Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2013, 06:59 AM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2013 04:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
Sacrifice
Such a strange, ancient idea to try to control the gods.
If an alien showed up, can you imagine : "What is *sac-ree-fice* ?" Huh
Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-02-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
(08-02-2013 06:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sacrifice
Such a strange, ancient idea to try to control the gods.
If an alien showed up, can you image : "What is *sac-ree-fice* ?" Huh
Weeping


In a conversation with alien visitors I would be unfazed with discussing history, politics, biology, art, sexuality, or just about any other subject. But I would be deeply embarrassed on behalf of our entire species to have to explain religion... Undecided

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-02-2013, 08:44 AM
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
I don't agree with the premise that a sacrifice must be permanent. A permanent sacrifice would be a bigger sacrifice perhaps than a temporary one. But, if I give up something I really enjoy or really need for a temporary time period, there is some loss during that time period that still would be a sacrifice even if less than a permanent one.

The problem I have with Jesus' death as a sacrifice, like Phaedrus, concerns saving us from original sin. Original sin was a transgression against God. A transgression can't be undone, but could be repented or made up for. But, in order for that to happen, the repentance must be done by the transgressor which was not Jesus. Logically, Jesus' death would be unrelated to original sin and it makes no sense that it would somehow save anyone from it.

Silence is only golden when it's not synonymous with a failure to speak out against injustice.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." --Gene Roddenberry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
08-02-2013, 08:49 AM
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
(08-02-2013 06:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sacrifice
Such a strange, ancient idea to try to control the gods.
If an alien showed up, can you image : "What is *sac-ree-fice* ?" Huh
Weeping
I have thought about that in the past and wonder if it all started out as offering a gift to gods, not a sacrifice. Back then, when people had few possessions, probably the greatest gift would have been food. They would likely slaughter an animal to get the food for the gift. At some point, the concept probably got blurred and the slaughtering itself, the sacrifice, became the focus. After that, sacrifices of various forms would have developed. It's a pure guess on my part, but it would be interesting to know if there's any truth in it. I doubt there is anything back that far that could substantiate it though.

Silence is only golden when it's not synonymous with a failure to speak out against injustice.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." --Gene Roddenberry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 10:59 AM
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P1: For a sacrifice to have any value, it must have a cost to the one committing the sacrifice.

P2: For a sacrifice to have any value, it must not be a temporary sacrifice.

C1: Therefore a sacrifice that is either temporary or without cost would be without value.

I agree with P1 but not necessarily with P2. Temporary sacrifices, like giving up drinking alcohol during pregnancy, can still be sacrifices. What you're suggesting is merely a matter of degree, with permanent sacrifices being of a greater degree than comparable temporary sacrifices.

I would define a sacrifice as giving up anything you value suchthat the lack of that which was sacrificed causes your quality of life to be diminished.

On the plus side, I'm not sure your argument here (side note, your title misspells it "agrument") really requires P2 at all. Of course, without P2 you would need to remove the "temporary" part from C1.

(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P3: On an infinite timescale with an afterlife, death is not end of existence, merely a transition from one existence to another.

C2: Therefore death is not a sacrifice in and of itself as per C1.

I agree. In fact, death may be an improvement, for example, going from a rather miserable life to a blissful heaven. Even going from a great life to a blissful heaven still sounds like an improvement (according to the ideal of heaven).

(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  C3: Therefore for death to be a sacrifice, you need to add cost and permanency to death or the existence after death as per C1 and C2.

I agree but I wonder why this needs its own conclusion instead of just adding it as a second sentence on C2? It seems to be unnecessarily complex this way (C2 just disappears from the rest of the argument).

(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P4: After death, you either spend eternity in Heaven (paradise) or Hell (torture).

C4: Therefore to have death posses any value as per C3, it must result in going to Hell and not Heaven.

I might rephrase this, for consistency, as: "Therefore to have death possess any value as a sacrifice (per C3), it must result in going to Hell instead of Heaven."

(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P5: When Jesus died, he spent 3 days in Hell, then returned back to life and then went to Heaven.

C5: Therefore Jesus' death and his time in Hell were both not permanent.

This conclusion is simply restating the obvious. P5 says "3 days" and C5 says "not permanent". So what? This completely invalidates C5 because it adds no value. The key thing that is missing here is linking C5 back to the concept of sacrifice.

Maybe it should be expanded to something like: "Therefore, per C2, Jesus' death was not a sacrifice because it was not permanent, and per C1, Jesus' death was not a sacrifice because it was not permanent" - but this means keeping P2 and an unchanged C1 which I already mentioned may not be valid.

(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P6: For a being with infinite resources and power, the act of creation has no cost.

P7: A creation with no cost has no value.

C6: Therefore a creation without value cannot be used as a sacrifice as per C1.

C7: Therefore the death of Jesus was a sacrifice with no value as per C5 and C6.

