World religions versus Christianity

[FireDragon76]

Except Jesus' suffering was meant to have an eternal impact and yet it's a finite and limited death, so it doesn't work to compare and equivocate suffering in general senses with that which is meant to have eternal significance.

According to orthodox Christian theology, Jesus also had a divine nature, and that divine nature participated in his human nature completely. So his death isn't just another human death.

 

[muichimotsu]

According to orthodox Christian theology, Jesus also had a divine nature, and that divine nature participated in his human nature completely. So his death isn't just another human death.

Still doesn't matter if the death is temporary, trying to insinuate the divine quality and violate non-contradiction with hypostasis or such is intellectually dishonest, rationalizing the death of both a human and a god (which I would think couldn't possibly die, so it's still hollow in the substitionary atonement concept)

 

[dlamberth]

According to orthodox Christian theology, Jesus also had a divine nature, and that divine nature participated in his human nature completely. So his death isn't just another human death.

Are you able to talk about this Divine nature?

 

[FireDragon76]

Are you able to talk about this Divine nature?

From the orthodox standpoint, Jesus human nature communicates something of the divine nature.

 

[dlamberth]

From the orthodox standpoint, Jesus human nature communicates something of the divine nature.

I guess my question needs work. Sorry.
I was wondering what that "divine nature" looks like?
If I see it, how will I know?
What's it smell like?
What does it feel like?
Does it dance or sing?
Creative? Laugh? Cry?
Do we see it ONLY in Jesus?

 

[FireDragon76]

I guess my question needs work. Sorry.
I was wondering what that "divine nature" looks like?
If I see it, how will I know?
What's it smell like?
What does it feel like?
Does it dance or sing?
Creative? Laugh? Cry?
Do we see it ONLY in Jesus?

In the sense of being clearly revealed, I would guess they would say so.

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

Still doesn't matter if the death is temporary, trying to insinuate the divine quality and violate non-contradiction with hypostasis or such is intellectually dishonest, rationalizing the death of both a human and a god (which I would think couldn't possibly die, so it's still hollow in the substitionary atonement concept)

Regardless of the mechanics of the Sacrifice, which is certainly a mystery to me, the intended effect seems to have been met. Christ preached a Gospel of love, morality, service, and humility towards God for three or so years and was executed for it in the most brutal and humiliating way, showing once again how humanity treats such Messengers of love. Crucifixion was an inhumane act of punishment reserved for enemies of the state, slaves, and the lowest of criminals in the Empire. Christ consented to this pain, suffering, and execution so that we might be detached from sin. That symbol of love has been particularly effective, as so many Christians rally to that symbol as a central tenant of their Faith. Even if the death was only temporary, the effect of that act on humanity has lasted to the present day.

Again, the mechanics of sacrifice may be confusing and mysterious; the effect is much less so.

And remember, physical death is not true death:

Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.
Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
John 11:21-26

 

[muichimotsu]

Regardless of the mechanics of the Sacrifice, which is certainly a mystery to me, the intended effect seems to have been met. Christ preached a Gospel of love, morality, service, and humility towards God for three or so years and was executed for it in the most brutal and humiliating way, showing once again how humanity treats such Messengers of love. Crucifixion was an inhumane act of punishment reserved for enemies of the state, slaves, and the lowest of criminals in the Empire. Christ consented to this pain, suffering, and execution so that we might be detached from sin. That symbol of love has been particularly effective, as so many Christians rally to that symbol as a central tenant of their Faith. Even if the death was only temporary, the effect of that act on humanity has lasted to the present day.

Again, the mechanics of sacrifice may be confusing and mysterious; the effect is much less so.

And remember, physical death is not true death:

Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.
Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
John 11:21-26

Showing humanity's corruption is not the same as showing that we are immutably corrupt, that's a fallacious inference.

