-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Can someone explain Jesus's sacrifice to me?
- Thread starter Rivius
- Start date
Ozymandyus
New Member
Using this definition of sacrifice there is no such thing. Your version of sacrifice is more like insanity. The common understanding of sacrifice is putting your own personal well being below the well being of others.atheismforthewin said:It's not a sacrifice. A sacrifice is the intentional loss of a possession, materialistic or not, for something of less value. If it were for something of higher value, it would be a gain. It's the simple concept of profit. This shows one of two ideas. Jesus didn't value those he was saving, or he did it for his own selfish gain. The second may seem antagonistic, but when you analyze the objectivist ethics* the second is possible and relatively productive. (Note the 'relatively') It is the incorrectly evil persona of gain that the latter of Jesus' reasoning could be considered antagonistic. The former of his reasoning, though, is just plain rude.
*Ayn Rand-The Virtue of Selfishness, an awesome read.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Really? Are you serious? Or playing Devil's advocate?EddyCorp said:
Because, we've asked "why?" and the answers are all pretty bad.
The dieing for sins part is largely over-hyped imo. There are other reasons that make just as little sense, like he had to die to go to hell and get the key to the gate of the dead (or something like that) to allow all the dead to get into heaven. Question then becomes why is the key in hell and why could god jsut make another key?
theatheistguy
New Member
I believe you're referring to JC going into Hades to bring those who'd been good enough to have not gone to hell, and bring them to heaven. Not sure about the gate and the key, but yea you point still stands, why did he have to do any of that.....he's god!?Durakken said:
Fordi
New Member
No clue.
He's an aspect of an immortal god, so his death is no sacrifice. Perhaps the pain he went through is meant to represent the pain of all the atrocities committed by the human race - but it hardly measures up to certain tortures* that have been performed on thousands of people throughout history.
I don't know, really. The best I can figure is that we've committed deicide, and really there's nothing worse we can do, so God may as well forgive us. Or something stupid like that.
* "death by a thousand cuts", for example, is rather literally named, progressively painful, and involves salt, bleach, acid, alcohol, capsaicin, and other antagonists, so that the individual cuts can't individually heal or stop hurting until the torture is over - which may be up to a week's span. Worse, it may or may not result in death, depending on the mood of the administrator.
He's an aspect of an immortal god, so his death is no sacrifice. Perhaps the pain he went through is meant to represent the pain of all the atrocities committed by the human race - but it hardly measures up to certain tortures* that have been performed on thousands of people throughout history.
I don't know, really. The best I can figure is that we've committed deicide, and really there's nothing worse we can do, so God may as well forgive us. Or something stupid like that.
* "death by a thousand cuts", for example, is rather literally named, progressively painful, and involves salt, bleach, acid, alcohol, capsaicin, and other antagonists, so that the individual cuts can't individually heal or stop hurting until the torture is over - which may be up to a week's span. Worse, it may or may not result in death, depending on the mood of the administrator.
Fordi
New Member
atheismforthewin said:
I wouldn't call Randite morality "objectivist". I'd call it "individualist". For objectivist morality (OM), look to common goals of the members of a society, and aggregate the behaviors that best lead to fulfillment of those goals with !(behaviors that objectively harm societal structure, e.g., incest). Where those and self-interest (SI) best align is where you can expect the most good to naturally come. Where they don't, you're relying primarily on altruism to better a society. Where OM and SI are neutral to one another on the face of it, OM creates its own advantage: if it costs you nothing to do something nice, it gains you something in the form of reputation.
At which point, Randite concepts come into play; altruism is an environmental mutation of SI. That is to say, you do good, because it makes you feel good, because you were raised in an environment where altruism is rewarded - even if such rewards didn't extend past childhood, the behavior has become ingrained.
Thus, behaviors that promote environments that produce altruists also become part of OM, and can then be reintegrated into the OM/SI equation.
In short, Rand is an awesome read, but terribly short-sighted (the sex scene in "Atlas Shrugged" gave me the first clue on this - the vague sense that she has probably missed something flatly obvious, but terribly important).
