Jesus died for your sins?

[Richard D]

I had a discussion with a Christian over the Easter weekend about how he so loved Jesus and that Jesus died for his sins. I don't want to argue with the logic of a person's religious belief and faith, but the question that came to me afterward was that if Christians really love Jesus, would they be willing (were it possible, of course, which it isn't) to save Jesus his suffering and death on the cross if it meant re-assuming their sins and having to deal with the sins themselves? I know how hypothetical this is, including the historical likelihood that there may not have been a Jesus, but I still wonder at the answers to that question.

[Scout]

1. i didn't ask him to do that for me, i don't/didn't want him to do that for me

so i'm not going to buy into the guilt trip that Jesus was tortured to death FOR MY SINS.

[Richard D]

2. Of course.

I don't buy into that either, nor would I ever want anyone to suffer for my sins - whatever sins are, really.

[spag68]

10. God

How do they know with certainty that it is not a she?

[we can do it]

3. Its Total BS- Kind, Good People Die Horrible Deaths

Awful murderous bastards like boosh and chaney live forever with no consequence- there is no fucking god or hell. There is no cloud person tallying up "sins"....

[Goblinmonger]

11. That's my theory about most celebs, too.

Janis Joplin dies a young death but Brittany Spears will live to be 100. Jimi Hendrix dies probably before his peak yet Donny Osmand keeps on truckin'. OK, could be the drugs, but you get my point.

[we can do it]

14. No Kidding -also Jimi Hendrix, Freddie Mercury, Heath Ledger.....

[Goblinmonger]

25. Yeah, you're with me--Chris Farley, John Belushi, Kurt Cobain.... n/t

[CreekDog]

4. The point that Jesus loves us more than we love him is exactly the point

and because an ordinary human being is imperfect, he could not suffer enough to pay for his own sins, because he/she would not be a perfect sacrifice as Jesus was. and Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, not just for those who believe in him.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Yup. I'm pretty sure he ate too much chocolate.

Oh, you didn't mean "died of my sins". My bad.

[AldebTX]

6. I've Been Told By My Fundamentalist Neighbor

That Jesus didn't die for my sins. There are just some sins that are so grievous that you are going to hell unless you give up your sinful ways.

Since I bought a house with my sin (my partner of 17 years) it will probably not happen.

Oh well...at least I don't have the guilt of him dying for my sins

[Chulanowa]

7. What I never got is the whole "sin" system in Christian Theology

In the beginning, god basically sets Adam and Eve up to fail a loyalty test to him. He creates a tree and tells them not to eat from it. When they follow his rules, he sends the serpent down to tempt them. When they fall for it, he damns them and throws them out.

So, God is both the creator of sin and damnation, AND the one who put humans in that position.

A few thousand years, he comes back in human form, and kills himself (Sort of), and tells us that if we worship his sacrifice, he'll cure us of that sin that he caused way back when.

I've met bulemics who are more secure in their self-image than this deity. I mean really, he curses us after we fail to live up to an asinine and rigged loyalty test, then comes back to blackmail us unto worshiping him some more?

First I find the assumption that I am inherently a sinful subhuman beast to be deeply offensive. Second, the notion that if I were, I couldn't deal with it on my own is just as insulting. Third, this schmuck from the 1st century decided to do it for me, and I apparently have to direct all my energy to his worship in exchange?

No thanks. Your competitors provide better services at lower prices.

[Richard D]

8. I think it's all allegory

Daniel Quinn in "Ishmael" goes into this. Quite fascinating look at especially the Cain and Able story from Genesis being an explanation of the destroying of the hunter/gatherer tribal societies by the agricultural city/state "civilizations".

[laconicsax]

16. Not enough people have read that book.

[Chulanowa]

69. Haven't read it, but I'm familiar with that take on the story

And I don't think that's the case here, honestly. Thumb through the old testament. There is a lot of unapologetic and celebrated killing going on in there. In the Cain and Abel story though, the killing of Abel is reviled, Cain is cast out to receive succor from no person, to eat nothing but ashes.

If Cain is meant to represent Agrarian society, then the compilers of these legends, as the product of such a society, who had absolutely no moral pangs in cheering for total destruction of any competition, would have cast him in a favorable light. He would have been a Canaanite Romulus - "Sure he slew his brother, but he's our hero because he founded our society"

I think the Cain and Abel story is a little less allegorical than that. It may in fact be exactly what it sounds like, the story of the first murder.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. "Sin" is literally "missing the mark"

and as imperfect beings, part of us all. I don't think that surprises God in the least, as we're creatures with the free will to chose our actions.

Personally, I think the interpretation - the literal one - of the Genesis story is deeply flawed. I think it's a story about free will and knowledge. And the loss of innocence that comes with knowledge and choices. It's not necessarily a bad trade - but like looking back at a happy childhood, it comes with some wistfulness, perhaps.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. I see the Garden of Eden story as an allegorical explanation for why

humans have more free will than animals do.

You can't call an animal a criminal or a sinner. A wolf who kills a deer isn't a murderer. It's just doing what it's genetically programmed to do. A tomcat who mates with every female cat in the neighborhood and takes no interest in the resulting kittens isn't a "deadbeat dad." He's just being a cat.

