How did Jesus sacrifice himself?

[Liberal]

@Czarcasm

You always seem to forget “Some aren’t even convinced it even happened.” It may be easier for your argument to assume that I am somehow mad at a “god” that I have always said I don’t believe in, but it makes no sense.

Forget? I think you forgot that I added “etc.”.

Huh? I don’t mean “Huh? I’m too stupid to know what division fallacy is”. I mean “Huh? In what way does your reply apply to my statement?”

You extrapolated from elements of the set of humanity to make a statement about humanity at large.

History is also filled with trials that are fair and verdicts that are, for their time and place, just. Why don’t we talk about this case, though.

We are. This is one of the cases in which, contrary to your assertion, arrest and mock trial does not imply guilt.

Performing a minor miracle during the trial would have been a good start. And don’t give me that nonsense about how they should have taken his word on faith-others were being tried for the same crime and they weren’t believed, and he apparantly had no problems performing miracles before when he was in front of large crowds of people.

You are ignorant of the zeitgeist. His accusers had already said that His powers were of the devil. They would have declared his demonstration to mean He was a sorcerer.

Does this mean that everyone else supposedly treated that way was also the son of God?

Jesus said that we all are sons of God.

Was this said to his accusers?

Yes. Not at trial, but before.

I am obviously talking about a being who is supposedly all powerful and omnipresent but cannot make his presence known to millions of people. Please note that I am not talking about vague feelings of joy and logic problems that supposedly prove his existence-I’m talking about a simple “Sorry to interrupt your meal, but I am God. If you ever wondered whether I exist, well, here I am. Now, I fully understand that you might still have doubts about my existence. I mean, crazy people have heard voices that they claimed came from me since, well, there were crazy people. I’ll tell you what-why don’t you call 20 people at random, have them write down what they heard at this time, and compare notes.”

How can you claim not to know about God when you are describing what you believe to be His attributes and the details of what He should do to convince you?

If I don’t believe that he exists, why would he bother to hide from me, and if he is supposedly all powerful, why would he need to? Do you really think that I’m hostile? Amazing!

Of course you are hostile. You are hostile even to me. You always have been, since 1999. (Not as a moderator, but as a poster. As a moderator, you have never been unfair to me.)

Now, you are listing all these things that God should do to assure you that He is God. Let us take you at your word that you really would respond to these magic tricks by bowing down and worshipping Him. You ought to be aware that space-time has a time component. Perhaps it is simply untimely for Him to reveal Himself to you. I waited a long time too. Timing is a critical component of all sorts of events and activity. If your spirit is eternal, why does it matter whether your revelation occurs today or when you die and see Him face to face? As a person who routinely thinks in terms of geological timescales, you should realize that even a hundred year wait is nothing.

“Time makes more converts than reason.” Thomas Paine

“Remember your sword?” WTF??

It was your very first communication to me, when you were Scythe. You declared that if you ever encountered my God, you would run Him through with a sword.

[Liberal]

@Diogenes the Cynic

And don’t forget- if you bring me the wrong penny, I’m going to kick you in the nuts. If you choose not to look for the penny at all, I’m still going to kick you in the nuts. You can’t opt out, it’s either the reward or the kick in the nuts. Good luck.

If that is the god you say you are looking for, I hope you never find it.

[lekatt]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Lib, Jesus wasn’t crucified for “heresy.” According to the gospels, he was crucified by the Romans for claiming to be the King of the Jews, i.e for sedition against Rome. If Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah, or the rightful king of the Jews, then he was indeed guilty of sedition.

The synoptics also claim that Jesus was convicted of “blasphemy” by the Sanhedrin, but the words that Mark claims were called blasphemous were nothing of the sort under Jewish law (claiming to be the Messiah was perfectly legal under JEWISH law, it was only illegal under ROMAN law and it was a political crime, not a religious one). Jesus was not crucified for blasphemy in any case.

Also, I personally didn’t have shit to do with the crucifixion and I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say by blaming me.

And God has been anything but “plain” to me, and I’ve looked. I’ve never been able to find a single reason to believe he exists.

Have you looked within yourself?

[cosmosdan]

@Blake

I makes perfect sense to me. It seems likehte perfect analogy for religion.