P6 and P7 are dubious. Creation may be easy or difficult, but that has little relevance on the value of that which was created. I had sex with my wife. That was great fun, and was its own reward. In the process, she got pregnant (merely a side effect, really - it cost me no extra time, effort, or thought). Now I have a wonderful daughter that means the whole world to me. Creation was the easiest thing I've ever done and the value is priceless.

I don't agre with C6 at all.

C7 I agree with, but if we get rid of P6, P7, and C6, then C7 is just a restatement of my updated version of C5 and would be redundant. Your argument could end at C5.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 11:01 AM
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
(08-02-2013 08:44 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I don't agree with the premise that a sacrifice must be permanent. A permanent sacrifice would be a bigger sacrifice perhaps than a temporary one. But, if I give up something I really enjoy or really need for a temporary time period, there is some loss during that time period that still would be a sacrifice even if less than a permanent one.

The problem I have with Jesus' death as a sacrifice, like Phaedrus, concerns saving us from original sin. Original sin was a transgression against God. A transgression can't be undone, but could be repented or made up for. But, in order for that to happen, the repentance must be done by the transgressor which was not Jesus. Logically, Jesus' death would be unrelated to original sin and it makes no sense that it would somehow save anyone from it.

I'm trying to contrast that in comparison to the time Jesus supposedly spent in Hell, which was a relatively short amount of time. Now compare Jesus' sacrifice with that of an atheist solider that throws himself on top of a grenade to save the lives of his fellow squad mates knowing full well that no afterlife awaits his sacrifice. I'd posit that the soldier is far nobler and deserving of revere and the lamentation of his passing. In this scenario the solider made a far greater sacrifice, and if the Christian world view of Heaven and Hell does exists, that would only increase the cost of his sacrifice. He died to save the lives of others and sent himself to Hell for eternity for his trouble. Now THAT is a goddamn fucking noble sacrifice.


But case in point it is very likely I need stronger wording, or an attempt to make my point from another angle.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
If his only "sacrifice" was that he died so we wouldn't have to, then it obviously didn't work, because we still have to die.

If he was resurrected he cheated.

Another thing that bothers me: if he forgave his murderers because they "know not what they do" then why aren't nonbelievers forgiven?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 12:07 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2013 12:13 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P1: For a sacrifice to have any value, it must have a cost to the one committing the sacrifice.

P2: For a sacrifice to have any value, it must not be a temporary sacrifice.
(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P7: A creation with no cost has no value.
The first, second and seventh premise (and with that the validity of your entire argument) can easily be dismissed if your opponent doesn't accept your proposed definition of the term "value".

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 01:32 PM
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
(08-02-2013 12:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P1: For a sacrifice to have any value, it must have a cost to the one committing the sacrifice.

P2: For a sacrifice to have any value, it must not be a temporary sacrifice.
(08-02-2013 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  P7: A creation with no cost has no value.
The first, second and seventh premise (and with that the validity of your entire argument) can easily be dismissed if your opponent doesn't accept your proposed definition of the term "value".

Then would adding an additional Premise where I more strictly define Value help? So instead of arguing over those 3 points, you could focus it all into 1, and then have a debate over the use or definition of Value in context. Regardless, I'll have to give this more thought, thanks.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: Agrument Against the Sacrificial Death of Jesus
(08-02-2013 11:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(08-02-2013 08:44 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I don't agree with the premise that a sacrifice must be permanent. A permanent sacrifice would be a bigger sacrifice perhaps than a temporary one. But, if I give up something I really enjoy or really need for a temporary time period, there is some loss during that time period that still would be a sacrifice even if less than a permanent one.

The problem I have with Jesus' death as a sacrifice, like Phaedrus, concerns saving us from original sin. Original sin was a transgression against God. A transgression can't be undone, but could be repented or made up for. But, in order for that to happen, the repentance must be done by the transgressor which was not Jesus. Logically, Jesus' death would be unrelated to original sin and it makes no sense that it would somehow save anyone from it.

I'm trying to contrast that in comparison to the time Jesus supposedly spent in Hell, which was a relatively short amount of time. Now compare Jesus' sacrifice with that of an atheist solider that throws himself on top of a grenade to save the lives of his fellow squad mates knowing full well that no afterlife awaits his sacrifice. I'd posit that the soldier is far nobler and deserving of revere and the lamentation of his passing. In this scenario the solider made a far greater sacrifice, and if the Christian world view of Heaven and Hell does exists, that would only increase the cost of his sacrifice. He died to save the lives of others and sent himself to Hell for eternity for his trouble. Now THAT is a goddamn fucking noble sacrifice.


But case in point it is very likely I need stronger wording, or an attempt to make my point from another angle.
Be careful to stay consistent. If death with an afterlife isn't death, but a translation of existence, then that is true for the soldier as well. If the soldier goes to heaven for eternity, his may actually be less of a sacrifice than Jesus temporarily going to hell. But anyway, even going with what you said, it amounts to one being a greater sacrifice than the other like I mentioned, not one being no sacrifice at all.

Silence is only golden when it's not synonymous with a failure to speak out against injustice.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." --Gene Roddenberry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: