# Was Jesus dying on the cross a meaningful act? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309 "2009-06-19T18:12:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/41 "2009-06-19T20:24:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How about overrated blowhards, pendants and sophists? > > I’ve read them. When you really dig into them, they just start sounding like ancient Comic Book Guys. Fan wanking, self-important, supercillious expositions on fictional characters and invented premises. > [@A Fish Called Wanda](#): > > No, Otto, apes _do_ read Nietzsche. They just don’t understand him. If you can read Comic Book Guy into the Confessions, then you can read Comic Book Guy into anything. ---
**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:** [June 19, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/42 "2009-06-19T20:30:30Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > If you can read Comic Book Guy into the Confessions, then you can read Comic Book Guy into anything. Or perhaps there just isn’t anything better than that to be read into it. Being illogical and false doesn’t make something deep and profound. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/43 "2009-06-19T20:30:37Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > That’s, um, like, your opinion, man. Have you at least read the Cur Deus Homo? Is Anselm really the guy you want to hang your hat on? We’re talking about the inventor of the Ontological Argument after all. Summation of _Cur Deus Homo_: God made the rules, therefore God has to follow the rules. God has to punish sin because if he didn’t punish sin, he wouldn’t be following the rules he made up. God has no ability react to sin except by wrath. The only thing that can satify God’s wrath is God. So God become God-Man so God can satisfy his own wrath by killing himself. Are you really confident that I can’t find any holes in this? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/44 "2009-06-19T20:33:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Of course it isn’t, but it is the default state. You have to embrace the irrational to become a Christian. So not-believing doesn’t mean you’re smart, but beleiving does mean you’re doing something stupid. What does “embrace the irrational” mean? I imagine you also have to embrace the irrational to fall in love, to make confidence judgments about matters where you have insufficient facts, and to live a normal human life that is not some Pyrrhonian hell. > [@](#): > > And after years of searching, he still decided that it was easier to believe in something without any evidence because it made him feel better. If you are going to look something up, please at least make more of an effort to learn it and characterize it with some fidelity. > [@](#): > > Like I say, plenty of great people believe, but plenty of great people are drug addicts too. Brilliant people can do profoundly stupid things. And plenty of stupid people do not believe, and plenty of stupid people are drug addicts as well. It remains to demonstrate what conclusion one can actually draw from this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/45 "2009-06-19T20:35:23Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > It is not true that Albert Einstein wasn’t very good at math; it’s just that he was not a formally trained mathematician and therefore tended to make a lot of assumptions or methods that were valid or at least workable but that would not meet the standard of a formal proof. While David Hilbert was arguably as influential (if not moreso) in the development of the Einstein field equations as the nominal author, the formal mathematics for General Relativity stemmed from Einstein’s conceptual understanding of the theory. > > As for the question of the o.p. I have no opinion and no god in this race, but remember: > > For life is quite absurd > And death’s the final word. > You must always face the curtain with a bow. > Forget about your sin. > Give the audience a grin. > Enjoy it. It’s your last chance, anyhow. > So,… > Always look on the bright side of death, > Just before you draw your terminal breath. Life’s a piece of shit when you look at it. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/46 "2009-06-19T20:39:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Is Anselm really the guy you want to hang your hat on? We’re talking about the inventor of the Ontological Argument after all. I’ll go to bat for Anselm, even though I as an atheist obviously do not buy the ontological argument. > [@](#): > > Summation of _Cur Deus Homo_: > Are you really confident that I can’t find any holes in this? I am sure you can find fault in it because it is a thoroughly anemic summary. ---
**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:** [June 19, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/47 "2009-06-19T20:39:43Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > What does “embrace the irrational” mean? I imagine you also have to embrace the irrational to fall in love, to make confidence judgments about matters where you have insufficient facts, and to live a normal human life that is not some Pyrrhonian hell. It means denying reality, denying logic. It’s more like falling in love with a serial killer, making judgements about matters where your opinions outright contradict the facts ( to use your metaphors ). ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/48 "2009-06-19T20:43:52Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > What does “embrace the irrational” mean? I imagine you also have to embrace the irrational to fall in love, to make confidence judgments about matters where you have insufficient facts, and to live a normal human life that is not some Pyrrhonian hell. There is no reason to assume that Christian dogma is correct, any more than there is reason to assume Hindu dogma is correct. To latch onto one and declare, absent of any evidence, that it is the correct one is irrational. Is that put simply enough? > [@](#): > > If you are going to look something up, please at least make more of an effort to learn it and characterize it with some fidelity. I’ll thank you to actually try to discern my point. 😃 > [@](#): > > And plenty of stupid people do not believe, and plenty of stupid people are drug addicts as well. It remains to demonstrate what conclusion one can actually draw from this. You really should try harder. Seeing as you are such a devotee of spurious rationales for believing in fairy stories, the least you can do is attempt to understand things spoke plainly. Being an atheist has no bearing on intellect. Some are stupid, some are smart. Being a theist means you specifically have chosen to ignore logic and embrace a children’s fairy story for no reason. Belief without evidence is innately irrational and a stupid act. So if we know nothing about an atheist and a theist, we can at the least figure that the theist has committed an irrational act. That said, plenty of theists are fine people and no doubt very smart. But all of them ignore logic when it comes to their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/49 "2009-06-19T20:45:57Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > If you can read Comic Book Guy into the Confessions, then you can read Comic Book Guy into anything. You should read it in the original Latin. Seriously, it’s all just pompous, self-important, hair-splitting, overly serious expostulating on fictional characters and made-up premises. What’s the difference between them and Star Wars nerds? They both even have arguments about “canon.” ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/50 "2009-06-19T20:46:39Z")
The whole thing seems a rather lame exercise. Basically, his death was not in anyway unique to the deaths of many before and after him. Then after 3 or so days (depending on the verse) he comes back to life. Doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice at all. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/51 "2009-06-19T20:50:10Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I’ll go to bat for Anselm, even though I as an atheist obviously do not buy the ontological argument. Serve it up. If you throw Anselm at me, you’re just pitching BP. > [@](#): > > I am sure you can find fault in it because it is a thoroughly anemic summary. What crucial point am I missing? ---