Do you mean you can’t see the obvious parralels with religion. $1000 = eternal bliss, special penny = appropriate religion to follow, people who know how to identify the true penny = people who actually were divinely inspired and so forth.

Seems pretty bloody obvious to me.

I was kidding. The analogy may mimic what some religions believe. It doesn’t reflect my beliefs so I wondered what it had to do with the subject at hand.

[Czarcasm]

@Liberal

Forget? I think you forgot that I added “etc.”.

But it always seems to be included in the “etc.” as an afterthought or excuse when this is brought up.

@Liberal

You extrapolated from elements of the set of humanity to make a statement about humanity at large.

Actually, I did the exact opposite, stating that it was silly to cast blame on the whole of humanity for the actions of a very, very few.

@Liberal

We are. This is one of the cases in which, contrary to your assertion, arrest and mock trial does not imply guilt.

Neither does it imply divinity, or even innocence. We might even go so far as to state that your belief in Jesus’ innocence does not imply that the arrest was wrong and the trial was mock.

@Liberal

You are ignorant of the zeitgeist. His accusers had already said that His powers were of the devil. They would have declared his demonstration to mean He was a sorcerer.

And you are assuming the zeitgeist to satisfy your conclusions. Your answer smacks of the old and tired excuse,“You atheists would just say it was a magic trick, so why should God prove anything to you?”

@Liberal

Jesus said that we all are sons of God.

Oh, puleeese, don’t hand out that stock non-answer. I don’t see you praising your neighbor Joe Blow and worshipping him as the Son Of God. You know what I meant.

@Liberal

Yes. Not at trial, but before.

And when is the proper time to make a claim of innocence and state your case in court, again?

@Liberal

How can you claim not to know about God when you are describing what you believe to be His attributes and the details of what He should do to convince you?

When did I ever claim not to know about God? Look, I can tell you the entire life history of Hal Jordan, Green Lantern, but that doesn’t mean I believe he exists.

@Liberal

Of course you are hostile. You are hostile even to me. You always have been, since 1999. (Not as a moderator, but as a poster. As a moderator, you have never been unfair to me.)

I can only answer this by asking you to go back to the beginning and seeing which of us made the personal attacks and accusations of ignorance on behalf of the other. I’ll not say another word on that subject.

@Liberal

Now, you are listing all these things that God should do to assure you that He is God. Let us take you at your word that you really would respond to these magic tricks by bowing down and worshipping Him. You ought to be aware that space-time has a time component. Perhaps it is simply untimely for Him to reveal Himself to you. I waited a long time too. Timing is a critical component of all sorts of events and activity. If your spirit is eternal, why does it matter whether your revelation occurs today or when you die and see Him face to face? As a person who routinely thinks in terms of geological timescales, you should realize that even a hundred year wait is nothing.

But I don’t believe that your “god” exist is the first place, so to me, a hundred years is probably more than a lifetime and far too long to make a difference one way or another.

@Liberal

It was your very first communication to me, when you were Scythe. You declared that if you ever encountered my God, you would run Him through with a sword.

Or did I say that, if the “god” described in the Old Testament and preached by hate-filled fire and brimestone preachers existed, I would do my bst to bring him down. Notice which “god” I am refering to, and even more importantly, the word “IF”.

[Czarcasm]

“brimestone” = “brimstone”, and “bst” = “best” of course. :smack:

[Liberal]

@Czarcasm

But it always seems to be included in the “etc.” as an afterthought or excuse when this is brought up.

I think you’re projecting. If you’re so concerned about completeness, why did you limit your “always seems” to either an afterthought or an excuse. Hell, you didn’t even give me the benefit of an “etc.”.

Actually, I did the exact opposite, stating that it was silly to cast blame on the whole of humanity for the actions of a very, very few.

Blame? What blame? This will be the third time I’ve explained that for some, there is blame, but not for all. That’s what got your panties in such a wad over my “etc.”.

Neither does it imply divinity, or even innocence. We might even go so far as to state that your belief in Jesus’ innocence does not imply that the arrest was wrong and the trial was mock.

You’re just shooting sentences out your butt. The trial was obviously mock, for the reasons I already explained.