Neverwhere
New Member
The important part of the sacrifice of Jesus was not to who, neither was it the pain nor the suffering, people just like to bring that up to play on feelings of empathy. The important part was the blood. Since Adam and Eve got trolled by the snake we've had this deligtful thing called sin; decadence, sickness, death, sex, metal music etc etc. This sin separated us from God and is IMO what gave us complete free will. Now since Eve had noticed she was nekkid and decided to cover herself God no longer had any Tig ol' Bitties to look at which pissed him of tremendously.
As follows, this sin stuff didn't go too well with God, who amoungh other things thinks humans should sit on clouds, play harps and blindly worship him now and then. Now because of sin he needed blood sacrifices to keep the sin away. I'm not sure why he like blood specificly, maybe it's the thought of his followers killing in his honor, or something about critters not being to cheap and thus showing ones willingness to give away a shit-load of stuff to him. I dunno really.
We collectivly shat our pants when we saw what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah. So we thought it be best to kill off a sheep now and then as a sort of pre-emptive measure to RL hellfire. But these sacrifices were of the earth and thus taintet by the sin of the earth. This is why they had to be conducted somewhat frequently as to continue keeping clean, no soap can ever beat a good bloodbath.
Anyways, so then God, feeling sorry for the sheep, nailed a virgin and created Jesus so that he could also get nailed one day. See the blood of Jesus was not of this earth and thus free of sin. Jesus was then in effect the ultimate sacrificial sheep that could wash away our sins, not trough his suffering but trough his blood. I'm not sure about definitions here, but Jesus was not a self-sacrifice he was a ritual-sacrifice. He was created for that purpose and didn't acctually have much choise in the matter.
Why he didn't just do away with sin trough a snap of his fingers is beond me. But I'm guessing it's a fashion thing because the whole "getting born / living a life"-thing is how all the other prophets of the time did it. The sacrifice of Jesus was not about God loosing anything, it was about taking the earth and filthy humans to the laundry...
Going back a little bit to what Joe said about people claiming it to be "the greatest story ever told".
I agree that the bible story really isn't that great- I for one found The Lord of the Rings much more interesting. It is the same genre-swords, fights, magic etc but the Lord of the Rings storyline is far more deep and comes up with far better morals.
I agree that the bible story really isn't that great- I for one found The Lord of the Rings much more interesting. It is the same genre-swords, fights, magic etc but the Lord of the Rings storyline is far more deep and comes up with far better morals.
What is Jesus' 'sacrifice'? Depends...
What did he give?
- Does death count? Given he knew without any doubt that there was a heaven and he would return there?
- If not than we're just talking about the pain/suffering and indignity of it, which, while nasty and would not wish on anyone isn't that bad given that Jesus apparently died relatively quickly from it.
- Thousands of people were crucified, wipped etc, and many suffered worse than Jesus did, and many were unjustly accused (or the punishment was not befitting the crime).
What did he gain?
- 'Salvation of mankind', whatever the fuck that means, as God was the one we allegedly owed the cosmic debt to, and he's the one paying it, ok...
- Eternal bliss in paradise.
- Eternal fame, though granted this is in the form of a mistaken appearance
Was it worth it?
- Given the 'salvation of mankind' is incredibly unspecific, and I've tried to get straight answers from theists about what has changed. Essentially nothing has. If you were good before you went to heaven, if you're good now you go to heaven, if you're bad then or now you go to hell, and evil and suffering still plague the earth.
- Also lets compare this to mortal comparisons. I have relatives and people they knew suffer and some die in Japanese POW camps, being malnourished for months/years, tortured and killed in a manner than would makes the crucifixion look like a day at the massage parlour. What they endured this for was a little less than singlehandedly achieving the eternal salvation of mankind, just trying to do their small part to preserve their country and their way of life. So given that thousands of mortals have endured worse, for less, why is his sacrifice hailed as this ultimate act of martyrdom, selflessness, God's love etc, and used to justify continued shit to the Jews (given that by comparison I and most Aussies I know hold no grudge against the Japanese for the atrocities of a few of their citizens, most long dead).
Also if someone was to give me something tangible as a reward for undergoing what Jesus went through, say any of these...
- Kickass superpowers or superhuman traits.
- Incredible wealth and hot chicks
- Make a major political change, ie end world poverty, universal acceptance of human rights, world peace etc.
