Why did Jesus have to die?

[17th Angel]

*chuckles*

It's just a post, that large of one's opinion trying to belittle another's opinion struck me as ironic that it ended on that comment with the soap box Francis is strong though! I know she'll take it on the chin!

 

[Dondi]

What you have to remember is that the majority of "the faithful" have the intellectual capacity of seven year old girls. They might feel all sophisticated with their nail varnish and mobile phones, but they are children. Like all children, they do not have a wide or mature enough world view and so they believe in fairy tales, and pour forth sound-bites which they have never actually thought deeply about, instead quashing any doubt wth other neat stock phrases such as "It's not my place to determine God's will", "God is so great s/he can do anything"...

That's quite cynical of you. You've just placed approximately 2 billion of the world's Christian population (Catholics, Protestants, other) into this catagory of narrow-minded imbeciles.

Nice.

So, I'll guess I'll fall back on some of those neat little stock phrases:

"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 18:3

"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 19:14

"Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me." - Mark 9:37

I feel in such good company now, in my own imbecilic way.

By making Jesus a God, instead of a man, you move Man and Jesus so far away from each other that walking in Jesus' way is much harder and less achievable than it could be...

On the contrary, it's not about making Jesus God, it's about God coming down to the level of Man, so that we CAN walk in the ways of the Lord. Jesus, as an example to us, could not be less than perfect, for He is our Ideal, the measure by which we Christians should measure our own walk by.

Will we fail to live up to Christ? Most likely, yes. And that is what grace and forgiveness is for. But that shouldn't detract us from making an effort to grow toward perfection.

W. Edward Deming was a census consultant in Japan under General Douglas McArthur who introduced statistical process control (SPC) methods to Japanese business leaders. SPC uses control charts to monitor variations in the manufacturing process and take steps in reducing them. As a result of Deming's methods, Japan's rose meteroically in the industrial world and started producing high quality products, especially in the electronics and automotive fields. You can see these reverberations today as the Big 3 in the U.S auto industry are being toppled by Toyota, Honda, and Nisson. The reason is quality.

There is a reason for having standard weights and measures. That is to be able to reproduce that standard in whatever you are measuring. By having Jesus as our standard, we can attempt to reproduce His life in ours. This will produce high quality lives.

 

[bananabrain]

As far as ritual human sacrifice goes, it was widespread all over the world, and most cultures have the same over-all idea about it: blood was life, humans were the best animals, so killing a human instead of a cow- the gods would take more notice of this.

and killing your first-born was an "offering of your best" - but the moral content of judaism was also born in eliminating this perversion of what was originally a perfectly reasonable idea.

The spilling of blood, of life, as a sacrifice, is still practised today- goats, chickens, rabbits, the occasional human. Again, this is just a clinging to primative beliefs, all of which believe that the life is in the blood.

i don't think you can categorise the jewish sacrificial cultus in this manner, francis, because part of this idea is that the life belongs to G!D and that the giving up of this life energy should only be for the sake of the Divine, therefore no blood should be consumed by humans or treated disrespectfully - this rule is still observed in every particular, in contradistinction to other cultures.

It was only later that blood became a dirty issue, especially in the case of the "women's issue". For this- I blame the Jews. They started it. Everbody else got it from them. Christians, Muslims, et cetera. The curse of women, given to them because they are dirty ho's who "do it" instead of devoting themselves to God...

francis, i'm not going to waste my time getting annoyed about this because it's so far from being accurate. the word "unclean" does not exist in the original hebrew Torah. it has no hygienic meaning whatsoever any more than calling battery terminals "positive" or "negative". the "positive" terminal is not "good electricity", nor is the "negative terminal" "bad electricity". you can't connect up "systems" where the polarity is not in alignment. not only this, but we have absolutely no problem with sex for either procreation or INTIMACY. otherwise there would be celibacy in judaism and this does not exist in any way, shape or form, certainly not by exalting virginity. there is no concept of a choice between prayer and sexiness for a woman. you clearly have no concept of how the menstruation laws are actually used - it is the WOMAN who controls sexual contact, who is empowered to demand it by witnessed marriage contract (and grounds for divorce if the HUSBAND does not come up to scratch) and NOT vice-versa. it is nothing WHATSOEVER to do with "dirt" or "impurity", so you are being misled by centuries of crappy translation and ignorance of jewish culture.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Dream]

Touting some personal research on marriage customs in the Bible:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/homosexuality-9989-2.html#post171126 Post # 60

 

[Eclectic Mystic]

Good thread Brian. I've been wondering the same question for a long time myself. To expand on the question further, I'd like to know if Christians think that if Jesus were to return, would the crucifixion happen all over again (I mean hypothetically; not referring to Revelation)? What would it take for Jesus to be able to return to earth without this happening again?

