# Dying for our sins...for three days? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939 "2005-11-27T18:09:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/141 "2005-11-30T04:47:41Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Once again I remind you that this conversation is intended for those with an imagination. Sorry dude, but IMO you just lost the debate right there. The point of a debate is to put forward a case suported with logic or valid reaosning. Imagination doesn’t enter it. If Der Trihs failed to understadn what you mean then the failing is in your explanation, not in his ability to ‘imagine’ what you meant. He doesn’t have to imagine. You are required to explain and provide evidence for your position. In short “you lack the imagination to understand my argument” is not avalid rebuttal. It’s a cop out, and usually a synonym for “I lack the baility explain myself coherently and rationally”. I do know what you mean, but that’s because I understand it’s a ripoff of Indic religions and a bit of New Age stuff thrown in to boot. But as I said, if you include the Indic concept of eternal souls and material existence being ephemeral and inconsequential then you have abandonded the very basis of Christianity. Any material sacrifice by Jesus must also be ephemeral and inconsequential, yet the Bible specifically says that the sacrifice was to last for all time and of paranount importance. That’s the direct anithesis of ephemeral and inconsequential. How do you resolve such an obvious contradiction? ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/142 "2005-11-30T06:52:34Z")
::sigh:: I never catch these threads early enough to post my opinion without either having to respond to dozens of things already on the table, or feel like I’m intruding on the tail end of a discussion that has probably lost the attention of most of the people who read the OP anyway. But, FWIW, [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5575300&postcount=78) is my most pithy explanation of my understanding of the Christian doctrine of the atonement. It comes from the latter half of [url= this thread, which developed into quite a complex discussion of many aspects of Christian theology, but if you skim past the first couple of paragraphs in my post, I think you’ll find my discussion of atonement stands on its own. For your convenience, I’ll quote it here: > [@Alan Smithee](#): > > > [@Smartass](#): > > > > For me, the mystery is why suffering is considered good. Because we have sinned, we must atone by suffering, or someone must suffer in our stead. Apparently, suffering is some kind of currency for God, and you can buy favor with it. Why does God like pain? How can a God who asks people to suffer for no apparent reason be considered good? And what sort of twisted notion of God imagines Him sending His son, watching Him be crucified, and then saying, “You’ve killed My son; your sins are forgiven.” What if they’d raped Him first? Would sex be more sanctioned then? > > > > Wouldn’t it make more sense if God wanted us to atone for sin by doing good things for other people? By making “right” the wrongs we have committed against others? > > Consider that our relationship with God is broken. That we experience a sense of “thrown-ness,” to quote the existentialists, a being-out-of-place in the universe. We don’t always hear God, even in the ways I described above, and when we hear, we don’t listen. We feel guilt and anxiety, we commit sins again and again, against our own better judgement. We feel ourselves incapable of being what we know we ought to be and at least occasionally want to be. > > In the mytho-poetic imagery of Christianity, we feel separated from God and fear his anger. He are in need of forgiveness. But what does it mean to be forgiven or to forgive? If I tell you I forgive you, it is likely to be meaningless; it may even provoke anger! Who am I to forgive you? It seems to set me over you! When I genuinely forgive someone, I rarely tell them that. Instead, I tell them I am sorry. Sorry for my own role in the brokenness of the relationship, sorry not only for whatever I might have done, but also for the hurt that wasn’t my fault but that hurt nonetheless. If you are to truely feel my forgiveness, I must be willing to take on some of your pain, not to calculate which elements I’m responsable for, but to take responsability for as much of the pain and brokenness as I can bear. I don’t heal a broken relationship by raching down from my pedastal and granting pardon, but by coming humbly as a friend, as a brother, and as a fellow sufferer. > > For God to forgive us, and for us to feel his forgiveness, it was necessary (not as an act, nor to fulfill some abstract sense of justice, but because that is what forgiveness **is** ) for us to find or for God to provide some focal point, some place in history, by which we could understand God taking on our pain, suffering for and with us. In Jesus, we not only saw a perfect image of ourselves, of humanity lived in perfect community and obedience to that (whatever it is) which we feel ought to be obeyed (that mysterious source of right, the ultimate good), we also saw the ultimate good itself, in his willingness to die for us, to take on our burden, to bear our pain. Forgiveness is God, as love is God, and in his love, we saw God and felt ourselves forgiven. Pain is not good, but we were already in pain, and we needed someone else to feel our pain with us, to acknowledge it, to take it on himself, to be responsible for it and for the healing that we needed. Jesus had to suffer because he