A human can kill or refrain from killing. A human can have sex or refrain from having sex. Human behavior is neither determined nor limited by instincts.

Living close to nature and among domestic animals, the early Hebrews must have noticed this difference and asked themselves why animals' lives are set in such predictable patterns and ours are so complex. They must have also noticed that animals live in the moment and don't worry about anything other than immediate threats. Animals don't worry about whether they'll have enough food tomorrow as long as they have enough today. The ancient Hebrews must have wondered if humans had ever lived that worry-free existence.

The result was the Garden of Eden story. I don't recall Jewish prophets being obsessed with Adam and Eve as the reason for "original sin." Even Jesus doesn't make much of it. It's only Paul who seems obsessed with it, probably under the influence of one of the dualistic ("body bad, soul good") philosophies that was current in the Mediterranean world at the time.

By the way, I see "original sin" as nothing more than the theological way of saying "Nobody's perfect."

[54anickel]

48. Thank you, I've not heard it told that way before. That's a beautiful interpretation.

[Chulanowa]

68. Oh, I understand the allegory of the Garden of Eden just fine

It's pretty basic myth structure. On its own, it's simply a "why" story. In fact, on its own the Garden of Eden story is very, VERY different from the other stuff found in the Abrahamic religions. The Garden of Eden story puts mankind on the same footing as the gods - and yes, it's plural on purpose in this instance. This is very close to the early religious practices of Egypt... But that's a discussion for another subject :)

However it's also the first chapter of a religious system that still exists today, and thus when speaking of that religion, needs to be taken as a part of the whole. Christianity is absolutely based off the concept of original sin, which is absolutely based off the biblical story of the Garden of Eden. Without the concept of the original sin, a permanant black mark on humanity's record earned by (or thrust upon) Adam and Eve, what is Christianity? Without it, it would just be another Roman-era resurrection cult.

Thus, as I simply could not accept that my soul was tainted by the actions of a guy who's wife had a habit of talking to the wildlife and eating strange fruit, I couldn't really be Christian. In fact the lack of the original sin concept is what Almost got me to convert to Islam which is, to this day, a religion I believe makes a little more sense... A little..

[DBoon]

9. "Jesus died for somebody's sin but not mine"

-- Patti Smith, "Gloria"

[GeorgeGist]

12. I was taught that Jesus ...

didn't REALLY die.

[Sanctified]

13. The price of sin is death.

If Jesus would not have died upon the Cross then we would either have to sacrifice an animal that appeases God or suffer with eternal death.

[Deep13]

72. Death comes to us all. nt

[Why Syzygy]

15. No.

That was the reason for which he came into the world. I would never change the hand of God reaching out to all of us, not just me.

[laconicsax]

17. Wasn't that all determined after the fact?

If I recall correctly, the words attributed to Jesus weren't big on "I'm here to die for your sins" and it wasn't Jesus' apostles who started spreading that message, but someone who had a vision of Jesus after the crucifixion.

Is that correct? So much of what the Gospels say about Jesus is contradictory that I have a hard time keeping it straight.

[Sanctified]

18. Well you are recalling incorrectly.

Jesus in fact told his followers that he would die and on the 3rd day be raised you can read this in Matthew 16:21.

[laconicsax]

20. I did remember that, I was asking a slightly different question.

Did Jesus tell them that he was dying for their sins? There's a lot about the resurrection, but I don't recall him talking about the "why" aspect of his death and resurrection. The end of Matthew 16 has him telling his followers to not try to save him and to sacrifice themselves too.

If he made no mention of his death being sacrifice for the sins of all humanity, then would anyone at the time have known the purpose of his sacrifice?

Of course, if he did make mention, then that's a different question--one you've already answered.

[Igel]

117. No.

For that you'd have to look at John the Baptist--"Behold the lamb of God." Lambs in the OT have one purpose, besides food: Sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins and to avert death.

They show up in the Levitical sacrificial system and in the Passover narrative.

It also hearkens back to Isaac and Abraham--the possibility of a substitionary sacrifice that would spare Abraham's child from being sacrificed or killed.

However, these aren't Jesus' words, so I guess they're not what you intended.

[54anickel]

21. The "died for you sins" stuff? Pretty much a later development.

The earliest theory of atonement was the notion of a ransom to Satan, I can't remember the name of the theologian that proposed it, but it was based on verses that spoke of the Son of Man giving his life as ransom for many. He laid down his own (perfect) life to liberate (imperfect) mankind from slavery to Satan. Then there's the victory twist to the same story where Jesus defeats Satan in a spiritual battle, freeing man from slavery to Satan. The most common understanding today of a satisfaction atonement can mostly be atrributed to Anselm in the 11th century. Mankind owes a debt to God himself that only the perfect sacrifice, such as the sinless man-god Jesus could satisfy. The last theory is of healing, Paul Tillich is most credited with rediscovering this one and it's behind today's liberal/progressive theologies where Jesus' death on the cross demonstrates God's love and desire for the healing of creation and reconciliation with mankind.

