It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How exactly was Jesus' crucifixion a sacrifice?

page: 20
32
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cogito, Ergo Sum: Though really the whole thing seems to be a retake on the rather primitive notion of sacrifice to appease the gods, common throughout much of the ancient world, like throwing people into a volcano so that the crops will grow.

I rather like another idea; (earth inspired) a volcanic eruption randomly happens.


akushla99: Indeed, it is a variation on a theme. These threads only go to illustrate how the seminal notion of an Almighty, Omnipotence (that's power), Omniscience (Supreme Intelligence)...could in all it's Supreme qualities sabotage its own creation (future generations included), at the outset allowing the circumstances for the (so-called) original sin to snow-ball into the need for a saviour that must mop up the results of the carcrash in the first chapter of the script...nay, for the rest of, as yet uncreated, 3d vessels until the last chapter of the script, written by an individual, obviously suffering from early onset dementia, in which the value of that Almightiness is challenged...and these ridiculous threads keep rolling on about the script minutae, namely, whether character 3 really made a sacrifice, or not...seriously??

Å99

These threads illustrate Gods attempt to understand what its up to (it doesn't KNOW its own mind; its just playing). The sabotage comes finally when IT realizes the circumstances it created (allowing for EVERYTHING to happen: war, strife, love/hatred) has served its purpose as THE MAJOR PLAYER; binary 1s and 0s information gatherer only (what would we would call IT if eventually diagnosed)? Gods behavior is suspiciously Autistic. 'Original Sin'. Someone should trademark this and make a fortune branding it upon any sorts of products.
edit on 27-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
This is what notions of an omnipotent god infers. It can't be any other way really. The moment anything does something of it's own volition, or that isn't directly willed from god, he stops being omnipotent. Then we just have empty "could be omnipotent if I wanted to" claims that anyone could make. Talking the talk without walking the walk.

We either have no free will at all, or if we do, there is no omnipotent god. It is interesting listening to believers try to argue this away and watch how god becomes a logical absurdity.


That, or your notions of omnipotency are wrong.


A possibility, anyone can be wrong.

Perhaps you could explain how you could be omnipotent, yet have others make all sorts of choices that go directly against your will. You know, having omnipotence and not being omnipotent - all at the same time (would this be "omnipotence light" lol).

Omnipotence requires complete control over every quark, lepton, atom, molecule, natural force and so on in the universe. Every neuron that fired in the brain of every dictator throughout history. Every catastrophe. Every natural disaster. Every disease. Every thought and action taken by anything or anyone. All wars. All conforming %100 to your will.

Claims of omnipotence are different to actually being omnipotent.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
But wait...there's more! (no, not a free set of steak knives). Throw omniscience into the bargain and it gets even better. Then, everything that has ever happened, is happening, or ever will happen is already known and understood with complete certainty.

Going to pray? God already knew you would, he made it that way. He knew who would get into heaven and who wouldn't since before time began. Atheist? Ironically, god is behind that also. Free will? God gave you the illusion of free will (slightly cruel, don't you think?). A war, a holocaust? God knew all about it for eternity, he made it that way, it is his will. Starving, impoverished, sick, lame? Have some debilitating terminal illness, a deformity, some puss filled chancre, other malaise? A psychiatric disorder, depression? We have god and his omniscience/ omnipotence to thank for the lot of it.

He not only knew it would be this way, in fact he made it this way, it is simply the universe that he purposefully created, conforming to his omnipotent will.

Not one particle in the universe past present or future has, or ever will, be unknown to god or go against god's will. He knows everything (omniscience) and everything conforms completely to his will (omnipotence).

Or not.

It seems one of the rare instances where there is no grey area. He is either all knowing/ all powerful, or he is not. If he is not quite all of that, but just some being with relatively more power/technology and knowledge than humans possess at the moment...in the words of Epicurus "then why call him god"?





edit on 27-10-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
God sacrificed his son for us. God could have taken Jesus down from the cross anytime but left him there to end his suffering of this existence. He was too perfect for this world and the people were undeserving of his presence. Jesus did his best to show us a way that guarantees eternal paradise but the people at the time didn't understand the magnitude of this person's message and sent him to a dramatic public death.

Jesus was human. His power came through God, not his own. Even he had doubts or misunderstandings of God in the final moments of his life. Jesus's sacrifice was that he had the free will to ignore Gods calling and could have lived an otherwise humble life worthy of paradise instead of living a life that got him ridiculed and killed. He only sacrificed his temporary earthly life, not his eternal life.

imho.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Here is an idea.


Remember, when Christ was crucified he was human....keep that in mind.

The idea is this.


