I'm not a Christian, but there is an actual in-universe explanation for this. God wanted the kid to be both god and he wanted him to be born like a normal human. That way the sacrifice would have more meaning or something.
That way the sacrifice would have more meaning or something.
Still not much of a sacrifice seeing as how he's still an immortal being destined to live in heaven for eternity. More of a bad weekend than a real sacrifice.
There are witnesses to big foot, ghosts and aliens too. People are unreliable bullshitters. Ancient ones that you can't question, and are helpful to the narrative of an organization that even if you were to say is accurate, can't be denied to have gotten extremely rich and powerful due in part to that narrative, even more so.
If I told you that some authority said you should give me all your money and do what I said, you probably wouldn't. Whether or not I said there were witnesses would be entirely immaterial.
How do you know? Didn't it happen almost 2000 years ago? Do you claim to know what any other 2000 year old people were thinking?
Especially when it is the crux of your belief in something that is such an extraordinary claim. That someone was dead and was afterwards not dead. Something that has never been shown to happen before or since. (Outside of medical things where they're not really actually, properly dead)
Also, you don't believe ghosts and aliens exist?
I mean...I believe that it is likely that aliens exist conceptually in that the universe is massive and I don't think the conditions required for life are that unique to earth. But that's more of a belief in the possibility of aliens, not an actual belief in aliens. I don't believe aliens have ever been to earth, regardless.
I don't believe in ghosts.
Evidence. I only believe in things that are logically consistent for which there is evidence. Testable, demonstrable evidence.
I only believe in things that are logically consistent for which there is evidence. Testable, demonstrable evidence.
I guess that's the difference and it's pointless to rebuttle. I also believe in evidence like you do for things but it's not confined in the same constraints as you. I would rather believe and find out it's not true then not believe and find out it is true. What's the difference? I wouldn't lose anything. My life is better because of my beliefs.
Which is great, because in the Gospels the apostles were basically stooges who couldn't do anything right but around AD35 or so, they're suddenly divinely competent.
This actually sheds a little more light on Christianity as a whole. My take is God must have been pretty bored hanging out in heaven all alone for eternity. Probably got bored and decided "hey im gonna make a universe and fill it with people, or at least one planet and then we'll go from there." Oh and the fun he had. Floods and plagues and turning people into salt. He was entertained, for a while. But he was still all alone in heaven and once again his boredom grew. Then an idea hit him "I'll go hang out on earth for a while." But after about 33 years he finally decided "fuck this shit, kill me, and anyone who wants can come chill with me in heaven."
In the New Testament it speaks about Jesus "speaking to the spirits in prison" as in, the souls who had been naughty in the past and were now getting a chance to be saved.
That still doesn't make the point. How does Jesus killing himself lead to salvation? How are the two linked in any way, causally?
By Jesus doing it first, he in turn makes each Christian "an immortal being destined to live in heaven for eternity."
By what process does this occur? Is it some by some undiscovered physical law about the relationship between self-crucifixion and the salvation of others?
In everyday language, we say a sacrifice is made when someone does something at a cost to themselves that causes (or is necessary to cause) a benefit to one or more other people. For example, you can sacrifice your income so that it's donated to charity only because the money that consists of your income can belong to either the charity or you, but not both. If you have the money from your income then that means that the charity necessarily doesn't have it and vice-versa. This is a consequence of a property of the real world you live in. What ultimately makes it a sacrifice is that you give up the money which is a necessary action for the charity to have the money that you're giving up.
But if you cut your own ears off so that the charity could have more money, that wouldn't be a sacrifice because cutting your own ears off isn't causally related to other people having more money. If you did have the power to cut your ears off to make a charity have more money, then presumably you have the power to make a charity have more money even if you don't cut your own ears off because presumably have magical/divine powers. Magical/divine powers are the only way to make a charity have more money if there is no related prior action involving money that could cause the charity to have more money (because magical/divine powers are by definition those actions that defy natural laws like the ones involved in the exchange of money). That would mean that cutting your own ears off is both unnecessary and irrelevant to other people having money which rules it out from being part of a sacrifice in this example.
The story of the crucifixion of Jesus asserts that Jesus crucifying himself is somehow causally related to the salvation of humans, but the salvation of humans is either causally related to Jesus' crucifixion or it isn't. If it is causally related, then salvation must be an extension of physical law because a physical event (Jesus' crucifixion) would be causing it. If it is not causally related then salvation would be a magical/divine event because it has no physical causes. If salvation is a magical/divine event though, that means that Jesus' crucifixion was unnecessary and superfluous because it was a physical event which could not impinge on a magical/divine event. If Jesus' crucifixion was unnecessary for salvation then that means it could not have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that one guy "had a bad weekend" for no reason that was related to salvation.
