Does the Crucifixion inspire you?

[muichimotsu]

Does a cult leader giving himself up to be killed with the expectation that he'll come back or be rewarded by his god for the sacrifice inspire me?

No, quite the opposite, I'm repulsed by the notion that any supposedly good entity would require such maiming and torture of a moral patient in regards to achieving some salvation for humanity when it's also allegedly all knowing and all powerful and could achieve justice without the need for crude scapegoating or the like

 

[renniks]

Does the Crucifixion inspire you? It doesn't inspire me. I don't even feel sorry for Jesus as a fellow human being who suffered, because it was so long ago and I have heard the story so many times. The teachings of Jesus inspire me though. If Christianity was only about the teachings of Jesus then I could probably buy it.

Just wondering how you feel about it and why?

Yes, absolutely. That God would die for me? What deeper inspiration can there be?
It's the greatest love of all time.

 

[Albion]

Does the Crucifixion inspire you? It doesn't inspire me. I don't even feel sorry for Jesus as a fellow human being who suffered, because it was so long ago and I have heard the story so many times.

Just wondering how you feel about it and why?

As for the Crucifixion itself, I feel like answering "yes and no." But as to the Resurrection...yes!

So because the Crucifixion was part of the process that led to the Resurrection, perhaps the answer to your question should be "yes" after all.

 

[Albion]

Does a cult leader giving himself up to be killed with the expectation that he'll come back or be rewarded by his god for the sacrifice inspire me?

It probably wouldn't inspire us either if that were what we were talking about here.

 

[muichimotsu]

It probably wouldn't inspire us either if that were what we were talking about here.

Yeah, you can try to spin it as otherwise, that isn't being remotely objective or fair in regards to what even a charitable look at Jesus' group of followers and the resultant zealots in his cult of personality and what amounts to blood sacrifice metaphors would tell us about them.

They weren't remotely rational except as it helped them to get into the good graces of society, they're hardly better than early Muslims except their opponents weren't immediately resorting to war as those regions were unfortunately more wont to do for whatever reason (holdover from ancient Israelite practices, I'd hazard)

Jesus wasn't being altruistic, he staunchly believed in his god and died for the purposes of whatever he thought would be achieved by it. To suggest otherwise is being disingenuous to the consideration that not everyone is going to take the whole scapegoat/substitutionary atonement explanation seriously even having studied it. If you already regard it with pathos in the "Oh, he loves me," then that's confirmation bias on your part

 

[Albion]

Yeah, you can try to spin it as otherwise...

I think you have the wrong "spinner" in mind there.

The deciding factor is the Bible itself. You don't have to believe it, but if you are going to critique it, the evaluation had better be based on what is in the Bible account and not something of your own invention instead.

So if we consult the Bible account of the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ--for that is what the Christian religion believes--we can see that your storyline ("...killed with the expectation that he'll come back or be rewarded by his god for the sacrifice inspire me?) is in conflict with it.

P.S. All of us, if asked, would probably join you in being "repulsed" by your version of the events, but it wouldn't have anything to do with Christianity either way.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yeah, you can try to spin it as otherwise, that isn't being remotely objective or fair in regards to what even a charitable look at Jesus' group of followers and the resultant zealots in his cult of personality and what amounts to blood sacrifice metaphors would tell us about them.

They weren't remotely rational except as it helped them to get into the good graces of society, they're hardly better than early Muslims except their opponents weren't immediately resorting to war as those regions were unfortunately more wont to do for whatever reason (holdover from ancient Israelite practices, I'd hazard)

Jesus wasn't being altruistic, he staunchly believed in his god and died for the purposes of whatever he thought would be achieved by it. To suggest otherwise is being disingenuous to the consideration that not everyone is going to take the whole scapegoat/substitutionary atonement explanation seriously even having studied it. If you already regard it with pathos in the "Oh, he loves me," then that's confirmation bias on your part

It seems to me that if we don't accept the full theology of the gospels then we have no reason to accept the passion narrative. I suppose there are Buddhist monks who light themselves on fire and Japanese nobles who disembowel themselves, but most people wouldn't choose crucifixion - even if they had a death wish.

Non-believers should probably imagine that Jesus was a failed revolutionary who was captured and executed. That seems more believable than to imagine Jesus as some sort of insane maniac who wanted to die by crucifixion.