When he was first going through the motions of the start of his end, beating, whipping etc he was all human, not the SoG. He became mortal. A fallen angel I suppose. The SoG couldn't be killed so he became one of us through this period. He felt all our emotions, pain, he also was forced to carry all of our sin! Imagine how heavy that burden was!?

He dies a human, mortal death, with all the pain associated, EVEN STRUGGLING with his own faith.

"Farther why have you forsaken me"

He uttered these words as a human word...he believed and acted like a human..he faced death and questioned his own faith that God had abandoned him, even if he really even existed!

His sacrifice, was having to live and die like one of us.


edit on 27-10-2015 by IamPrepared because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well stated, Cogito, Ergo Sum. I couldn't agree with you more on all accounts

You realize this poster is in support of this (MY) supposition: "There is no such thing existing as free will" bestowed upon the human to act upon independently of God's will. To do so would imply a God actually exists (doing its will) or as one in open defiance of.


I was under the impression that he simply acknowledges that free will and omniscience/omnipotence cannot coexist. I don't think he actually claimed "there is a god, therefore, and because he is omniscient/omnipotent free will cannot exist, there for god is in control of all of us". He seemed pretty secular to me.

Not only that, but he seems to acknowledge the existence of free will, as well.


originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
God sacrificed his son for us. God could have taken Jesus down from the cross anytime but left him there to end his suffering of this existence. He was too perfect for this world and the people were undeserving of his presence. Jesus did his best to show us a way that guarantees eternal paradise but the people at the time didn't understand the magnitude of this person's message and sent him to a dramatic public death.

Jesus was human. His power came through God, not his own. Even he had doubts or misunderstandings of God in the final moments of his life. Jesus's sacrifice was that he had the free will to ignore Gods calling and could have lived an otherwise humble life worthy of paradise instead of living a life that got him ridiculed and killed. He only sacrificed his temporary earthly life, not his eternal life.

imho.


This is debatable. He said he was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25). Let's say you are right and the two are separate beings, if Jesus said he was equal with god, then that means he is also omniscient.

If that's the case then he would have known what was going to happen to him, and what would happen after he was crucified (becoming the king of heaven). Thus, his sacrifice is still not really a sacrifice at all, it's merely a trade. He never gave up anything, he just let the game play-out and was rewarded heaven in return. This is not a sacrifice.




originally posted by: IamPrepared
When he was first going through the motions of the start of his end, beating, whipping etc he was all human, not the SoG. He became mortal. A fallen angel I suppose. The SoG couldn't be killed so he became one of us through this period. He felt all our emotions, pain, he also was forced to carry all of our sin! Imagine how heavy that burden was!?

He dies a human, mortal death, with all the pain associated, EVEN STRUGGLING with his own faith.

"Farther why have you forsaken me"

He uttered these words as a human word...he believed and acted like a human..he faced death and questioned his own faith that God had abandoned him, even if he really even existed!

His sacrifice, was having to live and die like one of us.


The issue with this scenario is the fact that Jesus is eternal. Yes, he became human for 30ish years, and was dying for about 6 hours. But, in the span of infinity, and eternity (which is is real life-span, if you can call it that), those 30 years and those 6 hours amount to nothing at all



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: IamPrepared
he also was forced to carry all of our sin! Imagine how heavy that burden was!?


How was he forced to do that? How is that possible? Why was a human sacrifice necessary to make god feel better about it all. Got sick of turtle doves? Is he mental?

How is this different to the primitive and superstitious ritual of "scapegoating", where a person or creature is claimed to take on the sins of others and is thus cast out or sacrificed. Not uncommon in ancient cultures and also mentioned in the bible?

This claim needs a bit of splainin'.


originally posted by: IamPreparedHis sacrifice, was having to live and die like one of us.



Yet we have been doing exactly this ever since anatomically modern humans have been around. Many go through worse, enduring terrible pain and suffering for years. Others, quite sadly endure a pitiful and miserable existence in squalor and hunger first. Or go through their entire lives with crippling deformity and/or disease. So god made jesus go through something that he makes all other humans go through whether they like it or not (with many at the time also being crucified or worse, often summarily), but when he does it while being assured a front row seat in heaven for his troubles, it's different. It's an enormous and notable sacrifice? Why?




edit on 28-10-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Alright, I'm done posting the same information again. Here's a point form answer to your response. You clearly have no interest in actually debating, and I've already giving you all the information you've ever wanted. So....


Sure, you can run away now, and declare victory from a safe distance, Sir Robbins.


originally posted by: TzarChasm
well, here we have this thing called "the constitution". its pretty nifty.