**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:** [June 19, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/52 "2009-06-19T20:51:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You should read it in the original Latin. > > Seriously, it’s all just pompous, self-important, hair-splitting, overly serious expostulating on fictional characters and made-up premises. What’s the difference between them and Star Wars nerds? They both even have arguments about “canon.” Well, to be fair Star Wars nerds have less of a history of killing people over it. And they seldom claim that Darth Vader is real. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/53 "2009-06-19T20:53:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You should read it in the original Latin. > > Seriously, it’s all just pompous, self-important, hair-splitting, overly serious expostulating on fictional characters and made-up premises. What’s the difference between them and Star Wars nerds? They both even have arguments about “canon.” I have a Latin copy at home. I’ve read it. I’m going to try to read the Republic when I get home in a Star Wars nerd voice. They’re all just self-important, made-up characters expostulating on pointless abstractions like the soul, justice, and the good. Sounds just like arguing about the Force, or the capabilities of TIE fighters, or whatnot. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/54 "2009-06-19T20:54:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > There is no reason to assume that Christian dogma is correct, any more than there is reason to assume Hindu dogma is correct. To latch onto one and declare, absent of any evidence, that it is the correct one is irrational. Is that put simply enough? Much of the human condition is ‘irrational’ but that doesn’t make it invalid. That’s the problem, people use ‘irrational’ which means motivated by something other than logic, as a synonym for stupid or invalid. EVERYONE is irrational about one thing or another. There is no one that is perfectly rational. Hell even in Star Trek, Spock’s ability to be irrational is his advantage over other Vulcans. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/55 "2009-06-19T21:03:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Serve it up. If you throw Anselm at me, you’re just pitching BP. > > What crucial point am I missing? You casually dismissed all of Christian soteriology as inane crap that doesn’t survive scrutiny. I said this is pretty much your opinion. Empirically speaking, it’s false. I pitched Anselm back as a way to show that by way of fact, soteriological arguments have not just evaporated over time at the first sign of scrutiny. One day I will be paid to teach this stuff, but sadly, that day is not today. Reread the first nine or ten chapters (about 20 pages worth) if you want to refresh your memory. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/56 "2009-06-19T21:08:59Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I have a Latin copy at home. I’ve read it. > > I’m going to try to read the Republic when I get home in a Star Wars nerd voice. They’re all just self-important, made-up characters expostulating on pointless abstractions like the soul, justice, and the good. Sounds just like arguing about the Force, or the capabilities of TIE fighters, or whatnot. How is the “soul” any different from midichlorians? If all they were arguing about was “justice,” and “good,” they’d be philosophers. That’s not all they’re arguing about, though, is it? They’re arguing about magical creatures, and what kind of powers they have. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/57 "2009-06-19T21:14:19Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > You casually dismissed all of Christian soteriology as inane crap that doesn’t survive scrutiny. I said this is pretty much your opinion. Empirically speaking, it’s false. How so? What am I missing empirically? > [@](#): > > I pitched Anselm back as a way to show that by way of fact, soteriological arguments have not just evaporated over time at the first sign of scrutiny. _Beliefs_ in them haven’t evaporated, but, in fact, they have no logical weight whatsoever, not only because of internal contradictions, but because the premises are completely unsupported. > [@](#): > > One day I will be paid to teach this stuff, but sadly, that day is not today. Reread the first nine or ten chapters (about 20 pages worth) if you want to refresh your memory. I read it all in college. If you think I’m missing some kind of airtight argument from supported premises, let’s see it. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/58 "2009-06-19T21:17:27Z")
If the cranky atheists would be so kind as to find another thread to be rude in, that would be peachy. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/59 "2009-06-19T21:18:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How is the “soul” any different from midichlorians? Your guess is as good as mine. Ask Plato, he talks about it a hell of a lot. > [@](#): > > If all they were arguing about was “justice,” and “good,” they’d be philosophers. That’s not all they’re arguing about, though, is it? They’re arguing about magical creatures, and what kind of powers they have. _To kalon_ is pretty magical. _En katharōi ouranōi_ is super duper magical. I’m not trying to say that Anselm was another Plato. He wasn’t and he didn’t try to be one. But Plato talks about a heck of a lot of magic for a philosopher. And every time he can’t actually prove anything, he just tells a very convincing story. The point here is, once again, if you are sufficiently determined, you can read Star Wards Fanboy into pretty much anything. It probably is not a great measure of the worth of the dialogue as a literary form. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309/60 "2009-06-19T21:20:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > For an act to be meaningful there needs to be a real chance at an opposite outcome. It’s not a race though. The big MP still gets tired, still works out his muscles, still _experiences_ the act of swimming, can still get injured, etc, regardless if he’s swimming in the regular or Special Olympics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-jesus-dying-on-the-cross-a-meaningful-act/500309.md?page=4)