World religions versus Christianity

[muichimotsu]

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

A victim of slaughter is not coming back, you're equivocating now or splitting hairs to make a distinction without a real difference. If Jesus is a scapegoat, that's far worse than if he willingly offered himself up, because a scapegoat doesn't choose to be a scapegoat, they are made a scapegoat by circumstances or, in Jesus' case, because he has to

Death is a permanent thing, you're still glossing over that to make this seem different, which smacks of special pleading

And yet that sacrifice did nothing we can actually demonstrate in regards to what is alleged to have resulted from it. To say nothing of it not really fitting except in a metaphorical notion, since he comes back, whereas I'm pretty sure the slaughtered lambs in ancient Israel were just dead.

 

[muichimotsu]

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

-CryptoLutheran

It would be hollow in seeking meaning, because meaning is necessarily transient in nature, relative to individuals or societies as they seek those goals. Nothing lasts forever, physically speaking. Ideals can persist, but they're abstract.

I'd argue eternal life is a curse in that there is no room for finality or conclusions, you'd never have that aspect of change to consider in your behavior and you'd stagnate. If I never grew old and stayed in perfect physical shape somehow, wouldn't that discourage me from really taking care of myself at all in a sense?

 

[ViaCrucis]

A victim of slaughter is not coming back

No, as a general rule people who die don't stop being dead. That's kind of why Christians think Jesus' coming back from the dead is a big deal.

Or are you really at this point just trying to redefine words?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

meaning is necessarily transient in nature

You know, if you think that a rose is only beautiful because it withers and dies, well cool. But that's not an argument. That's a feeling as it pertains to a particular aesthetic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[muichimotsu]

No, as a general rule people who die don't stop being dead. That's kind of why Christians think Jesus' coming back from the dead is a big deal.

Or are you really at this point just trying to redefine words?

-CryptoLutheran

No, you're the one trying to say that his coming back must mean your particular interpretation of why it happened is the only explanation, and that's IF I grant you the idea that his resurrection is compelling, which I'm loathe to generally do except hypothetically anyway.

Why is it such that Jesus' coming back from the dead means he died for the sins of the world? Because the gospels say so? Why are you taking them seriously? Fundamentally, this appears to boil down to you thinking it's plausible that this happened and no other explanation is personally compelling to your standards that you think everyone else has.

 

[muichimotsu]

You know, if you think that a rose is only beautiful because it withers and dies, well cool. But that's not an argument. That's a feeling as it pertains to a particular aesthetic.

-CryptoLutheran

Meaning necessarily goes back to individual assessments, and individuals don't live forever, far as we can assess, so yeah, I'm not just going with aesthetics of wabi sabi, I'm talking about how ontologically, meaning is conceptual and contingent on our thinking of it, I find not reason to see meaning as being bestowed on us from outside, it's dogmatic and authoritarian in orientation

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, you're the one trying to say that his coming back must mean your particular interpretation of why it happened is the only explanation, and that's IF I grant you the idea that his resurrection is compelling, which I'm loathe to generally do except hypothetically anyway.

What on earth are you talking about?

Why is it such that Jesus' coming back from the dead means he died for the sins of the world?

In this particular instance the connection between His resurrection and His death involves the validation of His Messianic mission. A dead messiah isn't a messiah. As such whatever theological significance that can be attached to His life and death are only relevant if, in fact, He is what is claimed of Him; and that is only the case if He rose from the dead. Again, a dead messiah isn't a messiah.

Because the gospels say so? Why are you taking them seriously?

Probably because my religion is Christianity. It's the same reason that Jews take the Torah seriously, or that Muslims take the Qur'an seriously, or <insert religious group here> takes <insert said religious group's doctrines, texts, practices, rituals, ideas here> seriously.

Fundamentally, this appears to boil down to you thinking it's plausible that this happened and no other explanation is personally compelling to your standards that you think everyone else has.

I take the Gospel narrative seriously and believe it, so yes I consider it plausible as a matter of faith. I don't particularly concern myself with the fact that others don't.

The only reason I began to engage with your posts was it seemed, at least at the time, that you were attempting to make an argument.