was God with us, who came to forgive, and forgiveness is, at least in part, the willingness to suffer with someone and to bear the brokenness that needs forgiving. As I’m sure I’ve posted somewhere here before, it’s important to note that all Christian theology, even Scripture, is in an important sense secondary to the experiential _fact_ of God’s forgiveness in Christ. Many, many Christians (and most notably the original disciples) have believed not because they were taught to, but because they have subjectively experienced what they understand as God’s grace. Theology is the attempt, by those who have experienced God’s grace, to understand it in light of what others have experienced and what they believe they have come to understand about the nature of God, the person of Christ, and the nature of human beings. For such people, no amount of failure by theology to develop a completely satisfactory understanding can undermine their belief in the fact of their own experience. For those (like myself) who have not had such an experience and are not willing or able to rely on the Christian experiences of others, no theology will likely ever be successful enough to overcome the fundamental lack of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/143 "2005-11-30T06:54:58Z")
Oops. That quote is from my post in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=290136&page=1&pp=50) thread. It’s not my whole post, which I linked to above, just the relevant parts. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/144 "2005-11-30T10:29:23Z")
An interetsing concept Alan Smithee and one I’ll give some more thought to. But for now I just have two questions. The first is the same question that has been asked by a dozen people a dozen tme s in this thread. Why was it necessary for an _omnipotent_ God to provide some focal point by which we could understand God taking on our pain? Why couldn’t he just zap that understanding into our brians? I understand what you are saying about the nature of forgiveness being largely one of empathy mutual acceptance of blame. I really do. But it seems so almost comical that an omnipotent deity can only generate empathy and blame acceptance by being nailed to a tree. Why not use telepathy to communicate exactly the same infromation, feelings, concepts and so forth? The second question is more specifcally theological: doesn’t this concept deny the majesty and perfection of God even without the problem of omnipotence? A limited human might need to show that he forgives by accepting blame and expressing sorrow. But that’s only necessary because humans can lie, so if I don’t show sorrow and accpet balme I might well be just lying and not truly forgiving. My forgiveness might be meaningless because my words so often have no meaning. But God’s words never have no meaning. We are told that repeatedly in the Bible. He can’t lie. His word is truth. If God says he forgives then can’t we be sure that he has forgiven, and that he means every word he says. If so then why the need for all that violence to get the point across? And if we can’t accept that God means what he says then why accept what he says about the sacrifice even happening? Like I said, the stuff about the nature of forgiveness requires deeper thought, but I still fail to see how it goes any way to answering the basic question of why this was necessary for a God who can accomplish anything any way he likes. I could see this being necessray for a human King, but why for God? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/145 "2005-11-30T14:11:56Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Sorry dude, but IMO you just lost the debate right there. The point of a debate is to put forward a case suported with logic or valid reaosning. Imagination doesn’t enter it. If Der Trihs failed to understadn what you mean then the failing is in your explanation, not in his ability to ‘imagine’ what you meant. He doesn’t have to imagine. You are required to explain and provide evidence for your position. I see your point. Mine was this. When an atheist and a believer have a discussion it does require imagination. When we propose\* if\* there is an omnipotent benevolent God and argue from a _what if \* position that is imagination isn’t it? What_\* Der Trihs\*\* did, and almost always does in this type of thread, is go from the what if arguement to simply stateing his own lack of belief. He is free to do so but it doesn’t move the discussion forward to respond “I don’t believe” in the midst of a what if type of discussion. I already knew that. So I responded with sarcasm. > [@](#): > > In short “you lack the imagination to understand my argument” is not avalid rebuttal. It’s a cop out, and usually a synonym for “I lack the baility explain myself coherently and rationally”. It wasn’t intended to be a rebuttal since I felt **Der Trihs** had already abandoned the real arguement by his response. I have no problem explaining but I don’t feel any explanation is nessecary or useful to that type of response. > [@](#): > > I do know what you mean, but that’s because I understand it’s a ripoff of Indic religions and a bit of New Age stuff thrown in to boot. But as I said, if you include the Indic concept of eternal souls and material existence being ephemeral and inconsequential then you have abandonded the very basis of Christianity. Any material sacrifice by Jesus must also be ephemeral and inconsequential, yet the Bible specifically says that the sacrifice was to last for all time and of paranount importance. That’s the direct anithesis of ephemeral and inconsequential. > > How do you resolve such an obvious contradiction? Coming from a more traditional Christian background I’ve done a lot of reading about other religions. I feel that people from different cultures have all sought to solve spiritual mysteries and most have some kernal of truth contained within their myth and traditions. I don’t any one tradition or religion has all the answers. It’s not an attempt to “ripoff” any belief but rather to decide for myself what the answers might be. My own belief is that Christianity has in large part misunderstood and distorted what Jesus was actually teaching so I’m really not interested in argueing from position of traditional Christian views. Now I’ll get back to your previous post. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/146 "2005-11-30T16:17:40Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I see your point. Mine was this. When an atheist and a believer have a discussion it does require imagination. When we propose\* if\* there is an omnipotent benevolent God and argue from a _what if \* position that is imagination isn’t it? > What_\* Der Trihs\*\* did, and almost always does in this type of thread, is go from the what if arguement to simply stateing his own lack of belief. He is free to do so but it doesn’t move the discussion forward to respond “I don’t believe” in the midst of a what if type of discussion. I already knew that. So I responded with sarcasm. No, I pointed out where we come from is right here; there is no “what if” involved. You certainly didn’t phrase it as a “what if”; Your statement was like saying “what if we are all lizard aliens wearing masks ?” . We’re not; that’s the answer. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It wasn’t intended to be a rebuttal since I felt **Der Trihs** had already abandoned the real arguement by his response. I have no problem explaining but I don’t feel any explanation is nessecary or useful to that type of response. No, you opened a new arguement by claiming we are from somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/147 "2005-11-30T17:54:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I see your point. Mine was this. When an atheist and a believer have a discussion it does require imagination. When we propose\* if\* there is an omnipotent benevolent God and argue from a \*what if \* position that is imagination isn’t it? I’m afraid i’m siding with **cosmosdan** on this one. He/she’s right, if you’re going to try and understand the other person (and understand their debate) you have to be able to imagine what it is like for the other person. I’m not saying you always can imagine that - but you should always try, otherwise, what’s the point of debate? > [@](#): > > What\*\* Der Trihs\*\* did, and almost always does in this type of thread, is go from the what if arguement to simply stateing his own lack of belief. He is free to do so but it doesn’t move the discussion forward to respond “I don’t believe” in the midst of a what if type of discussion. I already knew that. So I responded with sarcasm. Ouch. Again, I have to agree. Der Trihs does sometimes have good points, but they come at the expense of a general sprinkling of “religion = bad!” all over the post. If you can debate without bile, that’d be good. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t intended to be a rebuttal since I felt **Der Trihs** had already abandoned the real arguement by his response. I have no problem explaining but I don’t feel any explanation is nessecary or useful to that type of response. Sorry, you’ve lost me again. Der Trihs may be quite angry, and show his anger, against religion, but you’re still entitled to answer his arguments. If he had completely ignored the debate altogether, posted random thoughts, and swept off, then you could ignore him - but, while they may be not the most polite posts, he is still arguing. You’re obliged to answer that argument, in whatever way it is phrased. It’d be fine to ask him to not be so, uh, angry, though. > [@](#): > > Coming from a more traditional Christian background I’ve done a lot of reading about other religions. I feel that people from different cultures have all sought to solve spiritual mysteries and most have some kernal of truth contained within their myth and traditions. I don’t any one tradition or religion has all the answers. It’s not an attempt to “ripoff” any belief but rather to decide for myself what the answers might be. Hmm. Logically, it’s likely that over the years, people have discovered some spiritual mysteries, and may have some degree of “truth”. Equally though it’s likely that over the years a collection of hogwash and nonsense has been gathered, too - the problem is recognising and seperating them, something I admit is usually beyond me. > [@](#): > > My own belief is that Christianity has in large part misunderstood and distorted what Jesus was actually teaching so I’m really not interested in argueing from position of traditional Christian views. Now I’ll get back to your previous post. Fair enough. However, my last post in this thread showed that God cannot logically be omnipotent, benevolent, and not touching free will at the same time in a situation where Jesus is killed. If you can think up a way in which this could occur, which keeps those base premises of God intact, then i’ll have been proved wrong. Can you do that? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/148 "2005-11-30T19:15:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You most certain did imply an either/or situation. Specifically you invoked a hypothetical situation where “I might have it within my power to make sure my small children never fall down but that doesn’t guarentee it’s in there best interest for me to do that.” > > That _is_ an either/or situation. _Either_ you can prevent a child falling down, _or_ you can do what is in their best interests. If the hypothetical also allows for guaranteeing what is in their best interests _and_ stoping them from falling down then what is the hypothetical supposed to demonstrate? All it shows is that anyone allowing a child to fall down under these circumstances is an arsehole because he let the child suffer when it wa sin their best interests not to suffer. My point was that in the mortal realm it\* is \* sometimes in the best interest to allow the child to have the unpleasent experience. {I know you got that} I’m not argueing that God can’t make it so we avoid the unpleasent experience. My point is that in order for us to choose there must be things to choose from. Without that there is no either or. If the purpose is the experience of free will {or the simulation of} then both pain and pleasure must exist. I simply don’t agree with you that God’s omnpotence and benevolence somehow obligates him to use it to remove all suffering. > [@](#): > > That’s as maybe, but we aren’t discussing the nature of suffering, we are discussing the reason for Jesus’ death. OKay, but that seems to entail the nature of suffering. I don’t think Jesus made a blood sacrifice for the sins of mankind for many of the reasons expressed in this thread. To me the point, at least in part, is that Jesus lived according to the truth of a higher spiritual reality and remained steadfastly true to it regardless of the temporary physical consequences. That’s the essence of his messege. > [@](#): > > I’m not implying that, I’m saying it outright and repeatedly. And you have yet to actually address the point rather than sliding around it. I’m not attempting to slide around anything. We just don’t seem to be getting each other. > [@](#): > > I’ll try again. Tell me which of these points you disagree with please. > > 1. God is omnipotent. > 2. God is a loving Father to humanity. > 3. A loving Father would not allow a child to suffer _for no reason_. > 4. An omnipotent Father is not limited by the solutions he may create, except by choice. > > If we agree on all those points then there is only one conclusion: We don’t agree. Point one okay point two. I think the loving father aspect of God is just a sometimes useful metaphor. It also holds people back in a sense that some desire to remain children and have Daddy take care of them. I see us more as peers or at least a part of God. In the Bible it calls God and Jesus the head and us the body. That means in essence we are the same stuff. point 3, moot perhaps, but I’ll say that often the children don’t see the purpose and think the whole thing is BS. As they mature {we hope} they see things differently. point 4; um…okay. A thought occurs to me here about the nature of God. IMO the nature of God is love and truth. Does that mean God can’t choose to lie or be hateful or just doesn’t because it’s not his nature? I don’t think either is true. > [@](#): > > 1. An omnipotent and loving Father would never choose to allow a child to suffer because he (the Father) never needs to allow it. All ends that may be achieved through suffering can be achieved without suffering. I don’t agree. I repeat, if choice and the experience are the point, then a loving and benevolent God would allow it without being contrary to omnipotence or benevolence. > [@](#): > > I know you are saying that, but as I have pointed out, you are ducking the issue. A human father is limited in what he may achieve. He is forced to make decisions that result in suffering to achieve a greater good. An omnipotent God is not limited in any way. He never forced to make such decisions. If he does make such decisions then he does so because he chooses for the child to suffer. I completely undertstand the lack of limitations. I don’t agree with your insistance that allowing the experience of choice and it’s consequences violates benevolence. > [@](#): > > I’ve said it several times now: on this issue any comparison to a human father is invalid because human fathers are not omnipotent. Yet you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that point or try to explain why it is incorrect. You are ducking the issue. That is not my intent. I understand the difficulties of the human parent analogy. I use it only to attempt to illustrate my own point that allowing experience can be benevolent. Especially if the purpose is for your children to be your adult peers rather than remain children. > [@](#): > > No, it wouldn’t, because God is omnipotent. An omnipotent God can create solution where He can make things all nice _AND_ not maintain the purpose, can’t he? Once again you are limiting what God can achieve to either/or choices: _EITHER_ He can make it all nice _OR_ He can maintain the purpose. Look, I’m not argueing against omnipotence or that God is limited in choices. I’m saying the choice that has been made does not violate benevolance or omnipotence. > [@](#): > > That is totally invalid. Your statement above actually speaks to what God _COULD_ make, which also dictates what he _COULD NOT_ make. God is by definition omnipotent. It would not defeat the purpose for God to make it all nice because one of the things God can make is a solution that both maintains the purpose [I}AND\* make sit all nice. No, instead I am agreeing and assuming omnipotence. > [@](#): > > A direct question: Do you