The very early church struggled with the meaning of Jesus' death at the cross. The earliest manuscripts of Mark's gospel (the first written) don't even have the story of the resurrection. It simply ends at 16:8. The women find the tomb empty, run away scared and tell no one.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. Yes! Thank you. nt

[saltpoint]

28. I like your point on MARK. We don't know exactly who Mark is,

although it would be breath-taking, IMO, if he were the young man who eludes the sentries to hand Jesus the robe.

That young man is a mysterious figure, and very compelling. Some narrative prompts that gesture and I would give a lot to know what it is.

Good post.

[54anickel]

34. Yes, of course I should have said the author of Mark - didn't think we were being that scholastic

here.

Gotta love the Gospel according to Mark - short and too the point. You get breathless reading it....go-go-go.

Never gave much thought as to who exactly the author was. I would not have thought of him as "the young man who eludes the sentries to hand Jesus the robe". Interesting though.

If I remember correctly, tradition states it's written by Mark, the companion to Peter and Paul mentioned in Acts and a couple of Paul's letters. I was taught that we really don't know who authored this written account dating to around 70 C.E. (about the time the Temple was destroyed). It's an assembled version of oral narratives believed to have been circulating outside of Palestine, but within the Roman Empire.

[saltpoint]

35. Agree -- the Mark author isn't one for the elaborate flourish.

If I'm having a dinner party, I will NOT seat Mark next to John. I just don't think it would work out. It might even end in a food fight!

Agree also that a more mature 'Mark' might have been the author, that the act of his writing down this account fell nearabouts to the razing of the temple.

There are fragments of other 'Mark' gospels out there -- some of them possibly in use in gnostic or ____ communities of the time. I would love for one of them to be discovered whole. It would be the headline of the year, IMO.

[laconicsax]

30. There's a question that follows that.

If no one suspected that his death was supposed to be in absolution of humanity's sins, would there be any opposition to preventing his death?

[saltpoint]

32. There could have been. I would love to know more about the narrative

MARK's author may have known about, but which is lost to us.

From the accounts, he drew a following. I'm guessing that he was not the only regional preacher out of Galilee to arouse interest and inspire a gaggle of folks, but he may have been one of the most effective. Hence, the local Roman authorities made a point to confront him, and when he outwitted them, they sought to attain his arrest.

A talented teacher with a righteous following represents a significant disruption in the power structure. I can see why the authorities didn't care for him and, maybe, why they would seek to terminate his ministry.

In the balance of those two forces I could see the more ardent of his flock defending him against those who sought his elimination. He would have been their tongue, their voice, their eyes and ears.

And there is the component of the mysterious ally in MARK 14:52-53. He is cited as being "among those following." The linen cloth he is wearing may be a ceremonial garment. And he may be following physically, certainly, but also spiritually or philosophically. He disrobes < and what? tries to give the garment to Jesus? > and then eludes the soldiers and runs away.

I've posted before that I think it would be breath-taking if that young man was 'Mark,' the gospel's author, allowing himself the cameo to assert his defense of his Teacher against the authorities.

[54anickel]

36. Opposition by whom? Certainly there was opposition, Peter drew his sword and hacked off the ear of

a soldier in trying to save him from being captured. Got him in hot water with Jesus, the whole "get behind me Satan" ass-chewing. So there was opposition to preventing his death instilled by Jesus himself. I think his followers would have tried to prevented it if they could. Yet, I also think there was total disbelief on their part, shock might be a better word, that he'd ever be killed. They'd seen him get out of some pretty tight pickles before, he wasn't guilty of any offense that would have warranted crucifixion. :shrug:

[54anickel]

37. That actually raises a question that I've struggled with many times in church doctrine -

And that is, why did Jesus have to die?

I posted a thread a while back in the Christian Liberals/Progressive Group with that question and got some interesting feedback. That's how I got started investigating the various theories of atonement. I just couldn't buy into the substitutional atonement theory that is so prevalent today.

[laconicsax]

41. The only good answer I've heard offends the hell out of people.

And that answer is that it works from a mythological standpoint. Sacrifice and redemption are fairly common in mythology, has precedent in Jewish tradition, and really resonates with people. If you look at Jesus as an allegorical figure meant to teach or demonstrate ideals that the early Christians held, the contradictions don't make as much of a difference.

The Gospels directly contradict each other...a lot. If you take them as being written about a real historical figure, they undermine each other's veracity. If you take them as allegory written tailored to different audiences, the contradictions don't matter because they don't need to tell the exact same story, just have different themes that would resonate with different groups and attract them to the Christianity.

If Jesus was only intended as an allegorical character, the question of 'why Jesus had to die' becomes literary.

[54anickel]

47. Not offended at all. My understanding is that the Gospels were written for different

audiences. Most, not all, people tend to try and harmonize the gospel stories so of course they see "contradictions". But it's in recognizing their diversity where the stories come to life and one's going to resonate with you more than the others. Each is written in and to a different "social location".