If this has literally been nothing more than you having said, "I don't personally feel like Jesus' death is meaningful" then well, fine--no skin off my back. But it seemed initially as though attempt with engagement was intended, not simply opinion-sharing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Meaning necessarily goes back to individual assessments, and individuals don't live forever, far as we can assess, so yeah, I'm not just going with aesthetics of wabi sabi, I'm talking about how ontologically, meaning is conceptual and contingent on our thinking of it, I find not reason to see meaning as being bestowed on us from outside, it's dogmatic and authoritarian in orientation

Okay, and I disagree. I think there is inherent and intrinsic value to be found in existence itself. That life, in and of itself, is inherently good. And that individuals have intrinsic and inherent meaning and value on the sheer basis that they exist; as such permanence imbues meaning, it doesn't diminish it. Mortality is the tragic theft of life, it is an injury against the good; and so resurrection means that things matter, that everything matters. That we aren't just blowing in the wind, but that purpose, significance, and meaning has been embedded in the very cosmos itself toward the good.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[muichimotsu]

Okay, and I disagree. I think there is inherent and intrinsic value to be found in existence itself. That life, in and of itself, is inherently good. And that individuals have intrinsic and inherent meaning and value on the sheer basis that they exist; as such permanence imbues meaning, it doesn't diminish it. Mortality is the tragic theft of life, it is an injury against the good; and so resurrection means that things matter, that everything matters. That we aren't just blowing in the wind, but that purpose, significance, and meaning has been embedded in the very cosmos itself toward the good.

-CryptoLutheran

That value in existence is only ascertained by us, we have no basis to assume otherwise unless we think ourselves so special that our thoughts have a special basis (see anthropic principle)

Life, in regards to nature at least, is inherently mindless, it functions as it will and doesn't care about human sentiment (good and evil alike are rained on)

It's not permanence, it's acknowledgement that they're individuals with dignity. I respected my grandfathers, but them passing on was just nature, it's not suggesting they're meaningless at all, which is what you're seemingly insinuating. Tragic theft? You really want immortality that badly? Why? I've never seen a compelling argument that isn't self satisfying or trying to avoid death because of fears of the uncertainty regarding the afterlife

Except again, you're failing to see the problem I insinuated: meaning forced onto us by existence means any meaning we seek is effectively worthless, it makes us puppets, means to an end and not ends in ourselves, which would give us value and dignity rather than being in the image of God to have that dignity contingently.

If you want to think humans are special, you're free to believe it, but don't act like this idea of giving meaning to the universe extends to us by association, because that sells us horribly short as having real value instead of being assigned it because of our nature (again, like something without real will of our own that matters, a puppet)

 

[muichimotsu]

What on earth are you talking about?



In this particular instance the connection between His resurrection and His death involves the validation of His Messianic mission. A dead messiah isn't a messiah. As such whatever theological significance that can be attached to His life and death are only relevant if, in fact, He is what is claimed of Him; and that is only the case if He rose from the dead. Again, a dead messiah isn't a messiah.



Probably because my religion is Christianity. It's the same reason that Jews take the Torah seriously, or that Muslims take the Qur'an seriously, or <insert religious group here> takes <insert said religious group's doctrines, texts, practices, rituals, ideas here> seriously.



I take the Gospel narrative seriously and believe it, so yes I consider it plausible as a matter of faith. I don't particularly concern myself with the fact that others don't.

The only reason I began to engage with your posts was it seemed, at least at the time, that you were attempting to make an argument.

If this has literally been nothing more than you having said, "I don't personally feel like Jesus' death is meaningful" then well, fine--no skin off my back. But it seemed initially as though attempt with engagement was intended, not simply opinion-sharing.

-CryptoLutheran

You've failed to consider any alternatives seriously because the majority idea is seemingly the most compelling

~~~~

Actually a messiah doesn't have to stick around for his impact to be seen. Far as any evidence really shows, Jesus, if he did exist and was crucified, is long dead, yet people are still fixated on him as if he's alive. The legend associated with him has the power you're ascribing to what you have no proof of in claiming he's still alive. Martyrs are part of Christianity, yet you think a messiah cannot save people in his death? The sacrificial death has far more ethical weight if he loses himself to save others (as the gospel notes in terms of the contrast to gaining the world and losing your soul). Why does he have to stick around unless you want to insist on a similar notion the Jews have of a triumphant messiah when Jesus' message was inverting that whole notion and him being gone would feel more like there was real consequences and not just a minor inconvenience of a weekend asleep