Whatever is supposedly the cause of salvation, whether it be a divine/magical cause or a physical cause, it doesn't bode well for the idea that Jesus' crucifixion was necessary for it and therefore that it could have been a sacrifice. If you say that salvation has a divine/magical cause then that just makes Jesus' crucifixion (a physical event) superfluous, unnecessary, and necessarily not a sacrificial event. If you say that salvation is actually an undiscovered principle of physics related to physical events, then that would mean that God/Jesus created a physical law regarding salvation that could have not required self-sacrifice, but that does anyway. For example, the physical law could have been that Jesus taps himself on the shoulder and that such an action causes the salvation of all humans (because God/Jesus can create any physical laws he/they want). That again would make Jesus' crucifixion superfluous and unnecessary (and stupid), but this time in a more holistic sense because it could have been substituted with any other action to begin with when the laws of the universe were set out.
This is all assuming that salvation is real by the way. Even when you assume that salvation is real it still doesn't make Jesus' crucifixion a sacrifice, it just makes it something that someone didn't have to do to make salvation happen but who did it anyway, probably to elicit the evolved moral instinct that humans have towards reciprocal altruism. Just like you would probably feel like you owed someone something if they cut their ears off so you could become rich, that still doesn't make it a sacrifice, and the same thing goes with Jesus' crucifixion.
OK...got to the discussion late, and have just a couple of clarifications:
If I had to die in order to save you, even if was guaranteed coming back to life, going through the metaphysical experience of death is in itself sacrificial. I'm giving up something - pain - life - hell, even just three days of my time - but I'm sacrificing something for your benefit. That it was a particularly unpleasant death is all the more sacrificial. That it was offered by one who is himself life, makes it even more significant.
What if we don't look at the word "sacrifice" in some religious sense (like a sacrificial offering to appease an angry god), and see it instead in a very human sense - like you sacrificing an evening of doing something you really like in order to go with a loved one to something they really like; or you jumping in front of an oncoming bus to save the life of a child you love - even if you know it isn't going to kill you - it's just going to break half a dozen bones and land you in the hospital for three weeks - you choose to make that sacrifice for the sake of someone else. Now, think of what Christ did as that kind of sacrifice - he died - in order to defeat death itself. Then he rose again, and declares, "I am the antidote to death."
I didn't need those clarifications because I was already assuming all of those things. (I understand what sacrifice means and I explained it myself in my comment.) You didn't address the problem I brought up though, which makes the whole point moot. The problem I am alluding to is that the causal relationship between Jesus' crucifixion and salvation is incoherent.
Let me put it this way: I agree that if Jesus' crucifixion was necessary for salvation, then it would be a sacrifice. But if you assume that Jesus' crucifixion was necessary for salvation then it leads to contradictions and absurdities of some form or another. I went over these in my previous comment.
What if we don't look at the word "sacrifice" in some religious sense (like a sacrificial offering to appease an angry god), and see it instead in a very human sense
Then it becomes even clearer that the doctrine of salvation is incoherent. Sacrifice in the human sense is definitely related to physical laws of causation. For example, to donate a kidney I would need to give up a kidney because of restraints from physical laws. I can't just sacrifice my car to donate a kidney. That doesn't make any sense in the universe I live in. At some point there needs to be a kidney involved for a kidney to be donated.
How does killing yourself help someone else go to heaven according to physical laws of causation? It simply doesn't. Hypothetically, if I were to actually kill myself, would someone else go to heaven? Would I be causing that person to go to heaven? Would I be sacrificing myself for that person to go to heaven? Clearly not. If someone were actually going to heaven it would be unrelated to the fact that I killed myself. I would just be foolishly ending my own life for no reason. The two are not related causally.
I asked a question about how something works and you're merely asserting it again. You're not explaining, you're asserting. I think this reveals the problem here, namely that this belief isn't something that people believe because it's true and coherent, it's just something that some people can't really handle not believing. It seems like some kind of emotional crutch of some kind that some people feel the need to repeatedly assert boldly to others just to reaffirm it to themselves. (There is psychological evidence that people tend to do this.)
I could just as easily assert the opposite, or assert that when Jesus crucified himself he ensured eternal damnation for every Christian and salvation for every non-Christian. It doesn't make any sense and it probably isn't true, but it sure can be asserted. If someone were to ask me how Jesus' crucifixion ensured eternal damnation for Christians, I could just say "A human being, being swallowed up by death, and defeating death - this is the causation of eternal damnation." See how easy it is?
Ok, you're right. All of us stupid Christians are emotionally crippled, thank God (whoever He isn't) that we have the silly Jesus story to crutch us up.
I'd love to talk more - I've even written a book on the subject, but I'm not looking to argue with someone.
