If Jesus was a god his death wasn't a sacrifi

[spartan max2 16,227]

15 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Nice article, but does not address moral behavior per se.

I have a friend who has OCD, along with Intrusive Thought Compulsion about self harm, and a couple of other Mental Health concerns.

Intrusive thoughts are had by everyone, like "what if I drove my car through that shopping plaza", destructive thoughts that most people will shake their head and say "WTF did that come from?" and move on.  In my friends situation, when she gets these thoughts, it is difficult for her to dismiss them, and she struggles with trying not to hurt herself. Her situation though, would be classed as abnormal behavior. So, in her case, you could say that her 'bad' behavior was due to a genetic flaw, i.e.: her mental health issues.

A good example would be is a person genetically disposed to burst of anger more likely to assault someone then a person who is not genetically disposed to burst of anger ? 

The answer is probably yes. The genetics don't decide his behavior but it influences it. It can make people more at risk for behaviors. 

Same with impulse control , etc.

 

[third_eye 47,619]

Look mummy, there's an aeroplane up in the sky...

Quote

 

~

[Habitat 8,568]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

You are all getting stuck on the genetics lol.

My original statement was that morals are relative because we each individually decide what is right and wrong.

Our idea of what is right and wrong comes from a combination of influences: our parents, our culture, our life expierences, and our genetics. 

Because of this, ideas of right and wrong change over time. It's relative.

The difference between us and a person stoning someone in the past is simply the different influences. Being born in a different time, in a different culture, with different parents and genetics. 

So we have different morals but it's only because of all the happenstance influences we were born into.

No-one knows how "moral" they are till put to the test. They say every man has his price, not sure about that, but we are not dealing with clear-cut delineations in these matters.

[DieChecker 26,034]

10 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

A good example would be is a person genetically disposed to burst of anger more likely to assault someone then a person who is not genetically disposed to burst of anger ? 

The answer is probably yes. The genetics don't decide his behavior but it influences it. It can make people more at risk for behaviors. 

Same with impulse control , etc.

 

I had a Sergeant in the Army who told me that because he was Native American, he had a "profile" that allowed him to get away with being angry/abusive. I never challenged him on that.

I'm not sure that people can be genetically more prone to anger. I think it is mainly a result of how they were raised, and what methods of anger management they were taught as children.

[DieChecker 26,034]

On 7/5/2019 at 1:16 PM, darkmoonlady said:

If Jesus were a comic book character, knowing he was the son of God and immortal, doesn't that make him dying on the cross meaningless? He knew he couldn't really die. Whatever pain he experienced he chose to experience, as a god he is capable of healing himself and just getting off the cross. I'm a skeptical pagan so call me biased but this has bothered me. I don't believe in the Bible and don't see it as real but even as a concept it seems like a problem. His death is always framed by his believers as a sacrifice or that he died for the sins of others but him knowing he could not die or die and come back makes that not a death FOR anything. More like a trick. 

From what I've read of the Bible.... (And I admit to not reading it cover to cover.) Jesus knew he was going to be killed, and also knew he would rise from the dead. What he didn't know was what would come after that. The people that had risen from the dead during his ministries all came back to normal life... Not as immortals. They could die again that same day, if they were careless. Just as those who were cured of sickness, and possession, still had to fear disease and evil spirits. 

If I was Jesus, my fear would be that I'd rise from the dead still in the control of my enemies, and they'd kill me again immediately. He was not immortal. Not before, or after, he was crucified. Not until he was carried off into Heaven. Or, at least I believe that is what he believed.

Regardless, if you sell your car, give the money to charity, and then get the car gifted back to you... and you knew you were going to get it back... You still gifted to charity. Jesus died for the sins of the world and broke the need to sacrifice at the temple for every little thing, or risk being spiritually unclean. He did die. He did sacrifice. Even if for only a day and a half. (Which the Jews counted as three days...)

He was different when he rose. He didn't go about as he had before, and appeared and disappeared suddenly and without clear coming and going involved. He still had the open wounds where he'd been crucified and stabbed.

If he'd laughed it off, and married and had kids, and got rich as F** then I'd agree it was a trick. But that's not what is written down.

[Phaeton80 3,959]

Im quite sure environment trumps genetics by far.. Environment dictates, genetics facilitates.

Genetics will offer certain predispositions, negative or positive.. But its environment which dictates if any of those predispositions develop.

 

[Jodie.Lynne 14,139]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Regardless, if you sell your car, give the money to charity, and then get the car gifted back to you... and you knew you were going to get it back... You still gifted to charity.

And you have risked nothing, so how much is your 'charity' actually worth?

And the 'dying for the sins of the world, never sat well with me, for it makes no sense.

In North Korea, if a person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison, the next two generations of that person, and their family, are also convicted. That means that the grandchild of someone who committed a crime is also held responsible for that crime. Nonsensical, yeah?

But Christians are perfectly ok with accepting the notion of a scapegoat, one man who somehow absorbed the inequity of all men's 'sins', even those that wouldn't be born for centuries. But they will scoff & jeer and other primitive religions that practiced human sacrifice to appease their gods.