~~~~

If you were remotely intellectually honest, methinks you'd consider that your basis is not grounded in much more than being convinced of the truth of claims because they rhetorically seem convincing enough, but not that they are truly evidenced.

~~~

So you've literally boiled this down to your personal credulity, even though I swear you said it wasn't about that (might be mixing you up with others). If all you have is your subjective position and you don't care to be corrected, why even engage with others except with the expectation that you'll find another person to convert into your echo chamber of either hearing what you want to hear or dismissing those in the flock that aren't "true believers"

Your opinion and mine are not equally valid and cannot both be true, how are you remotely determining that you have the truth and I don't apart from already being convinced of the truth of things based on arguably ineffective standards of determining said truth?

I'm not just saying I FEEL Jesus' sacrifice has no merit, I'm pointing out that logically, you're contradicting yourself in applying fallacious logic to excuse this death as different because of particular status that Jesus holds, which is special pleading to a tee

 

[Rachel20]

Christianity teaches "Done" by Jesus

This is the reason I believe that if I were an atheist/agnostic somewhat drawn to religion, and seeing it as a smorgasbord to choose from, I would end up drawn to Christianity. I might start with the Abrahamic religions because of the sheer number of followers. Not a bandwagon thing, but my assumption would be that if there were a God, he could get the word out and people would be drawn to him. But Judaism has a problem with a missing Messiah who was supposed to appear before the scepter departed Judah (Genesis 49:10). Christianity offers him and at the right timing (also according Daniel). I wouldn't be drawn to Islam, with its capricious God described as the "best deceiver". No one could know such a God, or trust its religious texts.

 

[Zoness]

This is the reason I believe that if I were an atheist/agnostic somewhat drawn to religion, and seeing it as a smorgasbord to choose from, I would end up drawn to Christianity. I might start with the Abrahamic religions because of the sheer number of followers. Not a bandwagon thing, but my assumption would be that if there were a God, he could get the word out and people would be drawn to him. But Judaism has a problem with a missing Messiah who was supposed to appear before the scepter departed Judah (Genesis 49:10). Christianity offers him and at the right timing (also according Daniel). I wouldn't be drawn to Islam, with its capricious God described as the "best deceiver". No one could know such a God, or trust its religious texts.

That makes sense because you're already a Christian so you're framing atheism in Christian terms. Nonreligious people wouldn't necessarily frame their metaphysical questions in Christian and Islamic artifacts like the concept of sin or saviors. I sure didn't but it took a long time for the latent cultural programming of Christianity to slide away but it does indeed run deep.

 

[Occams Barber]

This is the reason I believe that if I were an atheist/agnostic somewhat drawn to religion, and seeing it as a smorgasbord to choose from, I would end up drawn to Christianity. I might start with the Abrahamic religions because of the sheer number of followers. Not a bandwagon thing, but my assumption would be that if there were a God, he could get the word out and people would be drawn to him. But Judaism has a problem with a missing Messiah who was supposed to appear before the scepter departed Judah (Genesis 49:10). Christianity offers him and at the right timing (also according Daniel). I wouldn't be drawn to Islam, with its capricious God described as the "best deceiver". No one could know such a God, or trust its religious texts.

I don't think you're seeing Christianity as it appears from the outside:

• it's based on a human sacrifice carried out for no clearly justified reason
• it's fixated on the evil of normal human sexuality
• it's generally fixated on what it calls 'sin'
• it typically bars women from its hierarchy
• it's unable to accept homosexuality or same sex marriage
• it's God is known for cruelty and vengeance
• there is a confusing dichotomy between its old form (OT) and new form (NT)
• There is internal disagreement about the form it's central tenet of eternal life takes - what is heaven and who gets there

I could probably go on.
OB

 

[Rachel20]

That makes sense because you're already a Christian so you're framing atheism in Christian terms. Nonreligious people wouldn't necessarily frame their metaphysical questions in Christian and Islamic artifacts like the concept of sin or saviors. I sure didn't but it took a long time for the latent cultural programming of Christianity to slide away but it does indeed run deep.

I honestly don't see how I'm framing it in Christian terms. Of course this is all speculation on my part how I might approach it if I were an atheist/agnostic interested in religion. I once tried to suspend belief in God temporarily just to see/feel the atheist angle, but wasn't successful.

 