Your point is?


originally posted by: TzarChasm
if you are going to BS me, at least try to make it convincing. anything less is wasting my time and yours.


Not 'BS'ing' you. I do not subscribe to pagan myths badly disguised as Christianity by people with too much love for Greek Traditions. There were positive aspects of their love for Greek Traditions, as such caused them to preserve important works on the ancient Greek authors, people like Aristotle and Plato. There were also negative aspects of their love, as they sought to add some of the Greek Philosophy to the Christian Philosophy. They succeeded somewhat. Hell was one of such successes.


nope. as i said before, he did the job and got paid a ridiculous wage for a pointless exercise in human suffering. in terms of business strategy and product management, god was (is?) a total idiot....or a cunning psychopath pretending to be a total idiot.


So you believe that being rewarded by your sacrifices means you did not sacrifice anything whatsoever?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

A possibility, anyone can be wrong.

Perhaps you could explain how you could be omnipotent, yet have others make all sorts of choices that go directly against your will. You know, having omnipotence and not being omnipotent - all at the same time (would this be "omnipotence light" lol).

Omnipotence requires complete control over every quark, lepton, atom, molecule, natural force and so on in the universe. Every neuron that fired in the brain of every dictator throughout history. Every catastrophe. Every natural disaster. Every disease. Every thought and action taken by anything or anyone. All wars. All conforming %100 to your will.

Claims of omnipotence are different to actually being omnipotent.


Let me address this question in two ways. First, let me, given your own understanding of omnipotence, explain to you how God can be omnipotent and still have people humans with free will. Second, let me clarify what the Bible means by omnipotence, which is not what you believe it is.

And as for one, you must understand the difference between potency and actuality. Potency does not mean to do. It has to do with 'potential', with the possibility or capacity to do, it is untapped and unrealized possibility. It is what comes before the action. Actuality has to do with the things you've done. Actuality is realized potential. It is what comes after the action. When you say that 'omnipotence requires complete control over everything' you are only partially correct. Omnipotence requires only the possibility or capacity of complete control over everything. Because potency comes before the action, it does not have to be exercised. It can remain only potential, and never be actualized. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for God to have omnipotence according to your definition, and humans retain free will. It only means that in the instances when humans exercised their free will, God has chosen to not to exercise His omnipotence. It is only potential, after all, not actuality.

To avoid confusion between both concepts, some people like to call 'omniderigence' the idea of God exercising His omnipotence to its full extent and actually controlling every single aspect of the Universe down to every nuclear reaction.

But, this is for your idea of omnipotence, which is not Biblical in origin, but actually Greek. The Biblical idea of omnipotence is much much simpler than the Greek one and does not suffer from the same philosophical problems. Omnipotence in Biblical terms has nothing to do with control, but rather with sheer power. The original Hebrew word is used with the meaning of physical strength, natural force, brute force or might. As I like to put it in simple terms, when the Bible talks about omnipotence, the idea is that, if God wanted to destroy you, not even the combined strength of every single atom that exists in the Universe, if we could somehow harness it, could stay His hand. It simply means that God's sheer might is greater than the combined might of the whole Universe. It is about power, not about control.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
But wait...there's more! (no, not a free set of steak knives). Throw omniscience into the bargain and it gets even better. Then, everything that has ever happened, is happening, or ever will happen is already known and understood with complete certainty.


That, or your concept of omniscience is incorrect too.

Also, you just remembered me that I have to take my steak knives to be sharpened.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

Some fancy talking there. Sounds a bit like Craig type religious used car salesmanship. So god could be omnipotent if he wanted. He has the potential to be all powerful, so he both is and isn't, omnipotent. God is the original Hamlet (to be, or not to be).

This sounds like a form of dissonance coping, in effort to reconcile holding two contradictory notions at once ie.to praise him for the aparrent good and excuse him for the bad. While also allowing you to surmount (ignore) the problem of free will with special pleading.

Whether Greek or not, your version of an on/off "shoulda coulda woulda" type of intermittent all powerfulness should he feel like it, certainly makes Epicurus' observations relevant.



Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?


There is no need for this though. He either displays omnipotence, or he doesn't (this being the definition omnipotence - to be omnipotent). By your account he doesn't (for whatever reason), as the biblical account also shows him to be riddled with mistakes and very fallible.

This is a bit like claiming you could look like Brad Pitt if you wanted, yet simply never choosing to lol. Your free will or anyone else's (if you really have it, that is) precludes god's omnipotence at any given moment. As does anything that isn't in line with or derived from god's will.

This allows the observation of god as a being with certain but obviously limited powers (whose followers claim he could be omnipotent).




edit on 28-10-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn

Also, you just remembered me that I have to take my steak knives to be sharpened.


