Does this make sense?

La Fenetre

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Any time you want to establish the "fact that it happened" I am all ears. No one that I have ever encountered has done so. Least of all you.

Are you referring to the existence and crucifixion of Christ ?

There is near universal consensus among professional historians that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and they reject the Christ myth theory.

There may be widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus, but two events that are subject to almost universal agreement among serious professionals are that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, and he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Saipanne

La Fenetre wrote: »

Jesus was executed for telling the truth because people don't like the truth. Being executed for standing by your principles and beliefs, as were most of the apostles, and as many Christians still are today in other parts of the world, is not "committing suicide".

But he chose his fate. He chose to be executed.

La Fenetre

Saipanne wrote: »

But he chose his fate. He chose to be executed.

No he chose to stand by the truth, and they chose to execute him for it.

recedite

Fleawuss wrote: »

Theologically your analogy is inaccurate. Consider a member of the French Resistance being tortured by the Gestapo. He too has the power of a magic wish: if he gives up the names of his group he will live. He has a decision. If he refuses to use the magic wish is it suicide? Is it suicide compared to your analogy? He is sacrificing his life for others.

That's different. The resistance guy is primarily refusing to give away his comrades. His own death is a consequence of this choice, but if he could save both himself and his comrades he would obviously prefer that.

In the train tracks example, the person refuses to save themselves. For no good reason. So they have knowingly allowed their own death, which is tantamount to suicide.

In the crucifixion, there are 2 suggested reasons why it wasn't suicide;
A) if the death was only a trick, and he bounced back after 3 days. Not real suicide then.
if the crucifixion of JC in itself saved an infinite number of souls through the sacrifice. Totally illogical, but suspending disbelief for a moment, in this situation it might be a good trade-off if true. But then it would be "suicide by cop" though "with the best of intentions".

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That's different. The resistance guy is primarily refusing to give away his comrades. His own death is a consequence of this choice, but if he could save both himself and his comrades he would obviously prefer that.

In the train tracks example, the person refuses to save themselves. For no good reason. So they have knowingly allowed their own death, which is tantamount to suicide.

Ah. But, actually, in Saipanne's story we're not told why the train-track lady doesn't cash in her one-free-wish chip, are we? We can't say that she did it for "no good reason" when we don't know what her reason was.

But let's assume (a) that she had a reason for her choice, and (b) that her reason wouldn't seem good to us (though it obviously seemed good to her).

Contrast the heroic resistance fighter. She (a) has a reason, and (b) her reason does seem good to us.

If we say that track-lady has committed suicide but heroic resistance fighter has not, what we're really saying is that what we're saying is that whether an avoidable death is "suicide" doesn't depend on the beliefs or values of the person dying; it depends on my beliefs and values. Basically, if I would accept death in these circumstances, then it's not suicide, but if I wouldn't, then it is.

This is very subjective, and has the result that somebody's death may be suicide from my point of view (I wouldn't have done that) but not from yours (you would). That may be a defensible concept of suicide, but it's not the concept of suicide that the Saipanne invokes with the premise that "suicide is a sin". If the term "sin" has any meaning at all (Down, Nozz! Down!) it must claim either an objective meaning (somebody's acceptance of death was a sin regardless of what you or I may think about it) or a meaning that is subjective to the actor (somebody's acceptance of death was a sin because it conflicted with their beliefs and values).

nozzferrahhtoo

La Fenetre wrote: »

There is near universal consensus among professional historians that Jesus of Nazareth existed

"near universal consensus" sounds a bit argumentum ad populum to me. I would be more interested in the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to think these things actually happened..... rather than just appeals to consensus. Especially given that such consensus is being challenged more and more in recently years, with a hell of a lot of it being called into question.

I just think that if someone throws around phrases like "the fact that it happened" they might want to ensure they are capable of backing up what they claim. As we can see here, the user in questions.... well.... cant.

But as a thought experiment, to discuss the moral and ethical implications of death by cop in the name of an ideal..... it is certainly useful.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"near universal consensus" sounds a bit argumentum ad populum to me. I would be more interested in the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to think these things actually happened..... rather than just appeals to consensus. Especially given that such consensus is being challenged more and more in recently years, with a hell of a lot of it being called into question.