It's believed Mark was the first and that Matthew and Luke draw from both Mark and some other common source (referred to as Q) and then add some of their own influence. Matthew drives me nuts as he meticulously ties nearly everything Jesus says or does back to what we now call the Old Testament. He is absolutely certain Jesus is the Messiah prophesied and wants to lay that all out for his Jewish family and friends. I don't necessarily take the contradictions as evidence of there not being a real historical figure. Something happened, it was part of local oral traditions long before they were written down where the points of most importance to the various groups were emphasized.

Anyway, even if Jesus was only intended as an allegorical character and the question becomes literary, the question still stands. Why did Jesus have to die on a cross?

Sacrifice was not understood in antiquity in the same way as today. Way before the notion of sacrifice, humans knew the way to maintaining good relationships with each other was through a giving a gift and/or sharing a meal. (Hell, there was recently the story of male chimps that got sex from their mates more often when they shared their food.) The offering of gift and meal just seems the natural way to create, maintain and restore good relations, with human or divine beings. In Judean tradition, a gift would be a valuable food source (animal/vegetable) given to God by burning on some altar, transferring the through the smoke. To share a meal, the animal would be transferred to God by having its blood poured on the altar then returned to the offerer to be prepared as divine food for a feast with God. The High Priests were also good butchers, they would never think of allowing the animal to suffer.

The root of the word sacrifice (sacrum facere), means to make sacred - holy, set apart. Nothing about suffering or substitution there. Though it does bring home the words of institution from the Lord's supper.

[GKirk]

92. It certainly would have been

more impressive if he didn't die then and was still walking the earth now.

[Why Syzygy]

38. The Kingdom of God

Matthew 20:28, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Mark 2:17, "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

John 18:37, "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice."

John 12:46, "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believes on me should not abide in darkness."

John 12:27, "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour."

Matthew 4:17, "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

[laconicsax]

43. Only one of those says that he did.

(I'm replying here instead of to your post #39 so I can read what you wrote while responding.)

Matthew 20:28 has him implying that his death pays a debt of sin. That answers my question. As for the rest...

I think you took Mark 2:17 out of context--verses 15 and 16 have Jesus answering a direct question about who he associates with.

¹⁵And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. ¹⁶And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? ¹⁷When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The question was about dinner guests and his answer in verse 17 is straight out of a TV skid-row mission. "I bring these men of ill-repute into this house so that they may be saved!" It's a big stretch to say that Jesus is saying that he's going to sacrifice himself so that all may be saved.

Matthew 4:17 is similar--Jesus is starting a ministry centered on repentance in anticipation of the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.

John 12:27 is in the middle of a conversation between Jesus and God (?).

²⁶If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. ²⁷Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. ²⁸Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. ²⁹The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

Put back into context, it doesn't really seem to carry a meaning of "I came to die for your sins."

John 18:37 seems to have Jesus saying something along the lines of "I am the King in the Kingdom of Heaven" which makes a lot of sense if he's supposed to be God.

[Why Syzygy]

45. I just included

a couple of verses to expand. You had a question about it being "after the fact". Right before he was captured, the said FOR THIS REASON ... He didn't come just to die, but to preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God. They are all related to his ministry.

[laconicsax]

74. Got it. Thanks.

[Why Syzygy]

39. No. See post #38. nt

[laconicsax]

44. Thanks. See post #43.

[saltpoint]

19. I think Jesus died because he and his followers represented a potential

or even likely disruptive threat to local Roman authority.

When the soldiers come to arrest him the disciples are armed.

Which suggests to me that perhaps they had a more specific political itinerary than is customarily offered from mainstream pulpits of a given Sunday morning.

Rome already had a real short fuse regarding Palestine and things would get a lot worse before they got any better, witness the razing of the Temple a few short years after Jesus' death.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Oh, absolutely. Though I don't think it was in the least a violent

itinerary. I think it was an example of non-violent insurgence. The message - about overthrowing the entrenched power systems and treating all people with love and respect - was (and probably still is!) pretty scary to those in power.

And yes to your last paragraph, too. Palestine was a tinderbox, and Rome was not amused.

[saltpoint]

27. Madam, you continue to make sense on these boards generally and

on this subject especially.

I subscribe to your post below also -- and feel that Jesus as Teacher is a potent archetype -- one greatly ignored, at least in the United States.

We don't value learning and so we don't value figures who offer it. That's why teachers are underpaid and unappreciated, and why school levies fail in referenda, and I think that also contributes to an ambiguity about the figure of Jesus.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Good point!

Maybe there's resistance to the idea of a teacher because it implies that we have something to learn!

(and thanks for the kind words).

[JerseygirlCT]

22. That's matter the most common way of looking at the resurrection

But not one I subscribe to at all.

It doesn't make sense to me that God would require a sacrifice in the first place - why? And why would God require God be sacrificed in atonement for our sins? Some long-term debt of guilt? I don't think that's how love works, and I don't think that's how God works.

I believe Jesus came to show us and teach us the way to God - by loving one another and loving God. And I think the crucifixion and resurrection were a huge demonstration of love by God - the most meaningful one for humans - and a demonstration that death holds no power over God or over us, since we are beloved of God.