We can't be detached from sin in ourselves, there's still a contingent factor involved that makes his sacrifice effectively indicative of a conditional salvation and not unconditional love in the slightest, because that would entail universal reconciliation (however that works)

Also, the effect is supposedly pretty ineffective with how fragmented Xianity is today, to say nothing of how bad things supposedly are according to Christians. You can't simultaneously claim there was a good effect that is demonstrable and then continue to talk about how corrupt the world is, you're talking out both sides of your mouth

Physical death, as far as the evidence suggests, is the end in terms of an individual's consciousness, but people can persist in the memories of their loved ones. But "true" death is just getting into obfuscation of death as a reality because of our innate fear that it looms over us

 

[FireDragon76]

Showing humanity's corruption is not the same as showing that we are immutably corrupt, that's a fallacious inference.

We can't be detached from sin in ourselves, there's still a contingent factor involved that makes his sacrifice effectively indicative of a conditional salvation and not unconditional love in the slightest, because that would entail universal reconciliation (however that works)

Also, the effect is supposedly pretty ineffective with how fragmented Xianity is today, to say nothing of how bad things supposedly are according to Christians. You can't simultaneously claim there was a good effect that is demonstrable and then continue to talk about how corrupt the world is, you're talking out both sides of your mouth

Physical death, as far as the evidence suggests, is the end in terms of an individual's consciousness, but people can persist in the memories of their loved ones. But "true" death is just getting into obfuscation of death as a reality because of our innate fear that it looms over us

Are you a Buddhist or materialist?

Buddhists don't traditionally believe consciousness ends at death. Consciousness is understood as fundamental to reality in the Yogaracan school, and nihilism is considered a wrong view, along with eternalism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Except Jesus' suffering was meant to have an eternal impact and yet it's a finite and limited death, so it doesn't work to compare and equivocate suffering in general senses with that which is meant to have eternal significance.

Can a life, which due to mortality, is finite and temporary (assuming so for the moment from a purely material/visible perspective) have meaning and significance beyond the term limits of that life? Because if the argument boils down to something like: "Something which is temporary cannot leave a more permanent impact" then this would, in essence, be an argument for utter meaninglessness for everything.

Let's take someone like Martin Luther King, Jr whose life dedication to the Civil Rights Movement in America has left a lasting legacy--the things he said and did still reach people, they still impact people. The things he said and did had an impact on American society, and beyond that, the world as a whole. The meaningfulness and the impact is not negated or lessened by the fact that he didn't stay alive, his life mattered, and it mattered for a lot of people, and it continues to matter for a lot of people who are still being impacted, touched, and effected by that life.

If all you are trying to argue for is nihilism--everything is ultimately meaningless--well we are at a harsh impasse. I fundamentally reject nihilism as an approach toward the universe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[muichimotsu]

Are you a Buddhist or materialist?

Buddhists don't traditionally believe consciousness ends at death. Consciousness is understood as fundamental to reality in the Yogaracan school, and nihilism is considered a wrong view, along with eternalism.

Tradition doesn't follow necessarily to requirements of affiliation with something. Life can be a continuum without it meaning that I just looped into someone else's consciousness after they died. Far as the evidence seems to suggest, no, there is no consciousness of the individual after death, only people's memories of them

 

[muichimotsu]

Can a life, which due to mortality, is finite and temporary (assuming so for the moment from a purely material/visible perspective) have meaning and significance beyond the term limits of that life? Because if the argument boils down to something like: "Something which is temporary cannot leave a more permanent impact" then this would, in essence, be an argument for utter meaninglessness for everything.

Let's take someone like Martin Luther King, Jr whose life dedication to the Civil Rights Movement in America has left a lasting legacy--the things he said and did still reach people, they still impact people. The things he said and did had an impact on American society, and beyond that, the world as a whole. The meaningfulness and the impact is not negated or lessened by the fact that he didn't stay alive, his life mattered, and it mattered for a lot of people, and it continues to matter for a lot of people who are still being impacted, touched, and effected by that life.