 

[TheKhan]

Good thread Brian. I've been wondering the same question for a long time myself. To expand on the question further, I'd like to know if Christians think that if Jesus were to return, would the crucifixion happen all over again (I mean hypothetically; not referring to Revelation)? What would it take for Jesus to be able to return to earth without this happening again?

He has to be a superhero. He`d need to able to pass through walls, be immuned to nuclear missiles and chemical weapons, know who his enemies are and be able to kill them with his thoughts..

Frankly its unfortunate that one would have to go through all that, for the sake of us dumb people.. who had to make a tragedy out of a good thing and be hysterical for 2 thousands years (mostly on the West side).

No he didn`t have to die if people had got it the first time with the Buddha.

 

[Saltmeister]

Good thread Brian. I've been wondering the same question for a long time myself. To expand on the question further, I'd like to know if Christians think that if Jesus were to return, would the crucifixion happen all over again (I mean hypothetically; not referring to Revelation)? What would it take for Jesus to be able to return to earth without this happening again?

I don't think it should happen. I think it's pretty shameful if Jesus has to do the honourable death thing again, giving himself up as a martyr.

But it seems to me that traditional Christianity needs a second crucifixion as a wake up call for its ideological oppression and persecution of people who can't conform to the guilt-mongering dogma.

In much the same way that God called to task the Israelites for the mistreatment of their slaves after having been slaves in Egypt, God needs to call to task adherents of traditional Christian dogma for not realising that it was because of ideological oppression that Jesus had to be martyred and crucified. History is repeating itself.

I am not here to persecute and oppress what I call "traditional Christianity." If I did that, I'd be a hypocrite. I am not opposed to people who actually feel real guilt in their lives, as I have been in that situation myself. It's a humbling experience.

My point would be that people should not be criticised for not feeling guilt in their lives, as if it's the greatest sin of all and they have to hate and loathe themselves if they can't find fault in themselves.

I think if anyone is going to feel shame and guilt over something they have done in their lives, it probably hasn't happened yet. But more importantly, I don't think it's necessarily true that everybody is going to have a moment of shame in their lives.

Jesus' name actually means "God rescues" and the God of the Israelites and Christians seems to have been in a habit of rescuing people. God rescued the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. He rescued the first-century Christians from ideological oppression.

The Israelites, at some point, must have felt special because of their relationship with God and God warned them against mistreating their own slaves, due to them being slaves in Egypt. Being Christian, like being Israelite, obviously makes us feel special, but I think the same ethics applies. God forming a relationship with a group of people is not license for arrogance.

But if it isn't arrogance it's the way people interpret the written tradition. Literature can have hundreds of interpretations, but very often, the interpretation you adopt comes from people in the older generation: your parents, uncles, aunties and grandparents, the people in the local congregation that are older than you, their forefathers and ancestors, the local church establishment, etc.

Over centuries and generations it becomes "established tradition" and people don't question the doctrine because they have done it that way for centuries and generations. What we may likely need is for someone to do the research and come up with the real reason why Jesus was crucified. That way the story actually makes sense.

What you think is "your religion" is then, more correctly, habits and mannerisms taught by the older generation. If the older generation says that is how you must practice your religion, you have no choice but to follow because you don't know any better. You are immature and lacking in terms of knowledge and life experiences. You haven't seen enough of the world to know any better. By the time you are old enough to understand, it's already too late. You have spent decades repeating ill-conceived traditions. The cycle then repeats itself. This is the trouble with following traditions (and likewise with traditional and conventional Christianity). It is deep-rooted in time-honoured habits.