Substitutionary atonement seems such a dark view of both humankind and of God. I can't go for that one.

[54anickel]

31. Yep, but I disagree on the crucifixion, I don't think God caused it or made it happen,

I just don't see God micro-managing, rather, we are left to our own devices. It was a matter of bad shit happened due to hard hearts, greed, and self-centeredness. But God got the final say, turning it, transforming it, to the good, winning over death with the resurrection.

Just my take on it.

[Why Syzygy]

40. So, what's your theory

on all those Old Testament sacrifices? IOW, why did YAHWEH give precise instructions for sacrifices?

[Meshuga]

46. Because the priestly class wanted political power

And they held on to power until the emergence of the Pharisees who brought about the concept of following the twofold law (the written and oral) which enabled follower of Torah Law to be resurrected and earn a place in the "world to come," a concept rejected by the priestly class.

Priestly "Biblical Judaism" was temple based and the priestly class controlled this religion. The belief was that sacrifices would bring them forgiveness, a good harvest, protection, etc. while rejecting the Pharisaic idea of "resurrection" and "world to come." The careful instructions given by God were merely part of their ritualistic laws.

It is my perception, from my little knowledge of Christianity, that some Christian concepts were borrowed from these two rival groups withing the Jewish community. Or mostly from the Pharisaic concept since the Pharisees didn't really do away with written Torah when they came up with their claim to authority based on the twofold law. The priests at the temple were not replaced but just told that they didn't have a place in the world to come.

[Why Syzygy]

49. Do you mind

if we allow my fellow Christian to answer? It was addressed to a Christian.
Not really interested in anyone else's theory at this point. Sorry.

[54anickel]

50. Perhaps you should have PM'd your question directly to JerseygirlCT rather than post it in an open

discussion forum. How boring of a discussion board it would be if posts were only answered by the person directly addressed. How would an Originating Post ever get off the ground?

I apologize for stepping in here since this wasn't addressed to me...

on edit: I find Meshuga's posts very enlightening. To me, his views give a glimpse into what worship and religious life was like for Jesus, his Apostles and their contemporaries. YMMV

[Why Syzygy]

51. I understand the concept of discussion board.

I made an exception in this case and asked the person to allow the one addressed to answer.
Why so offended?

I read and reply to plenty of posters, and they to me.
It isn't out of line to be uninterested at certain times in unsolicited comments.
I really don't need anyone to manage my discussion board skills, or lack of.
Meshuga is a big girl. Don't you think she can take care of herself?

I find your scolding offensive.

[54anickel]

52. Offended? Not really. Your original wording came off as rather rude and condescending

to the poster rather directly. That's the trouble with the written word I guess, feelings and intent are easily misconstrued.

[Why Syzygy]

53. I have a lot of respect for Meshuga

and we have had profitable dialog in the past. I'm sorry you took offense for her. None was intended.
She, is after all, posting in the same rough and tumble forum in which we are.

The point remains: I would like an answer from a Christian posting. There are plenty of examples of what the non-Christians have to contribute.

[Meshuga]

55. I am not a girl

I am a big boy. I can take it but it doesn't excuse you from being rude. I'm sorry but I don't believe you are being honest when you say you respect me.

[Why Syzygy]

57. Oh for pity's sake.

I respect you on most days. Today, not so much. Never seen you whine so much.

I'm in no mood to dialog with atheists today. I didn't post to one. Now, here you are. Again and again.
You get what you get when you insert yourself uninvited, and bring along your bully pulpit friend as well!

[Meshuga]

59. I am not an atheist and 54anickel is a Christian

Why would you suggest 54anickel is a bully? You are the one acting like a bully.

[Why Syzygy]

61. Two against one.

Yeh. I'm the bully.

[Meshuga]

63. I don't know 54anickel enough to say she is teaming up with me...

...to gang up on you. My guess is that she was puzzled with your hostility. No one is attacking you but questioning your reasons for the response and I appreciate her coming to my defense because it is indeed puzzling.

I am just responding to your hostility since it was directed at me and it is my right to do so. But again, if you mean to be hostile then I will just leave it at that. There is no reason to continue this conversation. You are free to act as you wish.

[54anickel]

56. So, am I considered a *gasp* non-Christian in your view? Just curious...regardless of the answer,

what does your understanding of being a Christian entail?

[Why Syzygy]

58. What?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
Other than, I'm pretty sure you don't consider yourself one. :shrug:

[54anickel]

60. I guess it was the closing comment on your post #53.

The point remains: I would like an answer from a Christian posting. There are plenty of examples of what the non-Christians have to contribute.

I take it you do not care to answer my question?

[Why Syzygy]

62. Right.

If you want to give an answer to the ORIGINAL question, go right ahead!

And, no. My answer is not sufficient. You seem to have more interest in what the atheists have to say about "why did Jesus have to die on a cross?"
Do you ever ask that anywhere other than DU?

[54anickel]

64. Wow. Guess you didn't pay much attention to my conversation with "atheists". Or you'd have noticed

that I mentioned my post on the subject of Jesus' death on the cross in the Christian DU group. Of course I ask elsewhere besides DU, that's how the original questioning in the Christian group arose. (on edit - you participated in that one)

I just do not understand this apparent attitude you seem to have toward discussions between atheists and theists.