If anything, the balance of mainstream academic opinion has hardened in favour of historicity over the years. There was a much stronger challenge to the fundamental historicity of the Jesus story in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries than there is today. Wikipedia is a limited cite, but it has an article on the historicity of Jesus which gives an overview of this.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I just think that if someone throws around phrases like "the fact that it happened" they might want to ensure they are capable of backing up what they claim. As we can see here, the user in questions.... well.... cant.

The regulars on A&A are not as stupid as you think, Nozz. When Saipanne asked a question in terms which presumed the historicity of Jesus's death and I answered the question in the same terms, I doubt that any of them though that either Saipanne or I were personally guaranteeing the historicity of the accounts of Jesus's death.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But as a thought experiment, to discuss the moral and ethical implications of death by cop in the name of an ideal..... it is certainly useful.

Well, I'm glad you can see that, Nozz. I was worried there for a while.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea wikipedia is a bad cite. I try never to cite it myself and usually only use it to look at the "further references" at the end.

Nor has anything I said assumed stupidity on behalf of any user, so I would thank you not to assign positions to me I do not hold just because you like to be snide in your posts. All I did was call you out on a claim which appears not to be, and continues not to be, backed up. If at any point you do want to back it up, I am all ears. Otherwise my point has been made and stands and no real need to make it again.... though I am happy to if requested.

Fleawuss

recedite wrote: »

That's different. The resistance guy is primarily refusing to give away his comrades. His own death is a consequence of this choice, but if he could save both himself and his comrades he would obviously prefer that.

In the train tracks example, the person refuses to save themselves. For no good reason. So they have knowingly allowed their own death, which is tantamount to suicide.

In the crucifixion, there are 2 suggested reasons why it wasn't suicide;
A) if the death was only a trick, and he bounced back after 3 days. Not real suicide then.
if the crucifixion of JC in itself saved an infinite number of souls through the sacrifice. Totally illogical, but suspending disbelief for a moment, in this situation it might be a good trade-off if true. But then it would be "suicide by cop" though "with the best of intentions".

Well you see you have agreed with the point: see the underlined. It's not suicide by cop because its not seeking to provoke someone to kill you because you don't want to do it yourself. It's accepting your death because you believe it will have enormously beneficial consequences and it is "the will of your heavenly father". Etc Etc.

Now all of that is pure bunkum but that's how the christian faith has defended against the charge for centuries. If memory serves.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea wikipedia is a bad cite. I try never to cite it myself and usually only use it to look at the "further references" at the end.

It may be a weak cite, but it is infinitely stronger than the one you have produced!

nozzferrahhtoo

Huh? Why would I produce one? I am not making a claim here. I am evaluating yours. When I make claims I DO back them up with citations. I am not making one here.... so why would I cite something? Do keep up Pere.

kylith

Fleawuss wrote: »

No no and no. Some of us have reverted to being atheist agnostic or non religious because we know sh*t about sh*t.

Snippet from a family gathering a couple of years ago:

Relative: (says something about religion)
Me: (corrects them)
R: "You know an awful lot about religion for an atheist"
M: "Why do you think I became an atheist?"

recedite

Fleawuss wrote: »

It's not suicide by cop because its not seeking to provoke someone to kill you because you don't want to do it yourself. It's accepting your death because you believe it will have enormously beneficial consequences and it is "the will of your heavenly father". Etc Etc.

It could be both. Maybe if JC had fallen on his own sword, the same "enormously beneficial consequences" would have occurred, ie everyone else gets forgiven for unspecified sins.

On reflection though, I think Peregrinus is right; its only suicide if the person does the deed unassisted, regardless of any perceived benefits of the death (as perceived by themselves or anyone else).
Even "suicide by cop" is a form of assisted suicide, therefore it is technically a homicide (but a lawful homicide).

Fleawuss

recedite wrote: »

It could be both. Maybe if JC had fallen on his own sword, the same "enormously beneficial consequences" would have occurred, ie everyone else gets forgiven for unspecified sins.

