The Thinking Man's Religion/Spirituality

[FlashDangerpants]

One particular thing about Christianity that has aways puzzled me is what is meant by "jesus died for us" or "Jesus died for our sins". I've asked for an expanation of this several times in the religion section of this forum and have yet to hear an explanation that makes any sense to me.

As far as I can tell, in theology Sin is an ontological category representing something that is thought of as having some form of actual existence as a kind of pre-Socratic substance. I'm pretty sure Origen defined it as a sort of stain or verdigris of the soul (thus the burning away in Hell's fire). I'm not so certain that applies to all Christians.

So Jebus' thing he did on the cross was a bit like a detergent for all our grimy souls.

Of course, I am an atheist so I may have missed something there. If we look very hard, I'm sure we can find ourselves a divinely inspired prophet who could sort out my errors.

[bobevenson]

If we look very hard, I'm sure we can find ourselves a divinely inspired prophet who could sort out my errors.

Please consider the enormous magnitude of the job.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Eventually you must capitulate and live the life with respect for what Christ did.

How and why?

That's a good question but one which i am not prepared to answer, as yet.

In other words you are, as usual, talking bollocks.

[Dubious]

One particular thing about Christianity that has aways puzzled me is what is meant by "jesus died for us" or "Jesus died for our sins". I've asked for an expanation of this several times in the religion section of this forum and have yet to hear an explanation that makes any sense to me. The concept of Jesus dying for us seems to be fundamentally significant in Christianity, it is certainly refered to often enough, but it's meaning does not seem to be capable of understanding through logical analysis.

Eve screwed up Adam, and Adam screwed up the rest of the human race as a result instead of telling Eve to get lost. The sins of Adam & Eve defaulted to us since all their progeny were clearly as imperfect as they were. It's all a matter of inferior genes that couldn't withstand the temptations of enlightenment and so a huge plethora of sins followed the original event.

No less than a sacrifice by the Son of God could balance the debit and credit side of such an accumlation of sins by future generations. Didn't take long! Look what Cain did to Abel as a preview of everything that followed. We were obviously in deep shit which no mere sacrifical human could cleanse. As is well known by us petty humans, the source of a problem is not likely to be its resolution. Even God understood that, so what did He do? Having an unemployed Son whose mother was never confirmed as actually existing, He made Him an offer He couldn't refuse since there was never an 'offer' made by God that wasn't actually a command whose very breath was Law.

The logic of the Church Fathers was brilliant in conjoining the two as one of the main pillars of Christianity. The right to forgive sins became a function of the bureaucratically elected having inherited the sacred power of the sacrificial victim who died like the hundred thousand other blokes whom the Romans had no use for.

[Systematic]

When Jesus was alive, he questioned his given religion. Do you really believe that the Hebrew religious leaders had him crucified due to his threat to Rome?

I don't know who had him crucified or why, so I don't get what point you are making. One particular thing about Christianity that has aways puzzled me is what is meant by "jesus died for us" or "Jesus died for our sins". I've asked for an expanation of this several times in the religion section of this forum and have yet to hear an explanation that makes any sense to me. The concept of Jesus dying for us seems to be fundamentally significant in Christianity, it is certainly refered to often enough, but it's meaning does not seem to be capable of understanding through logical analysis. This state of affairs seems to be the case with the key points of most religions, as far as I can see. The point I am making is that if you take away all the things that don't stand up to reason then what you are left with does not conform to the definition of religion.

It ties into the old testament. Moses ordered the Israelites (Jews) to make sacrifices of animals in order that the people could be forgiven for their sins. Then they tied the new testament to the old testament by saying that Jesus was everyone's sacrifice. And they entirely missed the reason that the Jewish religious leaders had for killing Jesus. He was destroying their religion and making them look bad.

[Systematic]

I believe those two (i.e. religion and reason) to be highly compatible, .

I suspect there are many for whom the attraction of religion lies in the fact that it is not compatible with reason, preferring instead, to have everything already laid out for them. To try and base a religion on reason would defeat the object of religion.

There are also many who are turned off by the "believe and then it will make sense" approach.

[Harbal]

. Dubious and Systematic
Thanks for the summaries. They just reinforce my conclusion that there is no logical or natural connection between the death of Jesus and the "sins" of mankind. There certainly doesn't seem to be a link between the two things that a mind in the habit of employing reason would accept as legitimate.