My comment to JerseyGirlCT pretty much did address your original question directed to her.

It is obvious that you feel I have somehow personally "done you wrong". I apologize and will not "intrude" upon your posts anymore.

[Meshuga]

65. I appreciate your posts and your intrusion

I did not mean to offend with my post and I am glad you understood my intent. I am posting opinion based on scholarship that was initiated by post-Enlightenment Protestant Christian scholars so I wouldn't see at as an attempt to disqualify or criticize Christianity in any way.

[54anickel]

66. It is a facinating study, the "evolution" of Christology. I appreciate your insights, though I

must admit I've imagined many of you're opinions were based more on Jewish tradition than post-Enlightenment Christian scholarship....then again, scholars do tend to delve into the Judean roots of Christianity. Perhaps your screen name lead me to jump to that conclusion. ;-) My apologies if I stereotyped.

I am more drawn to the post-modernity Christian scholarship that is currently unfolding. I love to read the works of Spong, Borg, Crossan, Diana Butler Bass, etc. A DUer recently got me interested in Girard as well. I'm in the middle of an ecumenical study of the "Living the Questions" series. The more I learn, the more I question, the more I learn, the more accepting I become, the more I question, the more I love. It's quite a liberating experience.

[Meshuga]

67. It is Jewish Tradition

But I think Jewish scholars followed the lead in post-Enlightenment scholarship.

I am a big fan of Ellis Rifken (historian from HUC-JIR) and his work. A big focus of non-Orthodox branches of Judaism is finding our story and how we have mutated/evolved through the years in order to keep our tradition alive. Religiouly, I am Reform Jew but I am big into Mordechai Kaplan and what he has brought to all branches of Judaism.

[54anickel]

75. I must plead ignorance on the names, yet we seem to share interest in similar subject matters of

history and our respective religious traditions - (Rifkin to Borg) and that bit of radical reformer (Kaplan to Spong). Please correct me if these are inapproriate comparisions, as I said I must plead ignorance other than a quick google on Rifkin and Kaplan.

[Meshuga]

82. Yes, there is a parallel in our interests in regards to our respective religions

I don't know much about Borg to comment but I can see a Spong/Kaplan parallel as far as belief.

[Meshuga]

54. You don't want to read my two cents.

But others might.

However, I don't think my post keeps JerseyGirlCT (and other Christians) from answering your question. Especially when I only addressed the latter question and not both.

And I didn't have any intent to offend with my post to get this type of reply from you. You can always ignore my posts if you are not interested in what I have to say. It's your right. But please don't tell me when I can or cannot post.

[heidler1]

70. It is puzzling how quick Christians are to start a war over nothing.

While all the while claiming to "LOVE Everybody and believing in the son of GOD who advocates TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK".

[Why Syzygy]

73. What isn't the least puzzling

is your judgment. My post #38 (addressed to a non-responsive Christian) was intercepted by an atheist, and I replied without objection. That same non-responsive Christian chose to jump me for stating a PREFERENCE in reference to a post addressed to another Christian.

Having a preference is equated to "start(ing) a war?" Not surprising considering the source.

[Why Syzygy]

77. I want to come back to this question.

The question of Love seems to be a persistent one for you. Yes, Jesus told us to love everyone as we love ourselves, and to give to others in the same measure we give ourselves. He doesn't say we have to "LIKE" everyone.

That love is basically why I'm a liberal. I want all of us to enjoy the same rights of livelihood, respect, and freedom to pursue meaningful lives. I don't understand the prejudices of the RW Christian community in light of scripture. I like what musician Aaron Weiss says about the fundies who judge "abortion" and "homosexuality". He says that those categories are picked out because they are a minority, and the fundies can point to them and feel "better than". It's a soul sickness, imo, that need to divide "us" and "them" in any meaningful way.

I may not like everyone here, and I certainly have a temper. But I will defend with my life your right to be free.
That's what love is.

edit: What's more, if there is anything for which I am equipped that I can do for you, I will. I help people with technical issues here at DU and from other boards on the Internet. I'm not an expert, but can usually get things to work, and I offer that freely. Do you need someone to liaison with agencies? A pen pal? Access to research results? ANYTHING that I am able to do or have at my disposal, I offer to you. In all sincerity.

[heidler1]

84. You have surprised me, Thank you for your generous offer.

I too consider myself self sufficient and capable even though I'm 83. I have no pressing problems and have been married to the same woman for 57 years. I worked as a aircraft mechanic 10 years then A field rep. for IBM Corp. for 17 years. While working for IBM I designed and built a weekend house and liked doing it so much I quit IBM so that I could build houses. I soon became a California licensed General Contractor and Real Estate Broker.

My Father was a harness maker who owned his own store and shop. He was a Democrat and he believed every one who could work should work. He never envied anyone. He was born and raised in Catholic Germany. My Mother was a Protestant Republican and was very much against FDR and helping those who were less fortunate. She would fit right in with Beck today.