[lightly 8,501]

16 hours ago, XenoFish said:

What if it was baby Hitler?

I would still say it would be wrong to kill him, as a baby, because babies have the potential for being "good"  or  "evil" ?

later on, some one should have had the good sence to shoot the monster dead.  ?

If we had known what hitler baby would do later on....then ,ya, strangle him......others have also shown me the shortsightedness of my blanket statement

Edited July 7, 2019 by lightly

[XenoFish 105,712]

14 minutes ago, lightly said:

I would still say it would be wrong to kill him, as a baby, because babies have the potential for being "good"  or  "evil" ?

later on, some one should have had the good sence to shoot the monster dead.  ?

If we had known what hitler baby would do later on....then ,ya, strangle him......others have also shown me the shortsightedness of my blanket statement

Here's something to think about. Say you've time traveled to a point where yes you can kill Hitler right before the whole Nazi thing. What would be the effect of this? From a causal chain of events a lot of technology, including medical might have been set back. A lot of people might not have been born. Someone else might have taken Hitler's place and been way worse than him. Saying yes to offing someone is easy in a hypothetical situation. Like pushing a big red button to wipe out humanity. It's easy as a thought experiment. In reality. I doubt any one of us could do it.

[lightly 8,501]

Hmmm...causal chain of events, yes that is interesting.   I guess that's why everything always turns out for the best anyway? 

[Desertrat56 17,659]

On 7/5/2019 at 6:19 PM, Will Due said:

 

I was asking about what the objective truth is.

 

 

 

The Objective truth is that No One in a human body on planet earth KNOWS.  It is all stories, assumptions and belief.

[Desertrat56 17,659]

On 7/5/2019 at 8:50 PM, and then said:

The parent-child relationship is a good analogy.  If the parent is trying to teach the child about good nutrition that will keep the kid healthy in life then having rules about cookies seems like a positive.  Of course, beating the kid for having the cookie would be counterproductive.  The little addendum of yours about punishing the child even if he didn't know the rules isn't valid.  The "rules" are plainly written and it is the parent's responsibility to make sure the child knows them.  After that, the choice is up to the kid.  If they choose the route of pleasing their sweet tooth and have health problems later in life, that isn't the parent's fault, is it?  

And we absolutely have free will.  If we didn't, we'd just be shells of beings instead of self-aware individuals in charge of their own destiny.  The choice is ours.  Those who choose to reject that message do so out of their free will.  When a person really takes the time to read and understand Christ's message, they have to admit that there is nothing evil or harmful in it.  He offers a way to live in harmony with others - within each person's ability to understand and obey - and leaves the choice to us.  He told His followers not to spend time with those who heard the message and rejected it.  He told them to move on.  Christians today who judge others and demand compliance with their way of life are, frankly, in error.  It isn't their place to convert anyone.  It's only their duty to relay the good news of Christ's way.  

What rules are plainly written?

[zep73 7,130]

On 6.7.2019 at 2:46 AM, Dejarma said:

my theory is the big bang is the result of the collapse of the previous universe

you're boring me now!! explain what you mean by reverse in this context? what is the reverse of the big bang?--- in your opinion of course

well maybe while you're in bed you can think of a reply, mate- make it a good one sunshine because you're talking to me

i'm sure you'll do well- have a good sleep

If you could be so kind to explain to me, what you mean by "collapse of the previous universe", then I can give you my "reverse" or "crunch" to compare with.
It was, after all, you who started this hair-splitting with your collapse comment. 

[Will Do 6,347]

6 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

The Objective truth is that No One in a human body on planet earth KNOWS.  It is all stories, assumptions and belief.

 

How do you know that I don't know?

 

 

[Desertrat56 17,659]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

How do you know that I don't know?

 

 

Objective, subjective - find a dictionary and look them up.

[Will Do 6,347]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Objective, subjective - find a dictionary and look them up.

 

How do you know that I don't know?

 

 

[zep73 7,130]

On 6.7.2019 at 11:15 AM, Tatetopa said:

Help me out here. Inverse square law, yes?  Gravity is a weak force, but there is a lot of mass.  isn't the amount of mass calculated for steady state, expansion, and contraction.  I think Einstein liked steady state that's why he threw the constant in there. 

I'm a poor mathematician, so I'll have to point to wiki

Quote

Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917 to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.From the 1930s until the late 1990s, most physicists assumed the cosmological constant to be equal to zero. That changed with the surprising discovery in 1998 that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, implying the possibility of a positive nonzero value for the cosmological constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

 

[cormac mac airt 14,336]

3 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

And you have risked nothing, so how much is your 'charity' actually worth?

And the 'dying for the sins of the world, never sat well with me, for it makes no sense.

In North Korea, if a person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison, the next two generations of that person, and their family, are also convicted. That means that the grandchild of someone who committed a crime is also held responsible for that crime. Nonsensical, yeah?

