphysical predestination idea about Jesus, I dont beleive he was fated to die from when he was born, anymore than anyone else is. That is to say he wasnt fatalistically destined to be sacrificed horribly.

Most of the "explaining" of why Jesus died how he did was done after he was dead, or after he died and was ressurected and ascended if you believe that account, so there must have been a point, or many points, when he and his followers believed it could or was all playing out differently. I think so anyway.

Would it have had the same signficance or the relationship between God and man been different had Jesus not been executed and had just lived his life, taught the message from the scriptures that he did and died an old man with grey beard in his bed? I actually dont think it would have been any different, we each owe God a death, I believe that God being incarnate and experiencing that process is/was as important in the reconciliation of God and man, as his dying horribly as he did.

That's the important thing, and I think that its understood in Jung, and was also widespreadly understood in central European thinking (Karen Horney wrote in their diaries about a teacher she had a crush on growing up explaining a popular idea about everyone possessing a "spark" which was God in them but Jesus having more of that "spark" than anyone else) at a time.

 

[Mole]

The Sacrifice

Why did Jesus have to die?

Well, the Father was offended by us so, in order to forgive us, He tortured his Son to death.

This seems silly to us but makes perfect sense in a society based on institutional slavery and child sacrifice.

And as Jesus was the Son of the Father, the child of the father, Jesus was a sacrifice.

This is why it is called the 'sacrifice of the mass'.

 

[1487610420]

To become a superstar.

 

[Lark]

Why did Jesus have to die?

Well, the Father was offended by us so, in order to forgive us, He tortured his Son to death.

This seems silly to us but makes perfect sense in a society based on institutional slavery and child sacrifice.

And as Jesus was the Son of the Father, the child of the father, Jesus was a sacrifice.

This is why it is called the 'sacrifice of the mass'.

Which is curious since that rationalisation, based upon the idea of predestination, has more to do with Luther and Calvin than it does the gospels or the society you pretend to a knowledge of.

 

[Beorn]

Which is curious since that rationalisation, based upon the idea of predestination, has more to do with Luther and Calvin than it does the gospels or the society you pretend to a knowledge of.

1. I have no idea how you connect what Victor wrote to predestination, Calvin, and Luther.

2. I mean... Come on... I don't throw Catholics under the bus when Victor complains about church child abuse... Which I'm sure he's about to bring up.

 

[Lark]

1. I have no idea how you connect what Victor wrote to predestination, Calvin, and Luther.

2. I mean... Come on... I don't throw Catholics under the bus when Victor complains about church child abuse... Which I'm sure he's about to bring up.

I'm not being sectarian, at least not in any stupid way, they where the revitalisers of predestination of the kind you have to accept in order for what Victor wrote to be credible as an explanation.

The alternative understanding which had currency, and was Erasmus' view contra Luther (probably contra Calvin too I dont know), I outlined, the believers who'd been in Jesus company, who wrote the bible, rationalised the events of the new testament with reference to supporting passages from the old testament. Its how they made sense of events, although I would argue, pretty much as did Erasmus, that this does not amount to the same thing as predestination as Luther affirmed because that makes God a "moral monster".

I'm not having a go at protestantism qua protestantism but I do believe that protestantism isnt something I could personally believe following my close reading of Erasmus and Luther's discourse on free will, which to me represents a pretty good division between the reforming influenced but traditional, which is coincidentially more "modern" in outlook, in the shape of Erasmus and the more persecuting zeal and break away type of Luther. Its not something I'm being unthinking about and dont mean to tar every one who holds those thinkers (Luther and Calvin) in regard with the same brush, I've spent a lot of time reading primary sources and found it unconscienable. I hope you dont think I'm taking cheap shots. Out of respect for you I could refrain from posting but I couldnt really change my opinion on the strength of that respect alone

 

[UniqueMixture]

So that the enlightenment could occur

 

[RaptorWizard]

[MENTION=6037]Craic[/MENTION] a little bird told me you are a Christian and a Creationist (is that true?). If so, what line of reasoning or what power of inspiration led you to this position?

One of the basic beliefs is that Jesus dies to save us, that he can give us greater reward in the life to come, and how he even created the world - I'm wondering if you could build and expand upon these topics; I will start by saying Jesus could have been the master hand behind a genetic program here on Earth for souls to incarnate (that is just my theory, of course).

 

[Winds of Thor]

[MENTION=6037]Craic[/MENTION] a little bird told me you are a Christian and a Creationist (is that true?). If so, what line of reasoning or what power of inspiration led you to this position?

One of the basic beliefs is that Jesus dies to save us, that he can give us greater reward in the life to come, and how he even created the world - I'm wondering if you could build and expand upon these topics; I will start by saying Jesus could have been the master hand behind a genetic program here on Earth for souls to incarnate (that is just my theory, of course).

It's the gospel.
I'm not really any big deal.
Thanks.

 

[Mole]

Christianity, the Enlightenment and Me

So that the enlightenment could occur

Christianity fought the Enlightenment tooth and nail, and the Enlightenment succeeded in creating the world around us in spite of Christianity.

We can see the washup of that conflict on Central where we have irridentist catholics speaking against the Enlightenment with some venom.

We even have protestants speaking against the Enlightenment but mostly they are just ignorant of what happened in the 17th and 18th centuries.

And so many don't even know how the Enlightenment created the world around us.

What would you do without me to tell you?