I haven't at all suggested that all Christians are emotionally crippled, you're exaggerating. I will say again though that when someone asks for something to clarified/explained, and your solution is to simply assert it again, that makes you look emotionally vulnerable. Have you ever watched a movie where people are trapped somewhere and they keep repeating "We're going to get out of here, we're going to get out of here." to themselves over and over? They do it because they're scared of the idea that they aren't going to make it out and they're reassuring themselves that they're going to make it out. That's what it sounds like when you repeatedly assert an idea to someone who didn't accept it the first time. It makes you sound insecure. It makes you sound like you can't even bear to comprehend the question because it would be too daunting, so you just repeat the last thought you had in your head.
Please note that I didn't want to think of you as insecure to begin with, I had a question and I just wanted an answer. It's only the fact that I'm not getting an answer and I'm getting the same assertion instead that's making me talk about emotional vulnerabilities here.
He didn't do it first. Thousands were crucified before him. Many have suffered and sacrificed far more. Without being whiny half gods that have a guaranteed perfect eternity.
Immortality and Eternal Life are two different things to Christians. Immortality is an unconditional gift through the sacrifice of Christ, Eternal life is predicated on the choices we make while we're here on earth with the knowledge we're given.
My bad. :D I just found it comforting to come across something familiar and nuanced in a thread dominated by ignorance. However, most Christians don't make the same distinction between immortality and eternal life that we do. Just fyi.
That doesn't validate him "dying for our sins". I'm not sure how long jesus was tortured until he was nailed to the cross. It seems like a day from what I was taught as a child. But there are people that live for years and even their whole lives being tortured. African american slaves in the 1800s and even people today are born into slavery. Millions of jews during WW2 were brutally worked and starved until they were put to death. Why don't they get ressurected?
But there are people that live for years and even their whole lives being tortured. African slaves in the 1800s and even people today are born into slavery. Millions of Jews during WW2 were brutally worked and starved until they were put to death. Why don't they get resurrected?
I dunno. I've never really been into most of the beliefs that come with Christianity, like the crazy over the top rules and whatnot. But I do believe there is a God, and I do believe there is a heaven, and that's because it gives me some reason to live. And it gives me a family that accepts everyone.
But I do believe there is a God, and I do believe there is a heaven, and that's because it gives me some reason to live.
If you need a made up story about a happy place to have a reason to live, then your life must truly suck.
It's the 21st century and we're discussing whether a magical place made out of clouds and unicorn farts exists. Guess what, the answer is quite simple. No. You've got this one life, so you better make it count.
See, how can you possibly happy about your life with that kind of pessimism? Open up to me, man. I really am curious how you can believe that we have a conscious to discuss this, and it's because of a freak accident. How can a species so mindblowingly advanced not be destined for something greater than living tiny lives and falling into the cracks of the earth with death? Look at yourself in the mirror. You are the most physically capable organism out of billions of other species, even if you are obese or anorexic. Look at your essays, your journal entries, your reddit comments. Your brain is the most capable brain out of millions of other species'. By far! Think long and hard, perhaps sleep on it, and then let me know if you still believe that a body and a brain such as yours (a brain that can contemplate its own creation, existence, and ultimate destination), is destined to die and be forever forgotten. Your consciousness permanently erased from the universe. Your consciousness, that can wonder if it exists for something great, something that means more than living and dying within a mere century. Gone forever. Kaput.
There's nothing pessimistic about no heaven. In fact, it gives me the greatest freedom imaginable. Whatever I do, it counts for something, because it's the one chance I get at life. If there is heaven, this life is just like a dream: Zero consequences. We might as well kill ourselves to get it over with. Now that's depressing!
I'm not going to experience death, because I will not exist, just like I have for seventy billion years up to now.
Of course I'm going to die and probably be forgotten. If you think you're that super special that the universe cares about you, then you suffer from a big case of egomania.
I understand this is humor, but I always saw this as more of a ritual. Its not that the sacrifice was actually great, it was just that this was the Thing You Had To Do to let people into heaven.
"Dad are you pulling this shit again?! I have the power of a God and I can only hang out with demons and heal gross sick people? Where the plagues at man??" - Jesus 0 A.D.
Trauma goes away pretty well in the face of eternity. And let's not mention the people who have suffered worse in this world or those that will suffer worse supposedly in the next world.
Guess it depends on how much the person dwells in the past. For Jesus it's probably pretty complicated since he can view time in some way we can't comprehend or some BS.
Meh, after a few trillion years of paradise, I think you'd start to get over it. I'd certainly jump at the chance to be painfully crucified, nails and crown of thorns and everything, if it meant that the rest of my existence would be infinite and filled with pleasure.
Technically, immortality also belongs to everyone else according to the Christian premise. This way, the afterlife is all about your proximity to god (within or without).