On reflection though, I think Peregrinus is right; its only suicide if the person does the deed unassisted, regardless of any perceived benefits of the death (as perceived by themselves or anyone else).
Even "suicide by cop" is a form of assisted suicide, therefore it is technically a homicide (but a lawful homicide).

You see he couldn't fall on his own sword: he had to be sacrificed as an act of atonement. If you take the line that it must be unassisted then someone who finally turns on an apparatus that takes their life but another has set it up is not committing suicide.

Suicide is deliberately and intentionally killing yourself. Jesus didn't do that. So The ops claim that the sinless one sinned does not stand.

robindch

Fleawuss wrote: »

Suicide is deliberately and intentionally killing yourself. Jesus didn't do that.

And "suicide by cop" is deliberately putting yourself into a situation where another person will kill you. It's not traditional suicide in the car-exhaust-in-the-garage sense, but it's intentional death by one's own actions all the same.

La Fenetre

robindch wrote: »

And "suicide by cop" is deliberately putting yourself into a situation where another person will kill you. It's not traditional suicide in the car-exhaust-in-the-garage sense, but it's intentional death by one's own actions all the same.

So did the staff of Charlie Hebdo commit suicide ?

robindch

La Fenetre wrote: »

So did the staff of Charlie Hebdo commit suicide ?

I don't quite see your point - they were shot, as you probably know quite well, by a bunch of religious fundamentalists with guns.

La Fenetre

robindch wrote: »

I don't quite see your point - they were shot, as you probably know quite well, by a bunch of religious fundamentalists with guns.

By your rational "deliberately putting yourself into a situation where another person will kill you" and "it's intentional death by one's own actions all the same."

Or what makes their actions different ?

robindch

La Fenetre wrote: »

Or what makes their actions different ?

I'd be fairly sure that the people in Charlie Hebdo didn't intend and didn't want that they would be murdered - these are things which distinguish "suicide" from, say, a terrorist attack by religious fundamentalists.

La Fenetre

robindch wrote: »

I'd be fairly sure that the people in Charlie Hebdo didn't intend and didn't want that they would be murdered - these are things which distinguish "suicide" from, say, a terrorist attack by religious fundamentalists.

But you had claimed earlier that committing suicide is when you deliberately put yourself into a situation where another person will kill you when they have the opportunity to do so ?

Does the killer have no choice, and is not responsible for their reaction ?

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Huh? Why would I produce one? I am not making a claim here. I am evaluating yours. When I make claims I DO back them up with citations. I am not making one here.... so why would I cite something? Do keep up Pere.

So you're withdrawing this claim, then?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"near universal consensus" sounds a bit argumentum ad populum to me. I would be more interested in the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to think these things actually happened..... rather than just appeals to consensus. Especially given that such consensus is being challenged more and more in recently years, with a hell of a lot of it being called into question.

I made my claim, you'll recall, in direct counter to your claim. When making my claim, I started out by quoting yours, so you can hardly have missed the point.

I have provided some cite for my claim that the consensus has in fact been strengthening over time. You have provided no cite at all for claiming that it is being challenged more and more. Based on what you say now, you're no longer making that claim (which I think is a prudent climbdown, by the way). But it's a bit of a stretch to ask us to be believe that you never made it. As I have said before, the regulars on this board are not as stupid as you think.

Peregrinus

La Fenetre wrote: »

But you had claimed earlier that committing suicide is when you deliberately put yourself into a situation where another person will kill you when they have the opportunity to do so ?

Does the killer have no choice, and is not responsible for their reaction ?

I think the concept of "suicide by cop" is really only valid for cases where someone does what he does with the primary object of getting himself killed. If somebody accepts the risk, or even the likelihood, of death in order to achieve some other object - to protect his comrades by not giving up information, to stand over the right of free speech or freedom of religion, to atone for the sins of the world, to kill commies and I don't care if I don't make it out alive - that's not suicide by cop. And it doesn't matter whether you or I sympathise with that object or not.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

So you're withdrawing this claim, then?

No I am still evaluating yours. Nice attempt at the whole switch-a-roo.... dodging my original questions which you have never answered by desperately trying to find some distraction derail.

You are the one claiming it as "fact" that these events happened you can hardly have missed the point. And I merely ask if you have any substantiation that this is a fact you can hardly have missed that point. Yet you have never done so and instead pretend it is me that needs to back up claims.