 

[muichimotsu]

I think you have the wrong "spinner" in mind there.

The deciding factor is the Bible itself. You don't have to believe it, but if you are going to critique it, the evaluation had better be based on what is in the Bible account and not something of your own invention instead.

So if we consult the Bible account of the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ--for that is what the Christian religion believes--we can see that your storyline ("...killed with the expectation that he'll come back or be rewarded by his god for the sacrifice inspire me?) is in conflict with it.

P.S. All of us, if asked, would probably join you in being "repulsed" by your version of the events, but it wouldn't have anything to do with Christianity either way.

The Bible is not self evident in all interpretations, that's why you have the fragmentation in Christianity to begin with

If you're purely going based on the preconceived narrative, of course it's going to be positive, a cult is not going to use bad publicity to present the case for why it's wrong, even if there's a persecution complex peppered in Christianity anyway

I'm thinking in regards to the Gethsemane soliloquy Jesus has. Is that not indicative in part that he was uncertain about his future or what would happen in terms of God's plan? Wouldn't that make sense if he was fully human (along with fully God, however that works)?

Again, if you just work with a preconception, of course anything that varies from that is going to be rejected as a "No True Scotsman" example, which is disingenuous to discussion

 

[muichimotsu]

It seems to me that if we don't accept the full theology of the gospels then we have no reason to accept the passion narrative. I suppose there are Buddhist monks who light themselves on fire and Japanese nobles who disembowel themselves, but most people wouldn't choose crucifixion - even if they had a death wish.

Non-believers should probably imagine that Jesus was a failed revolutionary who was captured and executed. That seems more believable than to imagine Jesus as some sort of insane maniac who wanted to die by crucifixion.

Most of the gospels seem to suggest Jesus wasn't gungho about it, he was just being an obedient servant, which has its own problems in the morality it encourages. The passion narrative is particularly heinous in the scapegoat metaphor and the like, that's what repulses me and should repulse anyone not thoroughly indoctrinated into a messianic cult's idea of being a pariah and such, the persecution somehow indicative of truth

 

[cloudyday2]

Most of the gospels seem to suggest Jesus wasn't gungho about it, he was just being an obedient servant, which has its own problems in the morality it encourages. The passion narrative is particularly heinous in the scapegoat metaphor and the like, that's what repulses me and should repulse anyone not thoroughly indoctrinated into a messianic cult's idea of being a pariah and such, the persecution somehow indicative of truth

But trying to glean history from the gospels seems difficult for a non-believer. Josephus apparently mentioned the Crucifixion and the fact that Jesus was a faith healer or exorcist, but there is no suggestion that Jesus thought that the Father wanted him to be crucified. All of that comes from the gospels.

It's different for a believer of course. A believer assumes that God must have tried to preserve the most important facts about the Crucifixion even if some of the details of the gospels might be wrong.

 

[muichimotsu]

Even if we're just talking about the story, it's not really inspiring unless you really enjoy pariahs and such

 

[PloverWing]

BTW, as I was rereading the Nicene Creed, I noticed the wording suggests that the salvation came from the Incarnation rather than from the Crucifixion.

I think that is a correct reading of the Creed, yes. The Incarnation was centrally important to some of the early church theologians, in part because of its connection to the Atonement.

 

[FireDragon76]

The idea that any wise or enlightened being needs an act of violence in order to forgive those who have offended him/her/it, is simply a travesty. But this meme being drilled into western culture has made people ripe for abusive manipulation and the widespread acceptance of violence as a model of justice.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sacrificing oneself inorder for another to live is a perfect expression of love. Because of that, I am also learning to place others before me. For example, last year I was led to pray for my 2 cousins though they didn't actually know I was praying for them. Then the Lord heard my prayer and remembered them yet, I've still not broken through in certain areas of my life. The story of the cross gives me a reason to deny myself daily.

But the Church has frequently manipulated vulnerable, powerless people into accepting that it is only, and uniquely, their duty to sacrifice themselves. In that way, Christianity frequently serves as a means of the powerful to oppress the powerless, as well as part of obscuring power relationships within a society.

This whole dynamic of attempting to manipulate the oppressed into accepting a guilt-ridden message they couldn't possibly be responsible for, on the outside, appears more as psychological manipulation rather than some great revelation of love.