The crucifixion as I see it wasn't about the record of people's "sins" before God, but a social and political issue. It wasn't about the sins that God saw, but the sins that society saw. It's just that according to tradition, we are taught that it's the sins that God sees, not the sins that society sees. If what I am saying is true, then it's a slight misunderstanding and paradigm shift, but it has had big consequences for Christianity and how we understand it.

God wasn't trying to save people from himself, but to rescue people from society. God wasn't being a tyrant, but being a hero by sending a lowly son of a carpenter to rescue people from ideological oppression, to support them and die as a martyr for them. This is what I think is our misunderstanding.

There's a growing belief in me, also that while Christianity was about ideological oppression, it was also supposed to be an early attempt at Noahidism that, as we have seen over the last 2,000 years, went astray.

 

[iBrian]

It was only later that blood became a dirty issue, especially in the case of the "women's issue". For this- I blame the Jews. They started it. Everbody else got it from them. Christians, Muslims, et cetera. The curse of women, given to them because they are dirty ho's who "do it" instead of devoting themselves to God...

Actually, you'll find it across ancient civilisations - Pandora's Box comes immediately to mind. The observation that women bleed in cycles is a profound observation, and one that was often used across societies to blame woman for the fall of man, the world, or simply the universe! Certainly in the more masculine societies, anyhow. I suspect if there were ever a Matriarchal period in prehistory then it would have been viewed very differently.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What you have to remember is that the majority of "the faithful" have the intellectual capacity of seven year old girls. They might feel all sophisticated with their nail varnish and mobile phones, but they are children. Like all children, they do not have a wide or mature enough world view and so they believe in fairy tales, and pour forth sound-bites which they have never actually thought deeply about, instead quashing any doubt wth other neat stock phrases such as "It's not my place to determine God's will", "God is so great s/he can do anything"...

That's quite cynical of you. You've just placed approximately 2 billion of the world's Christian population (Catholics, Protestants, other) into this catagory of narrow-minded imbeciles.

.

Throw in the muslims and you begin to realise humanity as a whole has a profound talent for stupidity. An almost overwhelming one.

 

[Penguin]

One has to have a talent for something (like you have!) and we have the choice or the "spiritual pull" If it is a choice/belonging between any religion, atheism, science etc then I'll happily go with Jesus Christ every time thanks.

 

[Dream]

humanity as a whole has a profound talent for stupidity. An almost overwhelming one.

And also viciousness, generation gaps including relapses into primitiveness, profiteering that results in worldwide stagnation, enshrinement of Aristotlian authorities, nail painting and cell phone use in traffic. Nail polish and cell phones are certainly tell-tale signs of trouble ahead. What we need is to eliminate language, and then people will drop all of this crap including cellphones. That will take care of half the problem. No language = no religions & no cellphones.

 

[TheKhan]

But it seems to me that traditional Christianity needs a second crucifixion as a wake up call for its ideological oppression and persecution of people who can't conform to the guilt-mongering dogma.

There will be no second crucifixion. It won`t be that gracious.

We`ve made enough of a big deal and treaded long enough on the "motherly guilt trip" path. Doing ruthless things for old or dead peoples egos.

While a very important message was passed onto us before the crucifixion, instead we go out on a whim and convert the crucifixion into a marketing tool, and even say it was done for our own good ultimately.

The crucifixion as I see it wasn't about the record of people's "sins" before God..

You kind of lose me hear. I know the old explanation, never agreed with it though. Crucifying a Son of God seems like a major sin, no matter how you put it.

In my opinion and its really personal, the sacrifice theory is just an attempt for ancient religions to leave their legacy in a religion that should have nothing to do with sacrifices to gods. If you think there`s much meaning to the crucifixion, you got duked by the old religions, that are dead as from approximately 2000 years ago, except in this tiny story in Christianity.

Old mountain folks with little resources use to kill their children to limit their population, if this has any meaning to you. This also is a trait of female polygamy if I had a say.

TK

p.s. Merry Christmas!!

 

[Saltmeister]

You kind of lose me hear. I know the old explanation, never agreed with it though.