[Harbal]

I believe those two (i.e. religion and reason) to be highly compatible, .

I suspect there are many for whom the attraction of religion lies in the fact that it is not compatible with reason, preferring instead, to have everything already laid out for them. To try and base a religion on reason would defeat the object of religion.

There are also many who are turned off by the "believe and then it will make sense" approach.

Yes but we are just describing the status quo, I don't really see what grounds you have for thinking it could be any different.

[Dubious]

. Dubious and Systematic
There certainly doesn't seem to be a link between the two things that a mind in the habit of employing reason would accept as legitimate.

Yes! absolutely, but that was the system for almost two millennia. Legitimate it was, if you didn't agree you were consigned to the ash tray. It was also brilliantly logical in the way all the bits and pieces were consigned to yield only one conclusion but reasonable it wasn't except for the leitmotivs of power and profit. A great story can last for a long time especially if you're part of the drama as soon as you're born.

[Hobbes' Choice]

. Dubious and Systematic
There certainly doesn't seem to be a link between the two things that a mind in the habit of employing reason would accept as legitimate.

Yes! absolutely, but that was the system for almost two millennia. Legitimate it was, if you didn't agree you were consigned to the ash tray. It was also brilliantly logical in the way all the bits and pieces were consigned to yield only one conclusion but reasonable it wasn't except for the leitmotivs of power and profit. A great story can last for a long time especially if you're part of the drama as soon as you're born.

I think you have it backwards. The "logic" was purely catholic, in that it began with the conclusion and every evidential thing else was shoe-horned to fit. That's why catholic thinking is associated with deduction, rather than induction. Worst still it was "of the Pope says it" then you do it.

The conclusion was "god done it", and everything else was tailored to fit; all evidence was seen in the light of that conclusion.
The Reformation was the start of the destruction, to counter the abuses of the Pope, the Bible was seen as primary evidence, as was the book of nature. The former gave us Protestantism, but the latter eventually gave us the Enlightenment, science and atheism.

[Harbal]

It's not so different, in a way. When everyone believed that the Sun and the Moon were pushed around the heavens by the hand of God, they probably felt they had an understanding of what they were observing. Now, we think we understand how the laws of physics is doing the job. The thing is, understanding is just an illusion. I may believe in the laws of physics rather than in God, but I don't know how the laws of physics make things happen and neither does anyone else, the only thing the scientists can discover is what happens, they can never know why. They may be able to tell you what kind of force a particular sub atomic particle possesses but they don't know how it came to posses it. When we look at the world and beyond and think we have an understanding of how and why things are the way they are, I imagine that sensation of understanding we experience is pretty much the same as that of those whose only available explanation was "God dun it".

[Dubious]

When we look at the world and beyond and think we have an understanding of how and why things are the way they are, I imagine that sensation of understanding we experience is pretty much the same as that of those whose only available explanation was "God dun it".

Give it time! How long has it been since science took the lead? As knowledge piles up layers the more we discover that God did less and less. We're not yet at the stage where we can say God didn't do anything. Compare that to virtually all of history where God did EVERYTHING.

[thedoc]

When we look at the world and beyond and think we have an understanding of how and why things are the way they are, I imagine that sensation of understanding we experience is pretty much the same as that of those whose only available explanation was "God dun it".

Give it time! How long has it been since science took the lead? As knowledge piles up layers the more we discover that God did less and less. We're not yet at the stage where we can say God didn't do anything. Compare that to virtually all of history where God did EVERYTHING.

So you are of the opinion that if science can say how something happened, then God didn't have anything to do with it? Is it possible that science is simply discovering how God did it?

FYI, I am in no way suggesting that because God did things in a certain way, that science should stop investigating and discovering how things came to be.

[Dubious]

So you are of the opinion that if science can say how something happened, then God didn't have anything to do with it? Is it possible that science is simply discovering how God did it?

It diminishes the mystery of god since that's all god has ever been except as defined in some sacred manifesto designed by humans, in effect, making god as human a creation as Oliver Twist.

FYI, I am in no way suggesting that because God did things in a certain way, that science should stop investigating and discovering how things came to be.

I'm sure if there were a God cognizant of our existence, IT wouldn't expect us to stop investigating or even care one way or the other.

[sthitapragya]

Is the title an oxymoron or an antithesis?