believe that God is incapable of implementing a solution that both maintains the purpose [I}AND\* make sit all nice. I would say omnipotence makes that a yes. > [@](#): > > Yes, that is because I am referring to the effects of the choices made by an omnipotent God on the suffering of a mortal physical body. And we obviouosly disagree on the significance of this and how it relates. I think what Jesus was trying to teach us was that we should strive to live as eternal spiritual beings while still in the physical. Thats why he said to not place our value or to much impotance on things that fade away. In other disciplines it is observed that we create a bunch of our own suffering by how we see things and the limits we place on ourselves. > [@](#): > > The problem with this is that it renders Jesus death even more meaningless. His suffering now becomes irrelevant in the long term. Moreover any suffering he alleviated by his actions is equally irrelevant. So we return to square one: why did Jesus bother to suffer? This doesn’t answer the question, it makes the original act even more irrelevant and Jesus even less worthy of worship A valid point. You’ll notice that Jesus dealt with the physical suffering of others and encouraged his followers to do the same. I don’t think it’s about whether we suffer or not but more what we choose. Do we choose to seek out and remain true to our spiritual nature as Jesus did. I don’t believe the point was for Jesus to suffer but that it was being true to his spiritual nature despite the events unfolding around him that led to his ultimate physical demise. It his living that is worthy of worship. > [@](#): > > I would think so too, because once again we refer to limited human, not omnipotent deities. > > If you take the money you have been saving for vacation and give it to the poor, but you can turn around nay time you like and create another bag of money of even greater value then you have sacrificed nothing. If you throw yourself on a grenade when you could have simply teleported the grenade into the heart of the sun then you have sacrificed nothing. > > Humans can make a choice to sacrifice because they sometimes need to give up one thing to gain another. But once again you r analogy is flawed because God never needs to give up anything to achieve his aims. God is omnipotent. You really don’t; seem to grasp this simple point. You simply can not compare human actions dictated by necessity to the actions of an omnipotent deity for whom nothing is ever dictated. No arguement here since I don’t believe that the suffering and death of Jesus was the point. > [@](#): > > Once again, it’s turtles all the way down. Why would an omnipotent God allow the experience pain to become the point of existence? Why not create a solution that makes such an experience unnecessary? Pardon my ignorence but I’m not familiar with the phrase “turtles all the way down” Where did that come from? Back on point; I never said experiencing pain is the point. It is the experience of being able to choose and having something to choose. > [@](#): > > You can keep pushing it back forever by saying the experience of pain is the point of existence in a universe created by a God who made the experience of pain the point of existence in a universe created by a God who made…… But it’s turtles all the way down, and you haven’t in any way addressed the issue. Why did God not create a solution where you can get the point without experiencing pian? I repeat. I haven’t said experiencing pain is the point. Rather than make assumptions and misquote me, I’d rather you asked me to clarify. You seem to be insisting that unless I agree with the point you keep asserting then I am avoiding it. I’m not. I just don’t agree. God could have created things differently but this is the way things are. Your conclusion seems to be that because bad stuff happens a benevolent God must not exist. I don’t agree. > [@](#): > > But in that case it makes no sense to worship a demigod because he experienced the ramification of fleeting physical suffering. You can’t have your cake and eat it to. I don’t worship Jesus for that reason, nor for that matter do a lot of Christians. > [@](#): > > The transient nature of physical reality is a good answer for Hindus or Buddhists. It simply doesn’t work for Christians because Christians are told that the experience of physical suffering by a demigod is of paramount importance and will have ramifications in heaven for eternity. If that experience is transient and with no lasting ramifications as you claim then Christianity is self contradictory. I’ve already responded to this. I don’t hold traditional Christian beliefs. That doesn’t mean I can’t worship Jesus or have opinions about his life and death. > [@](#): > > Well I held on, but you never explained why an omnipotent God was limited to having people get used to him gradually. You never mentioned it again. Care to explain why an omnipotent God has such an obvious flaw? Sigh, we seem to be going in circles. I never said God is limited. I doesn’t consider this a flaw. I am commenting on how things _are_, or at least how I percieve them at this point. It seems this doesn’t meet with your definition of what constitutes omnipotent and benevolent. Fair enough. It doesn’t mean I don’t _get it_ because I don’t agree. > [@](#): > > And why is an omnipotent God limited to a creating a universe in which there had to be something other than spiritual bliss to choose tohave free will? Why couldn’t he create a universe in which there was free will _and_ nothing but spiritual bliss? Can we have choice with only one thing to choose? Omnipotence says yes but there no conclusion to draw from that fro me. > [@](#): > > If you don’t understand a topic that’s fine. What is not fine is attempting to discuss a topic that you admit you are essentially ignorant of. Saying that you are addressing points other debaters have raised and then admitting after we have waded through your long post that you don’t; comprehend it evening essence is just a pointless waste of time. You haven’t addressed anything and most of your answers rely on a totally invalid analogy between a man and an omnipotent deity. Don’t get nasty. I never said I didn’t understand the topic. I only commented that dealing with topics like ominpotence and eternity can be tricky because they are hard to comprehend. You say my analogy is invalid but you yourself make the comparision when drawing your conclusion about what constitutes omnipotence and benevolence. Since we don’t seem to be making any headway I’m content to drop it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/149 "2005-11-30T19:26:38Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Der Trihs](#): > > No, I pointed out where we come from is right here; there is no “what if” involved. You certainly didn’t phrase it as a “what if”; Your statement was like saying “what if we are all lizard aliens wearing masks ?” . We’re not; that’s the answer. Please… the discusion began with \*if \*there is a omnipotent benevolent God. Thats the _what if_. > [@](#): > > No, you opened a new arguement by claiming we are from somewhere else. It didn’t seem like a new arguement to me. Assuming God is, it is reasonable to assume we are not mere physical mortals. Since we were discussing Jesus saving our souls that seems to be the case. I am well{and I mean well} aware that you don’t believe but when you get into a what if type arguement I don’t need a reminder. If I go off on a what if tangent that you don’t feel is relevant to the discussion {which I know I do occasionaly} then feel free to point it out. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/150 "2005-11-30T19:33:26Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > My point is that in order for us to choose there must be things to choose from. Without that there is no either or. If the purpose is the experience of free will {or the simulation of} then both pain and pleasure must exist. This is an echo of Augustine’s argument that the bad must exist in order for us to appreciate the good. Just the same, I don’t see why God had to provide and either/or. I don’t believe that there is any _a priori_ requirement that God had to provide a choice. I don’t think the question of why there is evil in a universe created by an omipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator has ever been satisfactorily answered. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/151 "2005-11-30T19:49:18Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I’m afraid i’m siding with **cosmosdan** on this one. He/she’s right, if you’re going to try and understand the other person (and understand their debate) you have to be able to imagine what it is like for the other person. I’m not saying you always can imagine that - but you should always try, otherwise, what’s the point of debate? Thanks and it’s he…as in Dan > [@](#): > > Sorry, you’ve lost me again. Der Trihs may be quite angry, and show his anger, against religion, but you’re still entitled to answer his arguments. If he had completely ignored the debate altogether, posted random thoughts, and swept off, then you could ignore him - but, while they may be not the most polite posts, he is still arguing. You’re obliged to answer that argument, in whatever way it is phrased. It’d be fine to ask him to not be so, uh, angry, though. I agree with you here. IMO he didn’t make rational arguements but just chose to sarcastically dump on my suggestions while doing his usual venting. I didn’t think it deserved a rational response. > [@](#): > > Hmm. Logically, it’s likely that over the years, people have discovered some spiritual mysteries, and may have some degree of “truth”. Equally though it’s likely that over the years a collection of hogwash and nonsense has been gathered, too - the problem is recognising and seperating them, something I admit is usually beyond me. Beyond most of us I think. I’ve just decided to continue looking and sorting and draw my own conclusions. I also try to maintain a respect for others right to do the same until their beliefs spill over into my life. A more recent conclusion of mine is that religious views and the actions that spring from those beliefs deserve no special treatment or status. Love is love, and hate is hate. Honesty and dishonesty, kindness and shelfishness. Whatever path we choose it’s the effect it has on the world at large that we can challenge. > [@](#): > > Fair enough. However, my last post in this thread showed that God cannot logically be omnipotent, benevolent, and not touching free will at the same time in a situation where Jesus is killed. If you can think up a way in which this could occur, which keeps those base premises of God intact, then i’ll have been proved wrong. Can you do that? Do you mean your last post, the response to **Trust** or the one I’m about to respond to? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/152 "2005-11-30T20:13:41Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > This is an echo of Augustine’s argument that the bad must exist in order for us to appreciate the good. > > Just the same, I don’t see why God had to provide and either/or. I don’t believe that there is any _a priori_ requirement that God had to provide a choice. I don’t think the question of why there is evil in a universe created by an omipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator has ever been satisfactorily answered. Neither do I. One concept that intrigues me is the idea that it is not God who created these things but us. If we are connected to each other and to God on a level that is undeniable then what would happen if we decided to believe that fundamental truth wasn’t true. What if we denied that truth and chose to believe we were seperate from God and each other. A big Bang perhaps? That might mean that as long as we cling to that seperation lie, then we are the ones creating the good and evil choices. God in essence is saying, “Are you sure you want to do that?” and we are in the process of decideing. Now the arguement is that an omnipotent God could just make us know that we are not seperate and poof, no more problems. Okay, but I’m not convinced that the fact that doesn’t happen instantly proves anything. As I’ve said. Perhaps experiencing the choice process is part of the purpose. It doesn’t have to be. It just is. So we are left to choose when we will release the illusion of seperateness and embrace the unity. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/153 "2005-11-30T20:22:43Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > One concept that intrigues me is the idea that it is not God who created these things but us. If we are connected to each other and to God on a level that is undeniable then what would happen if we decided to believe that fundamental truth wasn’t true. What if we denied that truth and chose to believe we were seperate from God and each other. A big Bang perhaps? That might mean that as long as we cling to that seperation lie, then we are the ones creating the good and evil choices. God in essence is saying, “Are you sure you want to do that?” and we are in the process of decideing. Mental masturbation at it’s finest. How can you just make stuff up and take it seriously ? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It just is. So we are left to choose when we will release the illusion of seperateness and embrace the unity. So you think God is a supernatural version of the Borg ? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/154 "2005-11-30T20:36:54Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > **Premise A** : The being defined as “God” is omnipotent. > **Premise B** : The being defined as “God” is benevolent. > **Premise C** : The being defined as “God” does not work against free will. Let’s run with it. > [@](#): > > **Situation** : A being (Jesus) is tortured and killed. > **Possible Reason 1** : Jesus was killed, because only the death of a “pure” human can defeat death. > > Problem: Contradicts Premise A: For the reason to be truthful, God must be constrained by a rule; that “only” in this way death can be defeated. Therefore, this cannot be a correct reason. Also contradicts Premise C: Jesus was not given free will in this choice. > **Possible Reason 2** : Jesus chose to sacrifice himself, because only in the sacrifice of a “pure” human can defeat death. > > Problem: Same as Reason 1. Does not contradict Premise C, however. > > **Possible Reason 3** : Jesus was killed, in order that God can show us that he is willing to sacrifice his own son for the betterment of humankind. > > Problem: If we accept Premise A, that of God’s omnipotence, then logically God may create the same effect without death. Thus, by making the choice between “effect without death” and “effect with death”, and choosing the latter, Premise B is contradicted - God would not be acting benevolently. Premise C is also contradicted; Jesus has no free choice. > > **Possible Reason 4** : Jesus chose to sacrifice his life, in order to show us that he is willing to sacrifice himself for the betterment of humankind. > > Problem: Premise B is contradicted; God allows his son to die when he is capable of bringing about the same effects without death; thus he is not benevolent. > > Any others possible reasons you want me to plug in there? OKay…As I’ve said , I don’t believe the torture and death of Christ was the point, or conquered physical death. I think the point was his life and his message. By living spiritual truths regardless of physical consequences he raised the spiritual consciousness of those around him and thereby, the world. Granted, that raised consciousness is sometimes hard to find, but hey, if physical evolution can take millions of years then the spiritual legacy of Jesus is still in it’s infancy. I don’t think Jesus chose to die although he seemed to understand the society he lived in enough to realize that’s where he was headed. What he chose was to live the spiritual truth he percieved even if it cost him his physical life. That end and the details of it were brought about by the choices of others. Since he came from heaven and returned to heaven I don’t see how Jesus death or the circumstances violates the benevolence, or omnipotence of God. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/155 "2005-11-30T20:49:45Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Mental masturbation at it’s finest. How can you just make stuff up and take it seriously ? It’s called thinking with imagination. Perhaps you’ll try it one day 🙂 > [@](#): > > So you think God is a supernatural version of the Borg ? The concept of oneness and a spiritual connection among all mankind has been around much longer than that Star Trek. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/156 "2005-11-30T20:57:09Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s called thinking with imagination. Perhaps you’ll try it one day 🙂 I use my imagination all the time; I don’t go around assuming what I imagine is true. Fantasy is fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/157 "2005-11-30T21:09:58Z")