I just think people have the wrong concept with regards to the crucifixion. As I said, people have the idea that it's the "sin" that God sees, but I think it was about the "sin" that society saw. Society was persecuting people because of its unrealistic and insensitive moral standards.

The crucifixion was about standing up to it. The moral standards imposed on the people by society claimed to uphold morality and justice. What the crucifixion showed was that these moral standards were morally bankrupt and invalid by having an innocent man die for crimes he never committed.

The moral standards imposed on the people lost their moral authority. God was absolved from adhering to the moral standards imposed on the people by society by the fact that these man-made rules sentenced an innocent man to death. God was then free to love and accept anyone he chose as he wanted.

What I do here is change the source of oppression from "God" to "society" because it would be ridiculous to think that God would be the source of oppression and persecution. I personally don't think people would be so excited about Jesus' cause if God was persecuting them. It's unrealistic to think that God would do that to His people. Jesus might as well have pointed a finger at God for being a tyrant.

Considering everything else Jesus said and did, it's ridiculous to think it was about God, but instead about society. A lot of what Jesus said seems to allude to a little socialism and community, whether it was about how much you paid your workers, caring for the poor or living a life driven by greed and relentlessly pursuing money. He also had conflicts with the religious leaders. Jesus seemed to have a lot to say about "socialism" and "capitalism," about wealth and poverty, about community. He also had things to say about ideological oppression from religious authorities.

Also consider what the Old Testament God had to say about "justice" in Israel.

If Jesus came to talk about "socialism" and "capitalism" and deal with the problems addressed in the Old Testament, you can't really think that after saying and doing all this stuff that Jesus gives himself up to be crucified just to pay for people's sins against God.

That wouldn't make sense. It seems more like Jesus was a defender of the victims of oppression and persecution by wealthy businessmen, kings and religious leaders.

Society saw the people whom Jesus loved as worthless people. These people were "sinners" against society. Jesus came to say, no, you are not really sinners. What society says about you is wrong. Society has exalted itself above God and persecuted those He loved. Society has replaced God, as if it were God. But don't worry, God is on your side. God will fight for you. I will die for you to show that God is on your side. I will stand up to the wealthy businessmen, the kings and religious leaders. I will defy the religious establishment.

Crucifying a Son of God seems like a major sin, no matter how you put it.

There's a number of issues I would like to put forth here about what you said about "crucifying the Son of God."

1. Crucifixion Being a Sin
It is not a sin by definition to crucify anyone. Crucifixion is capital punishment. You may live in a part of the world that doesn't approve of capital punishment, but the opposition to capital punishment is not universal so it cannot be said that crucifixion is a sin by definition.

2. Definition of "Son of God"
Now for the "Son of God" . . . What exactly do you mean by "Son of God?" By the way, I didn't even use the term "Son of God" as far as I can remember. I only spoke of him as a man, so please define your terminology and theology.

3. "Son of God" as an Honourific Title and Reference to Heroism
Maybe I didn't call him "Son of God," but the New Testament calls him "Son of God," so I guess if you insist on calling him that, I'd have to explain what I personally think of the term. I think of "Son of God" as a title like "Great One," "Honourable One" or "My Hero" and "My Guardian Angel." Is it a sin to kill a Great One, an Honourable One, a Hero or Guardian Angel?

4. Child Abuse Analogy
People tend to compare Jesus' acts to child abuse. But that's the thing. The concept you'd be putting forward would be an analogy. You would be using child abuse as an analogy. This is what I mean by defining your terminology and theology.

5. "Son of God" as a Hero
This is where I'd like to bring the discussion back to the notion of "Son of God" as a hero.

Jesus was a hero. That's why people remember him. Jesus had a lot of heroic qualities. But where did these heroic qualities come from? They came from God. God therefore, is a hero too, and has all of the heroic qualities of Jesus. It would be ridiculous to suggest that Jesus had heroic qualities that God did not have. Therefore, God has all of the heroic qualities of Jesus and Jesus has some of the heroic qualities of God.

"Son of God" is therefore the honourific title of a hero sent by God.

This is why I believe God is referred to as "Father." God is the protagonist of the stories in the Bible. He is the lead hero who sends other, lesser heroes in His name. God is also the Father of all heroes and legends.