The best you can do is make up stuff about me and what I think of other people on this board while you get all haughty and personal. When you have to wantonly make up lies about me, then I think we can all see how desperate you are.

But rather than be baited by such weak bait I simply repeat my position. YOU are throwing lofty phrases around like "the reality of what happened" and "the fact that it happened" and "something that did happen" but I suspected it was all empty hot air nonsense as usual. I knew you could not step up to the plate and show any such thing was a fact or a real event. Just wanted to make sure everyone else knows this too.

As I say, I always back up my claims when I make them, but certainly not when someone is asking me to do so in the hope people will simply forget that they have not backed up theirs. The whole "answer a question with a question" lark does not work on me. If you want to back up your original position, which you have dodged since I brought it up, and move to do so rather than this uppity overly personal distraction attempt.... then I am more than happy to return that level of decorum by answering questions about my positions.

If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then a little bit of honesty in admitting that would move things along much faster.

robindch

Mod:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

[...] wantonly make up lies about me [...]

No accusations of lying, please.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No I am still evaluating yours. Nice attempt at the whole switch-a-roo....

Actually, that's a very poor attempt at a switcheroo, Nozz. The fact that you are "still evaluating" my claim has nothing to do with whether you are withdrawing yours. You can withdraw your claim, or stand over it, regardless of what you think about my claim. So, although you claim not to make uncited claims, you're not withdrawing your uncited claim because you are "still evaluating" my (subsequent) cited claim? Makes no sense.

The facts are these (with cites!):

1. You made a claim in post 57, offering no cite.

2. I called you on that claim in post 58 and made a counter-claim, offering a cite, and conceding that it was a limited cite.

3. You pointed out in post 59 that it was a bad cite.

4. I pointed out in post 61 that, however bad my cite was, it was better than the one you provided, viz, none at all.

5. You replied in post 62, denying that you had made any claim and asserting that, when you make claims, you back them up with citations.

6. I replied in post 72, pointing out that you had indeed made a claim, quoting it for you (for the second time!), pointing out that it was uncited (which it still is), and saying that I took it that you were withdrawing your claim.

7. And now you reply in post 74, saying that no, you're not withdrawing your claim.

So, to summarise what you have said in this exchange: you make an uncited claim, you deny that you have made any claim, you assert that all your claims are cited, you deny that you are withdrawing your claim, your claim is still not cited.

And then you accuse me of practising a switcheroo, of making up stuff about you, of making up lies about you, of blowing hot air. Seriously? Don't make me get sick into my own scorn, Nozz. You are simply projecting your own bizarre behaviour onto me. In your mind I'm supposed to be doing all this to dodge acknowledging your point that I cannot prove the death of Jesus to be a historical fact. On planet earth, I acknowledged back in post 15, well before the present exchange began, that I cannot prove the death of Jesus to be a historical fact. I have merely taken it to be a historical fact for the purposes of this discussion, as has the OP and, so far as I can see, everyone else in the thread.

The truth is that I am not doing all this to conceal anything. Rather, I am hoping to bring home to you your own double standards in matters such as these. But I fear your psychological defence mechanisms are too strong.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, that's a very poor attempt at a switcheroo, Nozz.

I agree, your attempts have indeed been poor. I have been around the forum block long enough to be well wise to the tactic of dodging answering a question by finding some way to turn it on the asker, or to put them on the defensive with the kind of snide personal comments you peppered your post with but I simply peppered them back at you to show how empty they are.

It just does not work on me any more. Maybe back in 2010 I was still naive enough to fall for it and if someone derailed me by dodging my question with one of their own, I would fall for it hook, line, sinker, the works and grab their tangent and follow it.

But no more. And the fact remains I merely questioned the thing you called a "fact" as being a "fact" and asked if you could back it up as a fact at all. And you have simply failed to do so. Instead you have done the switch-a-roo trick.... coupled with accusing me of thinking people here are stupid when I never espoused such an idea or position ever in my life. I will be derailed by neither.

Either you can back up the fact as a "fact" or you can not. You either have evidence such events happened in history, or you do not. I merely ask you which it is....