Cosmodan it’s becoming quite clear that you don’t subscribe to any belief that is in any way similar to Christianity. You are free to call yourself a Christian of cource, I’m not attempting a true Scotsman, but your beleifs have little relevance to this thread. You don’t believe that the death and suffeirng of Christ was of paramount importance. You don’t believe the efffects of his suffering will endure for all time and that man can only achieve immortality because Christ suffered and died. Those are key concepts for Christians You OTOH believe that Christ’s death and suffering was transient and ephememeral and of no real consequence. As such your beliefs have no bearing at all on a thread about why Christ’s suffering is of paramount and eternal importance. I really can’t see what you hope to contribute to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/158 "2005-11-30T22:01:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Neither do I. One concept that intrigues me is the idea that it is not God who created these things but us. If we are connected to each other and to God on a level that is undeniable then what would happen if we decided to believe that fundamental truth wasn’t true. What if we denied that truth and chose to believe we were seperate from God and each other. A big Bang perhaps? That might mean that as long as we cling to that seperation lie, then we are the ones creating the good and evil choices. God in essence is saying, “Are you sure you want to do that?” and we are in the process of decideing. > > Now the arguement is that an omnipotent God could just make us know that we are not seperate and poof, no more problems. Okay, but I’m not convinced that the fact that doesn’t happen instantly proves anything. As I’ve said. Perhaps experiencing the choice process is part of the purpose. It doesn’t have to be. It just is. So we are left to choose when we will release the illusion of seperateness and embrace the unity. I think a more economical supposition is that the universe exists with certain natural features through some means we don’t yet knew. We come into the world, exist in it for a time while its features along with our actions sometimes result in bad things and sometimes good, and we then exit and are seen no more. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/159 "2005-11-30T22:24:34Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Cosmodan it’s becoming quite clear that you don’t subscribe to any belief that is in any way similar to Christianity. You are free to call yourself a Christian of cource, I’m not attempting a true Scotsman, but your beleifs have little relevance to this thread. Excuse me?? You might note that I \*\*never \*\* said I was a Christian even implied it. Since you and others are participating and are obviouosly not Christian I think my beliefs are just as relevant as yours. > [@](#): > > You don’t believe that the death and suffeirng of Christ was of paramount importance. You don’t believe the efffects of his suffering will endure for all time and that man can only achieve immortality because Christ suffered and died. Those are key concepts for Christians So what? The OP asked that these concepts be explained. It didn’t ask for you and others to come in and dump on those concepts but you felt free to do so. > [@](#): > > You OTOH believe that Christ’s death and suffering was transient and ephememeral and of no real consequence. As such your beliefs have no bearing at all on a thread about why Christ’s suffering is of paramount and eternal importance. I really can’t see what you hope to contribute to this thread. Um… as much as you have. Although I don’t think of myself as Christian I do have a Christian background and I offered an alternative idea to the purpose of the life of Christ. Nothing in the OP requested only Christian participation, or only the pro and con of traditional Christion view. You are free to whatever opinion you choose to hold but I think you are way off base with this post. Since the OP responded to my posts and asked me questions I take that as an invitation to contribute and an acknowledgement that my posts were at least somewhat relevant and interesting . I think you’ll understand if I let the OP and the mods decide the relevance of my posts and not you. Perhaps you can explain how posts that Christian beliefs about Jesus are a load of crap help clarify the paramount and eternal importance of his suffering and death. Yes, since I believe we are eternal spiritual beings then all tempoary physical suffering is transient. That doesn’t mean I think its irrelevant when it is happening. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939/160 "2005-11-30T22:31:17Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I use my imagination all the time; I don’t go around assuming what I imagine is true. Fantasy is fantasy. Yes, thats exactly what you do. You constantly assert that what you imagine to be true is actually true over and over again here on the SDMB. That being the case I retract my previous statement. You obviously do think and have an imagination even if it appears a fairly negative one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dying-for-our-sins-for-three-days/332939.md?page=9)