6. Killing of a Hero
Not all killing is murder. Murder is the shameful killing of another human being. But if it isn't the shameful killing of another human, then it could, possibly, be the honour killing of another human being. The killing of another human is either honourable, shameful or neither.

But apart from honour killing, there is also honourable death and honourable suicide.

The question of what one regards as "honourable" and "shameful" is a question of cultural values. It is said that it is honourable to die in battle for one's country. That is a very common sentiment among many cultures. It is honourable to die for a noble cause. It is honourable to die for what you believe is right. It is honourable to die for the cause of justice.

Japanese samurai warriors had a tradition of committing "honourable suicide" as well as killing members of their own family (sons, daughters, brothers and sisters) to preserve their honour. Consider what happens at the beginning of The Last Samurai as an example. The brother-in-law of Katsumoto is mortally wounded by the American, Captain Algren. Instead of leaving him to die on the field, they kill him to preserve his honour. The American initially thinks it's a barbaric practice, but gradually comes to understand that it's just a different code of honour. The movie is about preserving Japanese culture, values and its code of honour.

7. Back to the Child Abuse Analogy . . .
What I think people are really disgusted about child abuse is the loss of dignity of the child. This loss of dignity is very similar the notion of a person's loss of honour. We just don't call it "honour." We call it "dignity." "Honour" is an old-fashioned word for "dignity." In the case of Japanese warriors killing their own children to preserve their honour, they are not trying to destroy the dignity of their children, but to protect it. They don't want their children to grow up being enslaved or exploited. It's humiliating enough just to be kept alive. Japanese warriors killing their own children, therefore, cannot be thought of as child abuse.

A contemporary example are the victims of the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the U.S. I've heard stories of people committing suicide as a result of losing their homes and being evicted. Husbands or wives kill their spouses and then their children because they can't bear the thought of their families going through the pain of eviction. These people are trying to preserve the dignity of their families. They are trying to preserve their family's honour. It is the honour killing of their own children. We just don't say "honour" because it's old-fashioned.

8. Sons of God as Heroes
While yes, Jesus and Christians are often referred to as "children of God" in the New Testament, it's a way of referring to them not only as "God's beloved" but also "God's heroes." The so-called "sons of God" are not vulnerable, stupid kids with no honour. If it were, God letting them be killed would definitely be child abuse. They are children with dignity.

Japanese warriors killed their children to preserve their honour, meaning that their children already possessed honour. Their children, are, implicitly, heroes. In Western culture, however, "little children" are not implicit heroes. They are not born with honour. This is why in Western culture, killing children is thought of as child abuse. Children, in Western culture, have no honour!

But back to Christianity and the Old Testament . . .

The "sons of God" are born with honour. They are born as heroes. Consider what it says in 1 John 5:4. They are depicted as "legendary heroes" who can defy their enemies in the world political order.

everyone born of God overcomes the world. 1 John 5:4

The Old Testament describes the "sons of God" as princes. The last line says that the "sons of God" will die as "mere mortals." My interpretation of this is that the "sons of God" are heroic figures who are vulnerable to the humiliation of dying as mortals without having served any noble cause in their earthly lives. Some of them will die with honour. Some will not. The point of the passage, however, is that they are born with dignity and honour. They are born as heroes. They are born divine.

"I said, 'you are "gods"
You are all sons of the Most High.'
But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler."
Psalms 82:6-7

9. Whether to Think of Something as Child Abuse
I think the question of whether something is "child abuse" is a question of how you remember the children you love. If you remember them as little vulnerable creatures being exploited by a paedophile, obviously they are also victims of child abuse. On the other hand, if you remember them as having died with dignity in the midst of a war against an oppressive enemy, that wouldn't be child abuse.

10. The Case of Jesus
The case of Jesus is a man who died for a noble cause. Having said that, I can't really compare that to child abuse because Jesus died with honour and dignity, not shame or humiliation.

In my opinion and its really personal, the sacrifice theory is just an attempt for ancient religions to leave their legacy in a religion that should have nothing to do with sacrifices to gods.

I didn't describe the crucifixion as a ritual sacrifice. Instead, I'm saying he was a martyr.