If you wish to have me back up my claims, I am happy to do so, but not.... as I said.... when you are only asking me to do so as a dodge distraction from you not having backed up YOURS. The switch-a-roo simply does not work on me.

So I repeat. Again: When you say things like "the reality of what happened" and "the fact that it happened" and "something that did happen".... do you have any evidence at all that it did....

Peregrinus wrote: »

I cannot prove the death of Jesus to be a historical fact.

.... and it seems you do not. Would that most theists would be so honest. Perhaps you will in future be less careless with your words then and stop acting like things are "fact" when there is no reason to think there is.

Now... as for my claiming it is being challenged more and more..... which you outright falsely claim I have withdrawn when I never did any such thing.... I merely refused to get derailed into a discussion on it as a distraction attempt from my own position..... I certainly do have the impression it has been challenged more and more as time has gone on.

I am more than willing to find out that this impression is a false one. Especially as I am in no way invested in that impression and nothing I do believe about the world is based on it. So I would not care to be divested of it. The only reason I even mentioned it was to show how little value your "appeal to consensus" has for me. So even if I HAD withdrawn the claim it would have little impact on where I stood at the time of making it.

But it certainly seems to be so. And it also makes sense that it be so given it is only in recent times one can even MAKE such challenges given the risks people in the past would take in doing so, either to their livelihood, social status, or even physical well being. Such dissent would essentially have been near impossible for many in the face of the form of retribution one would face for such blasphemy. We have a modern privilege that we CAN make such challenges and queries in modern times, and it is this I refer to when I suggest that such challenges come more and more. Mainly because people CAN do so now more than ever. So the impression I have that it has been done more as time goes on, is likely merely true by pedantic default.

But I am also seeing more and more books on the subject in recent times. Richard Carrier has written 2 in 2012 and 2014 to name but one author of many. There are more blogs on the subject in recent times given blogs are a recent thing. And there have been recently people writing and doing talks on the subject and making headlines for it like Michael Paulkovich.

So yes I have a very strong feeling, for numerous reasons as you see, that the question of the history of Jesus has been questions more in recent times. And what irks me somewhat is when I ask anyone who thinks it is a fact.... why they think so.... I invariably get sold this line about "consensus" as if that means anything. Consensus means nothing to me. The substantiation upon which consensus is based does. Yet no one appears capable of telling me what that is.

But what is consensus? In our world it seems the number of people who think there is a god (or gods) is vastly in the majority. Is that a consensus? Yet I think you would be forced to have to agree the quantity of argument, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to suggest there is any such entity or entities is precisely zero. There is no reason to think there is one, least of all from you or anyone on this forum. So what good to me is waffle about consensus?

My own _expectation_ on the historicity of Jesus? I honestly do not know. I have been shown no evidence so far to think such a man existed, let alone the events around him. But the claim such a person existed is not a fantastical one. Society at that time was peppered with preachers and the like. So there probably was such a person. Though all we hear about him is likely to be an amalgamation of modified concurrent myths around at the time, stories about numerous preachers at the time, and retrospective editing to improve the memes or to appear to fulfil prophecy.

Peregrinus

Still no cite, Nozz.

nozzferrahhtoo

Define cite. Not ever cite has to be an internet link. My post has citations. I have couched my position in a description of the history of being able to talk about these things, and I talked also about new books on the subject (cited a name) and people doing talks on the subject (also cited a name) and the simple fact there are many blogs now on the subject. True I did not cite an example of that last thing, the blogs, but here is a random one for you, itself with links and citations inside it.

Not to mention I can simply throw your own awful wiki citation back at you because a number of the references at the bottom of it are references to books and more about people questioning the historicity of Jesus too. Even one of the authors defending the history of Jesus in those citations, John Dickson, is acknowledging the modern attacks on the subject.

You ignoring things does not mean they are not there. And certainly operating under a self-defined definition of "citation" does not either. The simple fact is when I asked you if you could back up your claims about the "facts" you claimed... you could not... when you asked me the basis for my statement however.... I actually offered something. The difference is not small, or subtle.

Peregrinus

Here, have some more rope, Nozz.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well if dismissive throw away empty one liners are where this conversation has now ended up, I think we are done here yes?