[Rachel20]

I don't think you're seeing Christianity as it appears from the outside:

Apparently not, judging by your list. But thinking on it, that list should probably be expected, based on scripture.

 

[JackRT]

I honestly don't see how I'm framing it in Christian terms. Of course this is all speculation on my part how I might approach it if I were an atheist/agnostic interested in religion. I once tried to suspend belief in God temporarily just to see/feel the atheist angle, but wasn't successful.

I did the same and returned to Christianity but as a liberal/ progressive with very different understandings of certain doctrines.

 

[Occams Barber]

Apparently not, judging by your list. But thinking on it, that list should probably be expected, based on scripture.

If I can risk a vague generalisation - it's likely that atheists understand Christianity far better than Christians understand atheists. Many atheists are ex-Christians who've seen the issue from both sides. Some, like me, have never been Christian, but I have lived my entire life in a society where Christianity is (or was) a dominant force.

While atheists are regularly exposed to Christianity, Christians are rarely exposed to atheism. There are a couple of basic reasons for this lack of exposure. The first is numbers - there aren't that many atheists around. The second is there's no underlying doctrine or dogma or worldview associated with atheism - there isn't much to be exposed to. If I tried to write a book on atheistic 'belief' I'd run out of material after the first couple of sentences.

If I go back a few decades my impression of Christianity was neutral - it was wrong-headed but relatively harmless. I now regard Christian certainty about its 'rightness' as a potentially dangerous way of seeing the world. Christianity will never die - there are too many who seem to need the reassurance of a deity and would be seriously lost without their belief.

With luck, Christian influence will dwindle as numbers continue to fall.


OB

 

[zippy2006]

If I can risk a vague generalisation - it's likely that atheists understand Christianity far better than Christians understand atheists. Many atheists are ex-Christians who've seen the issue from both sides. Some, like me, have never been Christian, but I have lived my entire life in a society where Christianity is (or was) a dominant force.

While atheists are regularly exposed to Christianity, Christians are rarely exposed to atheism. There are a couple of basic reasons for this lack of exposure. The first is numbers - there aren't that many atheists around. The second is there's no underlying doctrine or dogma or worldview associated with atheism - there isn't much to be exposed to. If I tried to write a book on atheistic 'belief' I'd run out of material after the first couple of sentences.

Actually secularism is much more pervasive than Christianity in the Western countries, so your arguments here are pretty much backwards. Christians understand seculars (and atheists) better than seculars understand Christians precisely for all the reasons you've stated. Indeed, the reason there are so many former believers is because the air of secularism suffocated their faith, a faith that was never properly perceived due to the secular lens. Maybe there are a handful of fundamentalists who have been cocooned from the world, to whom your point holds, but apart from that group it is the opposite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I can risk a vague generalisation - it's likely that atheists understand Christianity far better than Christians understand atheists. Many atheists are ex-Christians who've seen the issue from both sides. Some, like me, have never been Christian, but I have lived my entire life in a society where Christianity is (or was) a dominant force.

While atheists are regularly exposed to Christianity, Christians are rarely exposed to atheism. There are a couple of basic reasons for this lack of exposure. The first is numbers - there aren't that many atheists around. The second is there's no underlying doctrine or dogma or worldview associated with atheism - there isn't much to be exposed to. If I tried to write a book on atheistic 'belief' I'd run out of material after the first couple of sentences.

If I go back a few decades my impression of Christianity was neutral - it was wrong-headed but relatively harmless. I now regard Christian certainty about its 'rightness' as a potentially dangerous way of seeing the world. Christianity will never die - there are too many who seem to need the reassurance of a deity and would be seriously lost without their belief.

With luck, Christian influence will dwindle as numbers continue to fall.


OB

Don't worry, Christian influence will dwindle. But, no need to ask me how I know...

 

[JackRT]

Actually secularism is much more pervasive than Christianity in the Western countries, so your arguments here are pretty much backwards.

Actually atheism and secularism are two different beasts. It is not possible to ne both an atheist and a Christian but there are a great many Christians who are secular.