While, yes, the apostle Paul did use that argument, but Paul was trying to "build bridges" with people who thought according to that theology. He did say, "become all things to all people so that they can understand the story of our hero." I don't consider the ritual sacrifice theory essential to Christianity. Paul presented a theory and it's not necessarily how God thinks of Jesus' friends and loved ones. I don't blame Paul at all because he was just trying to build bridges with theological opponents.

If you think there`s much meaning to the crucifixion, you got duked by the old religions, that are dead as from approximately 2000 years ago, except in this tiny story in Christianity.

There are many ways of thinking of the crucifixion. It's difficult for us to know what exactly happened 2,000 years ago and the New Testament is not really that effective in resurrecting the past but it's the best we've got.

Old mountain folks with little resources use to kill their children to limit their population, if this has any meaning to you. This also is a trait of female polygamy if I had a say.

What I have just presented is an alternative theory if it has any meaning to you. It is very similar to the case of soldiers dying for one's country.

 

[Francis king]

dondi...
... if a such a vast swathe of people believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was born of a virgin, with no father, spontaneously conceived, if they believe that he rose from death on the third day and then ascended to heaven, if they believe that homosexuality and science and socialism are unnatural and ungodly, then yes, they are narrow-minded imbiciles...

if you wish to include yourself in that large group, go ahead.

Suffer, and be like children, and then God will be pleased... righteo...

Be miserable, deny yourself pleasure, and have no autonomy... then you will enter heaven...

Jesus was a man. Him being a man makes his accomplishments MORE noble, not less. A God suffers- who cares? A man's suffering? More important. Or at least, it should be.

I believe that religion suffers when it is given to peasants. They don't use it properly, and they don't understand it. Instead of, say, a movement for social action, a charitable, lets do good works thing it becomes a prop for peasants. Something they comfort themselves with when times are hard.

Jesus was a man. A little man. No power or wealth to speak of. A man who started a movement, hoping to change things for the better. A man who, 2000 years later we have made into a God. We will never be as perfect as Christ? Who said Christ was perfect? Come on...

Christ was a working class lad, a rabble rouser, an anarchist. He probably had a fight down the pub, or slept with two girls at once, or got drunk and stole some pies, ran down the street half-naked with a traffic cone on his head. You know, the normal things people do. You wouldn't think less of him for that, surely?

An imperfect Christ- that's the one I prefer. A Christ I can go for a pint of beer with, a Jesus who would stand next to me, propping up the bar, tellling the odd smutty joke, ducking outside to smoke a hand rolled ciggie and opine about the state of the nation...

 

[Francis king]

bananabrain- I obviously wasn't clear- I wasn't talking about jewish sacrifical culture, as such, but more general world-wide terms- human sacrifice has been practised by native south americans, the irish druids, african muti men, etc etc...

but while we're on the subject- didn't the early jews themselves offer blood sacrifices in temples, etc- goats, chickens, such like? Although of course, I could be wrong...

I do though stand what by what I said about blaming Jews for the whole blood and cleanliness issue- although I should have used less inflammatory terms- what I meant to say was... as far as I have been led to believe, the major issues concerning cleanliness and women's issues were brought into play by Jewish scholars...

 

[TheKhan]

6. Killing of a Hero
Not all killing is murder.

Japanese samurai warriors .. as well as killing members of their own family (sons, daughters, brothers and sisters) to preserve their honour.

I partied too much last night and feel like puking. Usually I would like to refrain from making statements in this state but I must do so.

I must state since you seem partially lost in an ocean of words, all killing is a sin no matter how you put it. ALL KILLING IS A SIN NO MATTER HOW YOU PUT IT!!! It`s just that we are human, and need to live. No justification is necessary and meaningless.

Also Japanese samurai warriors did not and do not go around killing children. Please stop making such statements, it is painful If they killed children, it would be to spare them from being a hostage to their enemies. Most likely the children killed themselves in such situations, if under the age of three, they became hostages.. If a warrior killed a child, he is not a samurai..