Shrap

sbsquarepants

As somebody once said (I can't remember who) If I knew for sure I'd be back in 3 days, I'd die for my cat.

3 days out of the "life" of an eternal being??? It's proportionally less of a sacrifice than you or I blinking.
Next time you have a row with your missus remind her of that time you went out of your way and blinked for her - you'll no doubt be amazed by how impressed she is:rolleyes:

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well if dismissive throw away empty one liners are where this conversation has now ended up, I think we are done here yes?

At least we agree on something!

Peregrinus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As somebody once said (I can't remember who) If I knew for sure I'd be back in 3 days, I'd die for my cat.

In Soviet Russia, cat dies for you.

Saipanne

Peregrinus wrote: »

In Soviet Russia, cat dies for you.

For me, this has always been the most disappointing thing about debating Christians, over the years. When it comes to the difficult questions such as "Why is death for an eternal being a sacrifice?", instead of producing a logical response they tend to use evasion instead.

nozzferrahhtoo

Evasion on why it is meant to be a sacrifice. Evasion on why we think think this person existed at all. Evasion on what the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning are actually meant to be that this god entity even exists. It appears to be evasion all the way down from theists, peppered by the occasional claim that it is all "faith" or the occasional claim that atheists must be "close minded" for not believing it.

I would ask not only "Why is death for an eternal being a sacrifice?" but also "Why even call it death if said character is meant to be alive and well and living a life of eternal bliss and dominion?". I am honestly never sure just what definitions of "death" and "sacrifice" these people are even using half the time. Perhaps the words "transitions" and "upgraded" are more accurate.

Peregrinus

Saipanne wrote: »

For me, this has always been the most disappointing thing about debating Christians, over the years. When it comes to the difficult questions such as "Why is death for an eternal being a sacrifice?", instead of producing a logical response they tend to use evasion instead.

Well, if you want a serious conversation, I think your question is based on the assumption that, if Jesus was the Incarnation of God, he must be omniscient and therefore have known exactly how events would unfold.

That's not, though, what belief in the Incarnation involves. The scriptural accounts present Jesus as not being omnipotent, not being omniscient. There were things he could not do. He "grew in wisdom", which would be impossible if he had the divine attributes of perfect wisdom. Etc, etc.

A theological account of this suggests that Jesus had two natures - a divine nature and a human nature. In his human nature, he did not manifest (and indeed did not possess) the divine attributes and perfections. The whole point about the Incarnation was that he would share human experiences, frailties, weaknesses, fears, sorrows and so forth, which obviously he couldn't do if he were omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, he wasn't. He "emptied himself", as Paul puts it, to take on humanity.

Hard to wrap your head around one person having two natures? Probably. Hard to understand the wall of separation between humanity and divinity in one person? Maybe. Find the whole thing a bit less than plausible? Very possibly. But, as I've pointed out before, if you're critiquing Christian believe you have to critique what Christians believe, and Christians believe that the Jesus who died on the cross did not know that he would resurrect the following evening I(or at all). So arguments that are variations on "how can agreeing to a three-day break from life be seen as a heroically great sacrifice?" are not really arguments that address Christian beliefs.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not really buying that at all. The character in the book is one that had absolute certitude of an after life. He did not just have faith there was a god. He KNEW it to be so. Especially since he was able to go around using power bestowed from that god to suspend the laws of nature and reality and perform miracles.

Given that level of certitude in things like an after life, it is simply impossible for me to view anything this character did in life, or a death with relatively mild torture, as being a "sacrifice". With or without a carnal Resurrection in this world three days later.

And that is just looking at it from the Jesus side of the claimed "sacrifice". We are also told from GODS side that he "gave us his only son" when clearly no such thing is true. At the very MOST one could claim he "lent" us this son. But what does "lending" even mean in the context of infinite time and resources? What even does "only son" mean in this context as if a being of this infinity is in any way thus limited.

Contrast this to people who have actually lost a child. Or people who have given their life for a person, a place, or an ideal without any certitude of an after life... or in the case of many.... without any faith or concept of one at all. THEY are people who have suffered loss and sacrifice. The god in this Bible Book is, at best, a pretender. The question, evaded as predicted by the other user, still stands "Why is death for an eternal being a sacrifice?".