We recently moved back to California. We've moved many times over the years and always made money doing it, except this last time, but we got a real good deal on our new place which equals things out.

[Why Syzygy]

88. The offer stands.

check your PMs.

[heidler1]

90. I replied to your private message.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. I think that's being sort of rough

Meshuga is someone who has something interesting to say here. I'm rather glad to have read his response, and I'm sure others are, as well.

[Muttocracy]

81. how does one person replying block another from replying? nt

[JerseygirlCT]

79. One interpretation I've heard recently of the

curtain being ripped at the crucifixion was a reflection of that - no longer were the people kept separated from God, no longer was a priest needed as the go-between.

[Meshuga]

101. That marks the official break.

The Christians had Jesus and the Rabbis had the oral law. The priests had something until the temple fell.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. I'd guess that those were more a function of the culture at the

time and what the people at the time understood. And like a child's gesture is happily received by her parent, even when the gesture (that picked dandelion bouquet, perhaps?) is not in itself useful, but because it was done with love.

[saltpoint]

33. The anonymous old woman or young man or school teacher or

merchant who dies in the dispute between the governments of two warring factions is also Jesus.

And also dies for our sins, in the manner of language presented in the New Testament.

The figure of Jesus is given an express identity in the New Testament accounts but it seems to me that the death of that older woman in Bolivia or Nicaragua or Persia or Bactria etc -- anyplace you name and across all centuries -- it seems as if that death is also as vastly universal as it is strikingly individual.

That seems to me to be one of the controlling poetries of the New Testament.

[Deep13]

71. How does letting an innocent man die make us less guilty?

When I was a believer, I was very bothered by the question you raise and never resolved it. Frankly, the whole idea of vicarious blood sacricie for the wrong-doing of others is reprehensible.

[heidler1]

76. I agree plus this imaginary god is so vengefully that if it turned out to all come true.

Anyone who crossed him/her could end up as a pillar of salt or drowned or fried. Even those who worshiped this god were severely tested to see if they were really faithful like Job was. Then he/she blamed the Devil for suggesting it. If there is only one god then the Devil must be the other side of the same coin.

[iris27]

83. That was my first-ever doubt as a 7-year-old believer, and the one

that eventually led to my deconversion. If God is all-powerful, why couldn't he just forgive us? Why all the drama of sacrificing one version of himself to satisfy another version's punishment...oh, and it only counts to cover YOU if you believe in the story and give your heart to Jesus, whatever that meant.

:shrug:

Never seemed like "God is love" could describe the Trinity if that was the way He chose to play it out.

[JerseygirlCT]

85. It's interesting. Confronted with ideas like the one

we both disagree with, my inclination wasn't to turn from religion as much as to turn from a teaching I figured had to be in error. I don't think we can easily - or maybe ever - disconnect the human influence, so I think this is just another instance of human ideas of what works being imposed over the real lesson of love.

[54anickel]

86. Yes, I had a similar experience. Just found a lot of the church teachings weren't meshing with my

life experience. My family is multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious, Christian doctrine and dogma was just too exclusive to me, it's history was based too much on domination and control. I left the church for a very long time, but did not turn away from the sense of a shared connectiveness, spirituality, higher power, higher calling, the teachings of Jesus on love for self and others.

[Jokerman]

87. If I may play the devil's advocate:

"I think this is just another instance of human ideas of what works being imposed over the real lesson of love."

How can you be sure that the whole "god is love" concept isn't just a human idea that's being imposed over the real lesson of fear, servitude and vengeance?

I'm not saying that either idea is right but what makes one more likely than the other?

[JerseygirlCT]

89. No empirical proof. Just my judgement

and my gut, to be honest.

And of course, I wouldn't choose to believe something based on fear and vengeance. So I'm quite content to believe as I do, and if it turns out I've had it all wrong, then I think my life will have been richer for it, anyway.

[Evoman]

91. "So I'm quite content to believe as I do, and if it turns out I've had it all wrong, then I think my

life will have been richer for it, anyway."

Unless your tortured forever because you didn't have enough fear. That would suck.

[Why Syzygy]

93. When

I left the faith and my son tried to talk to me out of concern for my soul burning in hell, I told him, if that bothers you take it up with your God. It's his idea. Before I returned to my faith, I found many many teachers and scriptures that showed me there is no eternal suffering hell. I file that notion under "false teachings".

[JerseygirlCT]

96. Again, it's an idea entirely at odds with the idea of a loving God

and right in line with the world views of authoritarians. Those who seem to need that sort of control are quite comfortable creating that view of God. "There are these rules (X,Y,Z) just do exactly as I say and no one gets hurt."

I think they'll be very surprised indeed when they find that it doesn't work that way at all, and not only the "good boys and girls" are God's beloveds.

The best metaphor we seem to have is that of a parent. As a parent, there is literally nothing my child could do to turn me away from him. I could be angry - really, really angry - or very hurt or very sad. But my love would never stop. So how much more would God's love be? I'm human and quite imperfect.