- Major social change, such as cure for cancer, some kind of universal viral vaccine etc.
- To save the life of someone I loved, or give her some great gift (ie eternal life).
I would do it without a moments pause, I would even do the last 3 if it meant my death and there was no afterlife. I might even be prepared to experience worse. So asking for us to get all sappy about Jesus doing it given that he was doing it to save mankind, and getting into heaven as a result. That doesn't make him that much of a martyr really.
What did he give?
- Does death count? Given he knew without any doubt that there was a heaven and he would return there?
- If not than we're just talking about the pain/suffering and indignity of it, which, while nasty and would not wish on anyone isn't that bad given that Jesus apparently died relatively quickly from it.
- Thousands of people were crucified, wipped etc, and many suffered worse than Jesus did, and many were unjustly accused (or the punishment was not befitting the crime).
What did he gain?
- 'Salvation of mankind', whatever the fuck that means, as God was the one we allegedly owed the cosmic debt to, and he's the one paying it, ok...
- Eternal bliss in paradise.
- Eternal fame, though granted this is in the form of a mistaken appearance
Was it worth it?
- Given the 'salvation of mankind' is incredibly unspecific, and I've tried to get straight answers from theists about what has changed. Essentially nothing has. If you were good before you went to heaven, if you're good now you go to heaven, if you're bad then or now you go to hell, and evil and suffering still plague the earth.
- Also lets compare this to mortal comparisons. I have relatives and people they knew suffer and some die in Japanese POW camps, being malnourished for months/years, tortured and killed in a manner than would makes the crucifixion look like a day at the massage parlour. What they endured this for was a little less than singlehandedly achieving the eternal salvation of mankind, just trying to do their small part to preserve their country and their way of life. So given that thousands of mortals have endured worse, for less, why is his sacrifice hailed as this ultimate act of martyrdom, selflessness, God's love etc, and used to justify continued shit to the Jews (given that by comparison I and most Aussies I know hold no grudge against the Japanese for the atrocities of a few of their citizens, most long dead).
Also if someone was to give me something tangible as a reward for undergoing what Jesus went through, say any of these...
- Kickass superpowers or superhuman traits.
- Incredible wealth and hot chicks
- Make a major political change, ie end world poverty, universal acceptance of human rights, world peace etc.
- Major social change, such as cure for cancer, some kind of universal viral vaccine etc.
- To save the life of someone I loved, or give her some great gift (ie eternal life).
I would do it without a moments pause, I would even do the last 3 if it meant my death and there was no afterlife. I might even be prepared to experience worse. So asking for us to get all sappy about Jesus doing it given that he was doing it to save mankind, and getting into heaven as a result. That doesn't make him that much of a martyr really.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
It isn't heartwarming either. Basically, it is "I am Jesus, lick my nuts and Heaven is yours... nope, can't save you from slavery, illness, or even a crappy boss. Your lives will still be as terrible as ever, but I swear when you die you'll go to Disneyland!"nasher168 said:
What kind of bullshit is that? That would be like if, at the end of LotR, Sauron took over the world, killed or enslaved everyone, and the "victory" consisted of saying that Sauron would pay "someday" and then all the dead folk would be vindicated.
Does the entire "died for your sins" make sense to anyone? How did my sins get transferred to Jesus? For example, if I assassinate a head of state and set up some poor dupe to take the blame, and that dupe gets executed. Since someone got punished for the crime, am I now absolved of that crime?
This is an ancient thought process, where as long as someone, anyone, is punished for a crime, then all is well. In today's society, we no longer accept the concept of the "whipping boy", yet it is still acceptable in this religion.
This is an ancient thought process, where as long as someone, anyone, is punished for a crime, then all is well. In today's society, we no longer accept the concept of the "whipping boy", yet it is still acceptable in this religion.
In the Jewish tradition, the sins of the nation was transferred to the sacrificial lamb which was slaughtered in the temple, thereby absolving the people of their sins. The lamb used had to be free from any defects or disease and was sacrificed by the high priests. The story of Jesus emphasizes that he was perfect, therefore Jesus was supposed to be the "lamb of of the world."Sleazy said:
So the story of Jesus makes perfect sense if you were a 1st century Jew.
-1