And you are assuming the zeitgeist to satisfy your conclusions. Your answer smacks of the old and tired excuse,“You atheists would just say it was a magic trick, so why should God prove anything to you?”

Well, you have to assume the zeitgeist since it was in fact in place. But you are illustrating the point anyway. You are turning whatever I say into things smacking of tired excuses and whatnot. Same same for those convinced of His guilt. Anything He might have done would have been construed as proof of their preconceptions.

Oh, puleeese, don’t hand out that stock non-answer. I don’t see you praising your neighbor Joe Blow and worshipping him as the Son Of God. You know what I meant.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

And when is the proper time to make a claim of innocence and state your case in court, again?

Well, there were three “trials”. One was a speech by Caiaphas. Another was ridicule from Herod. The only one even approaching a trial by any stretch of ethical principle was the one before Pilate. And Pilate declared that he found no guilt in the man.

When did I ever claim not to know about God? Look, I can tell you the entire life history of Hal Jordan, Green Lantern, but that doesn’t mean I believe he exists.

Then what’s your complaint? You’ve examined the evidence you care to examine and have made your decision.

I can only answer this by asking you to go back to the beginning and seeing which of us made the personal attacks and accusations of ignorance on behalf of the other. I’ll not say another word on that subject.

Your memory on the matter is false.

But I don’t believe that your “god” exist is the first place, so to me, a hundred years is probably more than a lifetime and far too long to make a difference one way or another.

Then why are you here? Why do you care? Why is it a problem for you?

Or did I say that, if the “god” described in the Old Testament and preached by hate-filled fire and brimestone preachers existed, I would do my bst to bring him down. Notice which “god” I am refering to, and even more importantly, the word “IF”.

If you believe there might be many concepts of God, then why do you chose a particular one to rant about? You’re the one who paints Him as a magical sky pixie who should do parlor tricks to satisfy you.

[yBeayf]

You started out saying that there was only one will.

Yes. Christ’s divine will and the Father’s will are the same, both in intention and numerically.

Then you said there were two wills that were the same.

Yes. Both Christ’s human will and Christ’s divine will are the same in intention.

Now you say there are two wills that are not the same but one is subjugated to the other.

Yes. Christ’s human will and Christ’s divine will are not the same will, even though they are the same in intention.

If they both have wanted the same thing then why did Jesus ask for one will to be done and one will not to be done?

He was not asking that one will be done and one will not be done, He was declaring that His human will would be in subjection to the divine. No matter how many times you ask this question, I’m going to give you the same answer.

How can one will be done and one will not be done if they both want the same thing?

The human will is in subjection to the divine will. They both want the same thing, but the human will isn’t wanting it on its own; it only wants it because the divine will wants it. Therefore, the human will is not willing independently, but voluntarily submitting itself to the divine will.

I already quoted where it says quite clearly that it is a fricken prayer.

“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me” is the prayer. “Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done” is a statement of obedience. Christ isn’t asking for the divine will to be done instead of the human will, but declaring that the divine will be done and the human will follow.

All that I care about is that we have established that it’s an irrelevance.

You are free to think that if you want, of course.

Do you want to actually debate this issue or are you simply going to respond to my arguments with single word non sequiturs?

Fish.

That is a pretty minor theologuical viewpoint.

It’s the viewpoint of the entire eastern Church, and was also the viewpoint of the western before the great schism. Hardly minor.

I want the soul of a sinner in hell feel no pain at all. Can God manage that act or not?

By definition, the soul of a sinner in hell is feeling pain, otherwise he would not be in hell. Therefore, what you are asking is equivalent to “I want A to equal not-A. Can God manage that act or not?” and I am saying that your request “I want A to equal not-A” is a meaningless one.

[CurtC]

@John Mace

Not really. I’m an atheist, although I was raised a Catholic. I’m explaining the concept, not saying that I buy into the concept.

You must listen to Julia Sweeney’s talk on This American Life from three weeks ago. You’ll be glad you did:

http://thislife.org/pages/archives/archive05.html

Then click the Real Audio link for the show called “Godless America.” You can skip ahead to the 40-minute mark to hear Julia. The first 40 minutes, BTW, are discussions of church and state issues, which is interesting too.