No, I reminded you on purpose. Who's omniscient (not to mention "potentially" omnipotent) now?




edit on 28-10-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: IamPrepared
Remember, when Christ was crucified he was human....keep that in mind.


Nop, I don't remember.

Do you remember?? Were you there?

How can you believe something if did not happen in front of you???

Got to love Ken Ham's logical way of thinking...



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: Leahn

Some fancy talking there. Sounds a bit like Craig type religious used car salesmanship. So god could be omnipotent if he wanted. He has the potential to be all powerful, so he both is and isn't, omnipotent. God is the original Hamlet "to be, or not to be".


Keep in mind that I do not actually subscribe to this view of omnipotence. I follow the Bible, not Greek Traditions. The Biblical view of God's omnipotence does not suffer from any philosophical underpinnings. But I do understand the philosophy behind it, so I tried to explain their reasoning the best I could.

You still did not grasp the topic fully, judging by your answer, but I feel very little interest in defending further an idea that I don't really agree with. Specially when one considers Philosophy to be mere "fancy talk".

We could discuss Epicurus, but then again, it would be just more mere "fancy talk" to you, so why bother?
edit on 28/10/2015 by Leahn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: Leahn

Some fancy talking there. Sounds a bit like Craig type religious used car salesmanship. So god could be omnipotent if he wanted. He has the potential to be all powerful, so he both is and isn't, omnipotent. God is the original Hamlet "to be, or not to be".


Keep in mind that I do not actually subscribe to this view of omnipotence. I follow the Bible, not Greek Traditions. The Biblical view of God's omnipotence does not suffer from any philosophical underpinnings. But I do understand the philosophy behind it, so I tried to explain their reasoning the best I could.

You still did not grasp the topic fully, judging by your answer, but I feel very little interest in defending further an idea that I don't really agree with. Specially when one considers Philosophy to be mere "fancy talk".

We could discuss Epicurus, but then again, it would be just more mere "fancy talk" to you, so why bother?


Lol.

If you understood philosophy and logic so well, you would have some understanding of how fallacies are employed in debate and thus would have known what this reply amounts to.





edit on 28-10-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Leahn

there is only one way to look at omnipotence/omniscience: according to their respective definitions.

anything else is semantics. which is a distraction tactic.
edit on 28-10-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Leahn
So you believe that being rewarded by your sacrifices means you did not sacrifice anything whatsoever?


Yes... Because that's not the definition of a sacrifice, that's a definition of a trade.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
originally posted by: Ghost147
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Ghost147: The issue with this scenario is the fact that Jesus is eternal. Yes, he became human for 30ish years, and was dying for about 6 hours. But, in the span of infinity, and eternity (which is is real life-span, if you can call it that), those 30 years and those 6 hours amount to nothing at all

Jesus became a human *incarnated*; just as you incarnated. Jesus's soul/spirit is eternal, just as yours are exactly the same. Time is irrelevant.
edit on 28-10-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Leahn

there is only one way to look at omnipotence/omniscience: according to their respective definitions.

anything else is semantics. which is a distraction tactic.


That doesn't stop the religious quasi philosophers and pseudo academics from endlessly pontificating over definitions and meanings in effort to give their imaginary friend some validity though. Less about philosophy and more about "pixie dust" ... and trying to put enough "spin" on the illogical and absurd to at least ease the cognitive dissonance.

It seems obvious god's "omni potens" was to these people, originally, that of any other dictator/tyrant. It was his ability to "smite thee" that made him "all powerful" and what he spends much of his time doing. Like a celestial "Alphonse Capone". He is likely to be a reworked model of an older Canaanite war god and it seems this was also one of his functions (a poor choice as it turns out). These primitive and ignorant people didn't have the capacity to grapple with genuine concepts such as "omnipotence".

The "omniscience" also seems to amount to no more than rather simplistically imbuing god with some "Santa" like qualities where required.

The very first chapter of the bible removes any possibility of god being either omnipotent or omniscient. He certainly wasn't "all powerful" enough to dictate any sort of faithful or reasonable explanation for "creation" to his followers. Either that or, similar to the people he dictated it to, simply didn't understand it (funny thing that lol).

It's a shame we didn't get more eastern influence. While it mightn't be the truth either, at least they seemed capable of pondering such things to some depth and with some (relatively) sophisticated philosophy. The whole subject has been hijacked in the west by this particular fairy tale for far too long.





edit on 29-10-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Jesus was not killed for our sins but because those in power were scared of him. They did not want him to make an enlightened following.




top topics



 
32
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join