A bit less than plausible? Understatement really. A fantastical load of unsubstantiated nonsense..... probably a more accurate description. Not one person I am aware of has substantiated any of this in even the smallest way. Least of all anyone on this forum.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given that level of certitude in things like an after life, it is simply impossible for me to view anything this character did in life, or a death with relatively mild torture, as being a "sacrifice". With or without a carnal Resurrection in this world three days later.

Crucifixion is a relatively mild torture? I'd heard it was a doddle but.....

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really buying that at all. The character in the book is one that had absolute certitude of an after life. He did not just have faith there was a god. He KNEW it to be so. Especially since he was able to go around using power bestowed from that god to suspend the laws of nature and reality and perform miracles.

He doesn't display any greater faith or certitude, or any greater miracle-working agency, than many other characters in scripture, and nobody reads the scriptures as suggesting that they are all presented as divine, omniscient or omipotent. Plus he displays distinctly undivine human weaknesses - fear in the face of his own death (the agony in the garden); grief in the face of the death of others ("Jesus wept"). Plus he constantly prays to "the Father", ascribes his miracle-working agency to "the Father", etc, which doesn't suggest that he identifies himself with God. Nor does any figure in the gospels identify him as divine, or as claiming to be divine. They suggest that he's Moses, that he's Elijah, that he's an un-named prophet, that he's the Messiah. They never suggest that he's divine.

So, while his strong faith and his working of "signs" may prevent you from buying the idea that he saw himself as human, everybody else seems to have seen him as human and there's no indication that he himself did not.

Besides, as I've pointed out already, for a critique of Christian beliefs to be meaningful, it has to be a critique of what Christians actually believe, and not of what the critic thinks they should believe, or ought to believe. And I think the mainstream Christian position is that Jesus of Nazareth did not, before the resurrection, see himself as divine or as the incarnation of God, or possess characteristics such as omnipotence or omniscience.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

. . . A bit less than plausible? Understatement really. A fantastical load of unsubstantiated nonsense..... probably a more accurate description. Not one person I am aware of has substantiated any of this in even the smallest way. Least of all anyone on this forum.

Perhaps so, but that's a different point from the one the OP raises. He's not querying whether Christian beliefs are substantiated. He's querying whether they are internally consistent. If two beliefs necessarily contradict one another, we know, without making any enquiry into substantiation, that (at least) one of them must be false. "Suicide is a sin" and "Christ was without sin" necessarily contradict one another if the death of Christ was a suicide. For this purpose it doesn't actually matter whether Christ died at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

Crucifixion is a relatively mild torture? I'd heard it was a doddle but.....

Did you now? Likely you heard wrong. I imagine it is quite awful. Do not make the linguistic error of jumping from "relatively mild" to "mild". The key word being "relatively". Relative to some of the tortures our species has invented to visit upon other members of our species, the torture described in the story of Jesus is very much RELATIVELY mild.

Peregrinus wrote: »

He doesn't display any greater faith or certitude, or any greater miracle-working agency, than many other characters in scripture

If I was going around achieving "faith healing, exorcisms, resurrection of the dead and control over nature" I am certainly going to start going around thinking I am something more than human.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus he displays distinctly undivine human weaknesses

Not relevant to what I am saying at all. Even if I was certain of an after life of bliss and dominion, I would still have human responses to my impending discomforts. Biology would demand little else. I still would not presume to call my transition from one life to the next a "sacrifice" of my life, or a "death" however.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Besides, as I've pointed out already, for a critique of Christian beliefs to be meaningful, it has to be a critique of what Christians actually believe

Yea cause they are one ubiquitous group who only believe one thing. That is why there is over 33000 branches and sects and offshoots of it. Perhaps you mistake, as has been done on this forum many times in the past, what individual doctrines suggest groups should believe, and what they actually do. Like Transubstantiation for a useful example to highlight my point here.... as a good example of this error on the forum before. Clearly Catholic Doctrines say one thing. What Catholics on the ground believe however can be quite different.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps so, but that's a different point from the one the OP raises.