[Evoman]

99. Unless the authoritarians are right....

And if they are, you know what's going to be the worst thing? Their smug faces of superiority as the demons play billiards with my eyeballs (if I'm lucky, my eyeballs). I mean, the burning and stuff will probably hurt...but not as much as their ugly uplifted noses as they play grab-ass with Jesus and Moses.

[Meshuga]

100. You are lucky that your

other balls are oval so no one can play billiards with those.

[Evoman]

112. They aren't oval, they are spherical. Canadian scientists use them to calibrate

their instruments.

[Meshuga]

113. Yes they are very important to calibrate instruments

Jewish wives own their husband's set so the Devil would not dare to mess with them.

[JerseygirlCT]

103. I'm rather looking forward to watching them learn the hard lesson

that everyone's included. Won't be such a fun club for many then, I suspect. Isn't there a joke about that? Someone new arrives in heaven and St. Peter tells them to be quiet as they pass a particular room. Why? That's where all the are - they think they're alone!

[Why Syzygy]

105. Thomas B. Thayer (snipped)

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html

"The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment"
By Thomas B. Thayer
Written in 1855

1. Though Gehenna occurs twelve times, the Savior actually used it only on four or five different occasions, the rest being only repetitions. If this is the word, and the revelation of this terrible doctrine is in it, how is it possible that Christ, in a ministry of three years, should use it only four times? Was He faithful to the souls committed to His charge?

2. The Savior and James are the only persons in all the New Testament who use the word. John Baptist, who preached to the most wicked of men, did not use it once. Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and yet never once mentions it. Peter does not name it, nor Jude; and John, who wrote the gospel, three epistles, and the Book of Revelations, never employs it in a single instance. Now if Gehenna or hell really reveals the terrible fact of endless woe, how can we account for this strange silence? How is it possible, if they knew its meaning, and believed it a part of Christ's teaching, that they should not have used it a hundred or a thousand times, instead of never using it at all; especially when we consider the infinite interests involved?

3. The Book of Acts contains the record of the apostolic preaching, and the history of the first planting of the Church among the Jews and Gentiles, and embraces a period of thirty years from the ascension of Christ. In all this history, in all this preaching of the disciples and apostles of Jesus, there is no mention of Gehenna. In thirty years of missionary effort, these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations, never, under any circumstances, threaten them with the torments of Gehenna, or allude to it in the most distant manner! In the face of such a fact as this, can any man believe that Gehenna signifies endless punishment, and that this is a part of divine revelation, a part of the Gospel message to the world?

These considerations show how impossible it is to establish the doctrine in review on the word Gehenna. All the facts are against the supposition that the term was used by Christ or His disciples in the sense of future endless punishment. There is not the least hint of any such meaning attached to it, nor the slightest preparatory notice that any such new revelation was to be looked for in this old familiar word.

[JerseygirlCT]

110. And yet, look what humankind has done to it over the years

And now in some Christian sects, it is elevated not only to core dogma, but maybe THE core.

[Why Syzygy]

111. The driving force.

Yes. It is loathsome.

I was actually surprised at the many varied sources I found for the correct interpretation.
I could never have returned to God if I still believed he was an eternal torturer.


eta: And as another thread indicates, all in the name of the almighty $Million. It's a money maker.
:cry:

[Evoman]

97. I hope your right....I would hate to spend the rest of eternity with the devil stabbing my ballz

with his pitchfork.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Evo, have you thought about getting some help for that

preoccupation with a particular body part?

The nuns said you'd go blind, you know...

[Evoman]

106. Yes, I've gotten help with my preoccupation. It was fun. Now I'm looking for more help.

You interested?

:rofl:

[JerseygirlCT]

109. You're on a roll today, aren't you? nt

[JerseygirlCT]

95. Well, we'll be roasting together then, huh?

:toast:

[Evoman]

98. Yes, I suppose. I'm wondering if hell has anything like marshmallows.

I really don't want to know what hell's version of a Weenie roast is, though.

[JerseygirlCT]

102. LOL. You're such a guy. nt

[Evoman]

107. I can't help it, it's glandular.

[JerseygirlCT]

108. LOL! Thanks, I needed that. nt

[deutsey]

94. I don't see the Crucifixion as Jesus dying for our sins to appease an angry God.

I see it as an example of how it's possible to retain the true sense of who the Divine calls you to be, even as you face violent, painful death.

[ChelseaCenior]

114. What The Heck Is Your Problem!!!

I'm sure someone must have named their kid Jesus! haha no I think there was a Jesus, but as for being magical and all, not so much, plus, he was Jewish, so this is just me, but I think he would rather people follow his religion, than create one about him, it's flattering and all I'm sure, but in reality... let's be realistic, yeah, that's about it... = )

[ChelseaCenior]

115. One more thing

Why exactly did he die to save MY sins, and how exactly does that work?

[Taverner]

116. Guilt and Fear are the prime motivators of Evangelical Christianity

Guilt, over Jesus' crucifixion, and fear of hell. I mean, look what God did to his only son? And he loved him.

That's why "The Passion of the Christ" was so effective

[Sandrine for you]

118. Anyway he did not existe, so why they care about my behaviour ?....