TK

 

[soleil10]

Jesus's coming was prepared by the 4000 years of the old testament. Originally, he did not come to die. He proclaimed the Kingdom is at hand very forcefully.
After so much rejection he had to change course. The path of the cross was not the original plan. God and Jesus lost much more than his body during the crucifixion.
Jesus came as the second Adam inorder to restore the failure of the first family.
Jesus had the power to create the first sinless family completely separated from the Fall.
At the resurrection, he was victorius spiritually but Satan took his body and his family
It was a terrible day of sadeness for God. Still today we are born with the origianl sin.
God will send a 3rd Adam (messiah) for the same purpose as His will is unchanging.

 

[Quahom1]

dondi...
... if a such a vast swathe of people believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was born of a virgin, with no father, spontaneously conceived, if they believe that he rose from death on the third day and then ascended to heaven, if they believe that homosexuality and science and socialism are unnatural and ungodly, then yes, they are narrow-minded imbiciles...

Born of a virgin (whom the Holy Spirit came upon). Suffered, died and was buried, three days later he rose again, and is seated at the right hand of the Father...where is the closed mindedness is such astounding declarations? Seems to me one must be open to the impossible, to accept such notions.

Homosexuality (the act) as un-natural and ungodly? No more so than adultery, sex outside of marriage. So this is a two part question. Un-natural? perhaps not. Ungodly...yes, in as much as it goes against what God said about the dual purpose of sex. Perhaps because man is supposed to be above the rutting nature of an animal. This to me is very selfish, and narrow minded.

Science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind. Science being un-natural? There is nothing wrong with curiosity, and the need to learn, and grow. But to exclude all else for the sake of science becoming the only venue of reason and right, to the exclusion of faith, is un-godly. Science used in that light, becomes a god, an idol to worship above all other things, and that is foolishness in the extreme. It is narrow minded and imbicillic.

Socialism has nothing wrong with it conceptually, if it is practiced correctly. But when it takes the place of God (deus ex machina), then it is corrupt and un-godly.

Suffer, and be like children, and then God will be pleased... righteo...

With or without God, we suffer, and are nothing more than children in this vast cosmos. Even from our planet's perspective, (were it a day old), we've been walking this world for less than 13 minutes. (assuming man is 60,000,000 years old, to begin with).
What God wants is us to be child like in wonder and awe (and innocent/without guile). That implies an open mind, able to consider all possibilities.

Be miserable, deny yourself pleasure, and have no autonomy... then you will enter heaven...

We have autonomy, that is a given. We show that part of ourselves everyday (for all the good it has brought us historically). We have taken our share of self centered pleasure (for all the good that has brought us collectively, let alone personally). What God asks us is to trust that his is a better way, and if we accept his leadership and his will (which requires a personal decision), he will show us our hearts' desire. That requires taking a chance (definitely not a narrow minded approach to living).

Jesus was a man. Him being a man makes his accomplishments MORE noble, not less. A God suffers- who cares? A man's suffering? More important. Or at least, it should be...

Jesus the man, suffered and died at the hands of men, but not before showing us that man can accomplish great things that last forever, if man walks in trust of God, while doing so. He also pointed out rather dramatically, that death isn't the end, just the beginning. That to me implies that a man must be very open minded to even conceive of the possibility of life after one's body has returned to dust.

I believe that religion suffers when it is given to peasants. They don't use it properly, and they don't understand it. Instead of, say, a movement for social action, a charitable, lets do good works thing it becomes a prop for peasants. Something they comfort themselves with when times are hard...

It isn't the peasants that corrupt religion, it has historically been the upperclass, the powerful, the nobility, those who would replace God with themselves at some throne, lording over the simpler folk. Soldiers don't start wars, politicians do...so when the peasant suffers because of the actions of the rich and powerful, they turn to the one thing that can not be corrupted or stripped from them...their faith, in one who is greater and benevolent. That is hope, and definitely an open minded approach to getting through tough times.

Jesus was a man. A little man. No power or wealth to speak of. A man who started a movement, hoping to change things for the better. A man who, 2000 years later we have made into a God. We will never be as perfect as Christ? Who said Christ was perfect? Come on...

At birth, Jesus sent a king in fear and rage, for losing his power and authority...to an infant, so much so the king ordered his army to find and destroy this infant.