If all you are trying to argue for is nihilism--everything is ultimately meaningless--well we are at a harsh impasse. I fundamentally reject nihilism as an approach toward the universe.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, a life that is transient can still have meaning in the impact it has on the present and future events that are related to actions it participates in

The finality of death is what makes the finite actions have value, since they aren't going to continue on in any sense. Jesus constantly having to intervene in terms of sin is more the general idea, the sacrifice made is seemingly symbolic, since Jesus 1) didn't really die permanently and 2) the death itself didn't accomplish the salvation, one has to pledge allegiance to him as savior, so the death not only doesn't have impact because there's no permanent sacrifice, but it's not the sole condition for salvation either

Impact of an action is in people's response to it, but trying to simultaneously encourage literal and metaphorical interpretations of an event that allegedly occurred (Jesus' death and resurrection in this case) just muddies the waters

Staying alive is not what is argued to be the primary factor of impact, because life being limited gives it value in that it isn't going to last forever, not taken for granted. The actions of MLK Jr and others are important because they make lasting changes that we can demonstrate in society, not just people flocking to a charismatic cult leader that convinced people he was God's chosen.

Being remembered is one way your impact continues beyond your death, but you seem to be conflating transience of existence with transience of meaning, they're not the same thing. Meaning is innately subjective (though not relative necessarily in the values all being equally true or valid given context) and if someone doesn't find something meaningful anymore, that's because their perspective changes.

Not sure where you remotely got the idea I advocate nihilism except by strawmanning me as the antithesis of your own arguably irrational association of eternity with true meaning, when one can argue that actually undermines real meaning, not only because of the extrinsic nature of God imparting meaning onto humans, but because meaning is something pursued, not merely achieved

 

[FireDragon76]

Tradition doesn't follow necessarily to requirements of affiliation with something. Life can be a continuum without it meaning that I just looped into someone else's consciousness after they died. Far as the evidence seems to suggest, no, there is no consciousness of the individual after death, only people's memories of them

"No evidence" is a bit extreme, given that near-death experiences are widely reported and even take seriously by some medical professionals and researchers.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, a life that is transient can still have meaning in the impact it has on the present and future events that are related to actions it participates in

The finality of death is what makes the finite actions have value, since they aren't going to continue on in any sense. Jesus constantly having to intervene in terms of sin is more the general idea, the sacrifice made is seemingly symbolic, since Jesus 1) didn't really die permanently and 2) the death itself didn't accomplish the salvation, one has to pledge allegiance to him as savior,

@ViaCrucis is Lutheran. Lutherans traditionally believe that Jesus death fully accomplished salvation, they reject the notion that ones decision to believe contributes anything. So your characterization of his beliefs isn't accurate.

Not sure where you remotely got the idea I advocate nihilism except by strawmanning me as the antithesis of your own arguably irrational association of eternity with true meaning, when one can argue that actually undermines real meaning, not only because of the extrinsic nature of God imparting meaning onto humans, but because meaning is something pursued, not merely achieved

I think you are oversimplifying the issue and presenting false dichotomies.

 

[muichimotsu]

@ViaCrucis is Lutheran. Lutherans traditionally believe that Jesus death fully accomplished salvation, they reject the notion that ones decision to believe contributes anything. So your characterization of his beliefs isn't accurate.



I think you are oversimplifying the issue and presenting false dichotomies.

They can believe it, it's not justified beyond a metaphorical interpretation of his death and sacrifice, because he didn't actually die permanently or initiate a real sacrifice, because he came back. If I get shot in the head and by some event, come back to life 3 days later, my protecting someone from a bullet is still something they can be grateful for, but the idea that I sacrificed anything significant is lost

Achieving purpose may arguably be possible in some sense, but the problem still remains of the extrisnic/intrinsic dichotomy most would generally accept, unless they can present other notions, which I'm open to

 

[muichimotsu]

"No evidence" is a bit extreme, given that near-death experiences are widely reported and even take seriously by some medical professionals and researchers.