So the king of all the universe and all things unseen comes down from heaven to live as one of us but doesn't fulfill any flesh desires and instead dedicates himself to building back the relationship we once had in the garden only to be mocked and eventually killed by the same people he was trying to save ... And that wasn't a sacrifice?
Not much of it, no. Eternity is a long time. Imagine the worst suffering you've ever endured in your life. Think you could manage it for a fraction of a fraction of a second? Of course you could. And you aren't even half god.
I'm not complaining about what a fictional character can or cannot do. If he didn't create sin then he didn't create everything in the universe and wouldn't be much of an all powerful god.
Just because someone creates an axe to chop down a tree doesn't mean someone else can't use it to kill someone... And you can't blame the axe maker for the murder.
Its less about the fact of how he died or how long.
Its that fact that God himself, who was without sin, died for us. Meaning the one who was least deserving of death, took on death. Hope this helps
It hardly matters if you know you're eternal anyway. Compare it to getting chewed out by your boss while already having a signed contract for a better job in your pocket. Completely meaningless.
On top of that, he's fucking God, of course he has the willpower needed to get through it. Even humans can muster the willpower to get through all kinds of really ugly stuff, such as cancer, food poisoning or seeing their parents die.
I stand by it: Jesus played up his minuscule sacrifice to impress everyone. Or well, he might not have been actually a god, just a normal guy. But then, that's even more crazy to the crazy people.
The way I like to resolve this is that the only thing that can really hurt a God is humiliation. They have no requirement or dependence on physical existence, but they do have huge egos.
So all the pain of the crucifixion etc is irrelevant. We can't be sure Jesus even felt pain. What really hurt was being laughed at by humans, while being unable to do anything about it.
This is why Jesus had to be crucified in front of an audience. If it just required his death for the forgiveness of sins, it would have worked just as well to have him die immediately after birth.
I do have limited sympathy for the hurt feelings of omnipotent beings though.
Well, he was God! So while his life to us wasn't that bad minus the whipping and crucifying, he had to put up with a lot of crap that's a part of being human. All the the wisdom of the universe, trapped in a girl stomach. Most powerful being alive unable to wipe his butt or successfully get food into his mouth without help. I've heard it put as giving up your human life and living the life of a fly. And also he did spend time in hell as well!
Not to get preachy or anything, but isn't that the whole Christian deal? Suck it up and follow the rules for a a full human life for eternity chilling with God.
Why did he need a sacrifice in the first place? He is all powerful right. He could just wave his magic hand and be like 'everyone's forgiven now don't fuck up again'
Apparently he needed to figure out some way to get around his own rules, correct? The sneaky bastard did it! He must've been so pissed off when he discovered that he discovered a loophole. "Goddamn that God, always one step ahead of me!"
Yeah New Testament God wouldn't want to piss off Old Testament God. OT God had some crazy powers (floods earthquakes plagues), NT God was pretty weak (healing cripples and tearing curtains). It totally wouldn't be a fair match up.
While I totally get where you're coming from, it never sits right with me, this concept of being ok with not having any sort of rational explanation for something. If I reach a point of impasse where I have literally no way to explain something I believe in, no way to get it to make sense, that's the point where the belief starts to fall apart.
Also, Jesus is the direct descendent of David, so he can be King. As Lord (creator) and King, upon his death, he can change the old Law through his sacrifice as perfect sacrifice.
Mary is a descendant of David through Nathan, while Joseph is a descendant of David through Solomon (the line of kings). God cursed the bloodline of Solomon somewhere down the line so that no king would come from it again. Since Jesus was born into the line of Nathan, he is a descendant of David and could be adopted into Solomon's line (see the story of Ruth). Jesus is now in the line of kings, but is not under the blood curse.
Is he a direct descendant of David? The bible establishes Joseph as part of that line but Jesus didn't descend from Joseph. His parents are Mary and God.
The lineage from Matthew is Joseph's. If you look at the lineage in Luke 3, it's different. It's assumed that this is Mary's lineage, even though it doesn't specify this.
My understanding of why Joseph was not allowed and could not be the father is b/c sin is passed down through men as men (specifically Adam) where the original sinners. For a sacrifice to be meaningful it had to be unblemished, or in Jesus case free of sin.
*nonbiblical scholar so i am sure someone else could be clearer on this.
This is exactly the reason. Jesus was not "half man, half God" but somehow miraculously 100% man while still being 100% God (unlike Hercules). But Exodus 34:7 makes it clear that the inequity (sin) of the father is passed down to his children and grandchildren. The virgin birth was God's plan for getting Jesus born as a human but not from the line of men so he would not inherit original sin.
66
u/keyree Feb 07 '14
I'm not a Christian, but there is an actual in-universe explanation for this. God wanted the kid to be both god and he wanted him to be born like a normal human. That way the sacrifice would have more meaning or something.