But Christians are perfectly ok with accepting the notion of a scapegoat, one man who somehow absorbed the inequity of all men's 'sins', even those that wouldn't be born for centuries. But they will scoff & jeer and other primitive religions that practiced human sacrifice to appease their gods.

And therein lies the distinction that I think is being missed. If one risks nothing then their 'sacrifice' is rendered moot.

cormac

[danydandan 14,177]

17 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And therein lies the distinction that I think is being missed. If one risks nothing then their 'sacrifice' is rendered moot.

cormac

But not all charity is a sacrifice.

[Jodie.Lynne 14,139]

11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

But not all charity is a sacrifice.

Have you ever watched a charity appeal show or advert?

"For the price of a cup of coffee, you can...."

The implication that you are 'sacrificing' your cuppa in order to help someone is implicit.

And any charitable act requires that you give up something, food, clothes, money, or time and physical ability.

Ex-President Jimmy Cater donates time, energy, and effort to help build homes for the homeless.

[danydandan 14,177]

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Have you ever watched a charity appeal show or advert?

"For the price of a cup of coffee, you can...."

The implication that you are 'sacrificing' your cuppa in order to help someone is implicit.

And any charitable act requires that you give up something, food, clothes, money, or time and physical ability.

Ex-President Jimmy Cater donates time, energy, and effort to help build homes for the homeless.

I don't see that as a sacrifice. I'm sure Jimmy doesn't either. 

[cormac mac airt 14,336]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

But not all charity is a sacrifice.

HIS wasn't considered a charity though. He wasn't giving his life with no expectations of any benefit, as a son of God he would have known he wasn't going to die permanently. 

cormac

Edited July 7, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[Guyver 3,849]

On 7/5/2019 at 1:16 PM, darkmoonlady said:

If Jesus were a comic book character, knowing he was the son of God and immortal, doesn't that make him dying on the cross meaningless? He knew he couldn't really die. Whatever pain he experienced he chose to experience, as a god he is capable of healing himself and just getting off the cross. I'm a skeptical pagan so call me biased but this has bothered me. I don't believe in the Bible and don't see it as real but even as a concept it seems like a problem. His death is always framed by his believers as a sacrifice or that he died for the sins of others but him knowing he could not die or die and come back makes that not a death FOR anything. More like a trick. 

I agree that it is problematic.  

As a former Christian, I can offer you one perspective, and then my thoughts about it now.  There are a couple of schools of thought within Christianity itself that have been debated long time, Jesus being God incarnate, or the Son of God.  The bible makes both cases, or rather.....both cases can be made from the Bible.  Many Christians (Trinitarians) will consider any notion that Jesus is not fully God to be blasphemous.  In the Epistle of 1 John chapter 5, it claims that eternal life is the believing that Jesus is the Christ......the Son of God.....not God himself.

The Trinitarians weave around this by claiming that Jesus was fully God and fully man.  He was the second person of the "Godhead" and the one who created the world.  His death was a sacrifice for once and all to remove the effects of sin upon the world.  They also accept the existence of "God's opposite" in a sense, in the devil or Satan who is influencing the world negatively and attempting to lead the world away from Jesus and his sacrifice which allows a person to become reconnected to God, since they had been disconnected because of sin.  So, the idea is that when one sins, they become "of the devil" - a doomed sinner headed for hell.....and when they are "converted" by believing the gospel, they are once again unified with God.  

So, to answer your question.....it was the human part of Jesus that died on the cross, and not his immortal soul.  His body was broken for the sins of the world, and he did suffer death.....but his soul was not affected by this event.  That is my understanding of the Christian belief of it.  In the next post I will offer my opinion.  

[Guyver 3,849]

fI think that life is a struggle for everyone.  The struggle is real, but not just in a physical sense.  In a physical sense, we struggle for those things noted in Maslow's Heirarchy.  For food, safety and shelter as the "low base" and self-actualization on the upper end.  It's just that I'm not sure that "self-actualization" is actually all that when you have it.  

It's a temporary feeling....it's not something that lasts.  I think there is something broken about this existence and we are all looking to find out what it is, and what went wrong.  Like the Rolling Stones spoke of not being able to get any satisfaction.  It's like there is always something missing.  

For three years I have been struggling to accomplish a goal.  I wanted to break 80 in golf.  I worked, and worked, and practiced and played, on and on....through the pain, embarrassment and misery of failing for so long.....then just three days ago, I made it.  I shot 78.  Yet, instead of some tremendous feeling of exhilaration, I was like, eh.  That was easy.  Yesterday, I played golf again, and scored miserably....like in the 90's.  But, on Thursday, everything went almost perfectly, and I shot the 78.

I was unhappy/unfulfilled when I played miserably yesterday.....and I was not unhappy, but not fulfilled by achieving my goal on Thursday.  So, I think maybe religions exist as a means to give people some answers, or explanations that work for them to explain that which seems to be lacking in this life....whatever that may be.  In the case of Christianity, they explain it with this enemy (Satan and death) and with its opposite - Salvation in Jesus.

Personally, I don't have any real answers and so the journey continues.  

[hetrodoxly 4,073]

Christianophobia.