"Some medical professionals and researchers" is not indicative of actual falsifiability or even evidence that it's anything more than brain chemistry gone awry because of lack of oxygen in the near death state. To say nothing of those "professionals" having some intransigent biases they can't shake in selectively interpreting the experiences in a fashion for supposed "evidence".

There's hardly even consistency in the experiences, usually relative to environmental upbringing, or they're so vague it's at best a common trait of the brain under those circumstances, not indication of a supernatural reality

 

[FireDragon76]

There's hardly even consistency in the experiences, usually relative to environmental upbringing, or they're so vague it's at best a common trait of the brain under those circumstances, not indication of a supernatural reality

That still doesn't necesitate they be reduced to materialistic explanations. Jungian, Hindu, or Buddhist explanations are still possible, since they can account for the varied cultural experiences.

 

[muichimotsu]

Merely seeming compelling and possible to apply doesn't mean it measures up in terms of reliability of the data, because taking an explanatory model that is already assuming particular things that may be unfalsifiable creates more problems that just investigating in a material fashion, in the same vein of investigations as to a soul's existence or even persistence of consciousness of an individual after death, neither fo which seem remotely evidence

 

[ViaCrucis]

They can believe it, it's not justified beyond a metaphorical interpretation of his death and sacrifice, because he didn't actually die permanently or initiate a real sacrifice, because he came back. If I get shot in the head and by some event, come back to life 3 days later, my protecting someone from a bullet is still something they can be grateful for, but the idea that I sacrificed anything significant is lost

Achieving purpose may arguably be possible in some sense, but the problem still remains of the extrisnic/intrinsic dichotomy most would generally accept, unless they can present other notions, which I'm open to

You're misunderstanding the word sacrifice here, you are defining "sacrifice" as "permanent loss". The words used in the biblical languages convey the idea of victim. The Greek word θυσία (thusia) is a "slaughtered victim", a thing brought, offered, and killed. Similarly the Hebrew word זֶבַח likewise refers to a slain victim, a thing slaughtered. So the concept here, of Christ as a sacrifice, is that He was made a victim, He was slain, killed, put to death.

Which is why in our Liturgy we sing the Agnes Dei, the Lamb of God, echoing the words of St. John the Baptist, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Christ was brought to the hill called Golgotha, nailed to a cross, and slaughtered as a victim of human violence and hate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, a life that is transient can still have meaning in the impact it has on the present and future events that are related to actions it participates in

The finality of death is what makes the finite actions have value, since they aren't going to continue on in any sense. Jesus constantly having to intervene in terms of sin is more the general idea, the sacrifice made is seemingly symbolic, since Jesus 1) didn't really die permanently and 2) the death itself didn't accomplish the salvation, one has to pledge allegiance to him as savior, so the death not only doesn't have impact because there's no permanent sacrifice, but it's not the sole condition for salvation either

Impact of an action is in people's response to it, but trying to simultaneously encourage literal and metaphorical interpretations of an event that allegedly occurred (Jesus' death and resurrection in this case) just muddies the waters

Staying alive is not what is argued to be the primary factor of impact, because life being limited gives it value in that it isn't going to last forever, not taken for granted. The actions of MLK Jr and others are important because they make lasting changes that we can demonstrate in society, not just people flocking to a charismatic cult leader that convinced people he was God's chosen.

Being remembered is one way your impact continues beyond your death, but you seem to be conflating transience of existence with transience of meaning, they're not the same thing. Meaning is innately subjective (though not relative necessarily in the values all being equally true or valid given context) and if someone doesn't find something meaningful anymore, that's because their perspective changes.

Not sure where you remotely got the idea I advocate nihilism except by strawmanning me as the antithesis of your own arguably irrational association of eternity with true meaning, when one can argue that actually undermines real meaning, not only because of the extrinsic nature of God imparting meaning onto humans, but because meaning is something pursued, not merely achieved

Okay, so Martin Luther King, Jr's life would lose meaning if he were still alive?

-CryptoLutheran