At age 12, Jesus stunned the most brilliant minds and clergy with is knowledge and insight and grasp of the divine, and reality.

From the beginning of his ministry, Jesus shocked and angered the most powerful people, who constantly plotted to kill him.

He fed thousands of people with a seemingly unlimited amount of resources, not once, but several times.

Even Lucifer allegedly tried to cause Jesus to stumble. Yet Jesus refused to give in to temptation.

That's alot of effort to try and thwart a "little man" with no power or wealth to speak of...

Christ was a working class lad, a rabble rouser, an anarchist. He probably had a fight down the pub, or slept with two girls at once, or got drunk and stole some pies, ran down the street half-naked with a traffic cone on his head. You know, the normal things people do. You wouldn't think less of him for that, surely? ...

Jesus was a carpenter, but he was also a Rabbi and teacher, of whom thousands of people would seek out and sit quietly to listen to the wisdom, hope and dare I say, open mindedness of the possibilities each and every human could achieve.

Jesus did bust a few tables and sent money and people flying in all directions, but it wasn't at the local pub...he refused to allow shifty merchants and hawkers turning the Temple into a den of thieves...and he turned his wrath on the priests (who are supposed to uphold the laws), for allowing the Temple to become such...

Since Jesus upheld the ten commandments and then combined them into two for us to realize the truth behind them, I doubt he had sex with anyone, not his spouse.

We are told Jesus was extremely adept at making the finest wine in the land, so one must presume he enjoyed an occasional drink as well...but unlike us, he was never cited as going extreme with alcohol consumption.

He didn't need to steal anything. But he damn sure made a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish go a long long way and fed quite a few people as well. Then he serenaded them for hours.

Jesus did stumble down the street half naked, but it wasn't with a cone on his head, but rather a thicket of thorns, as well as a beam across his back.

Lesser folks like us, wouldn't have made it past the first flogging with the Roman cat o' nine tails...so no I don't think lesser of the man...

An imperfect Christ- that's the one I prefer. A Christ I can go for a pint of beer with, a Jesus who would stand next to me, propping up the bar, tellling the odd smutty joke, ducking outside to smoke a hand rolled ciggie and opine about the state of the nation...

Why, you'd be in great company then.

Jesus often went where the "riff raff" were. And he did stand beside them, and sit with them and ate with them, and told stories (I bet he even enjoyed a puff or two from an "Hukah" or "Nargillah").

Jesus wasn't so concerned about politics as he was about People. But when challenged politically, Jesus pretty much left the antagonist stunned, impressed, appreciative, or really pissed off, but helpless to come back, let alone do anything about it...

Seems to me, you would like Jesus, and I know he just loves you...

v/r

Q

 

[soleil10]

Jesus did not come originally to die. The crucifixion of Jesus was the second greatest tragedy after the Fall. It broke God's heart in thousand of pieces
God had prepared humanity and more specifically one nation to receive him. Over the course of 4000 biblical years God worked diligently to produce a second Adam, a sinless child with the hope to build a sinless family that can connect God to humanity substantially again.

Because of so much rejection, Jesus had to go a different course. On the cross, he lost much more than his body. He lost his precious seed and his family.

Satan killed his body but Jesus was victorious spiritually and resurrected. Form his resurrection, humanity received spiritual benefits but we are still born with the original sin.
This is why Jesus has to return.

To believe that Jesus came to die, really hurts God's and Jesus hearts

 

[Quahom1]

Jesus did not come originally to die. The crucifixion of Jesus was the second greatest tragedy after the Fall. It broke God's heart in thousand of pieces
God had prepared humanity and more specifically one nation to receive him. Over the course of 4000 biblical years God worked diligently to produce a second Adam, a sinless child with the hope to build a sinless family that can connect God to humanity substantially again.

Because of so much rejection, Jesus had to go a different course. On the cross, he lost much more than his body. He lost his precious seed and his family.

Satan killed his body but Jesus was victorious spiritually and resurrected. Form his resurrection, humanity received spiritual benefits but we are still born with the original sin.
This is why Jesus has to return.

To believe that Jesus came to die, really hurts God's and Jesus hearts

What scrptures are you reading?