Lucky then I was not replying to the OP, but something _you_ said.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I was going around achieving "faith healing, exorcisms, resurrection of the dead and control over nature" I am certainly going to start going around thinking I am something more than human.

Well, but that might partly be because your atheism precludes you from thinking that there might be a God who is working through you. We can't assume that a theist would come the same conclusions as you would.

The question of what you would believe in this circumstance isn't strictly relevant. The question is whether Jesus knew, or believed, that he was the Incarnation of God. If he didn't, or mightn't have, then arguments which presume that he must have found himself to be omniscient and omnipotent don't stand up.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea cause they are one ubiquitous group who only believe one thing. That is why there is over 33000 branches and sects and offshoots of it. Perhaps you mistake, as has been done on this forum many times in the past, what individual doctrines suggest groups should believe, and what they actually do. Like Transubstantiation for a useful example to highlight my point here.... as a good example of this error on the forum before. Clearly Catholic Doctrines say one thing. What Catholics on the ground believe however can be quite different.

On that view, an argument which presumes' Jesus omniscience and shows it to be inconsistent with his claims about dying and about viewing his death as a sacrifice doesn't achieve much. At most, it shows that those Christians who do believe that Jesus was omniscient might have a hard time justifying that belief, based on what it says in the scripture. Which is basically an argument entirely consistent with the orthodox Christian belief, which is that Jesus was not omniscient.

Could there be Christians who think that Jesus was omnipotent and omniscient? Yes, there could. Are they wrong, by reference to their own sources of authority (like the scripture, church teaching)? Yes, and this argument shows why. But it doesn't, I think, do any more than that.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Lucky then I was not replying to the OP, but something _you_ said.

I think you're referring here to what I said to Saipanne back in post 88? What I said there is that the scriptural accounts do not present Jesus as either omniscient or omnipotent. And I think what you're saying here tends rather to back me up. If he were omniscient and omnipotent, why would he say the things he is supposed to have about his death, sacrifice, etc? (As you say yourself, you wouldn't.) If his followers or those around him or who, after his death, commented on these events thought he was omniscient or omnipotent, how could they have said the things they are supposed to have said? The parsimonious explanation for all this is that he didn't consider himself to possess these attributes, his immediate followers didn't consider him to, and the likes of Paul, writing afterwards, didn't consider him to. And the parsimonious explanation for all that is that he didn't, in fact, have these characteristics.

And I imagine you wouldn't quarrel with that last point. If Jesus existed at all, he was not omnipotent or omniscient.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Didn't he say something about rebuilding a temple in three days?

Peregrinus

Yes, reportedly. If you take the scriptures as accurate reportage, then he seems to have prophesied his own resurrection. But prophesying that something will happen is not at all the same as knowing that it will happen, still less as knowing that it will happen because you are omniscient. The scriptures are full of prophets. Nobody thinks that this means they are omniscient or divine, and they certainly don't behave as if they thought so themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, but that might partly be because your atheism precludes you from thinking that there might be a God who is working through you.

You just made my point for me, thanks. That is basically exactly what I have been saying. The capability to perform those miracles is likely to offer one a level of certitude not available to others as to the existence of this god and after life. And proportionally the more certain this person is that there is an after life, the less meaningful becomes calling anything he did a "sacrifice". And certainly lines like "God gave us his only son", which I have heard often, become a frankly insulting mockery of anyone who actually has lost a child.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're referring here to what I said to Saipanne

I was referring specifically to the line "Find the whole thing a bit less than plausible? Very possibly.". I think calling it "less than plausible" does not go far enough. It is entirely unsubstantiated fantastical nonsense for which we have not a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support it. Certainly none from you.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Did you now? Likely you heard wrong. I imagine it is quite awful. Do not make the linguistic error of jumping from "relatively mild" to "mild". The key word being "relatively". Relative to some of the tortures our species has invented to visit upon other members of our species, the torture described in the story of Jesus is very much RELATIVELY mild.

I did yes. Though I don't think I heard wrong... he said it quite clearly. As to how awful it is, I thankfully can only imagine. Given the prolonged and agonising death it involved, I suspect it's sufferers wouldn't be greatly comforted by the notion that it was "relatively mild" though.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not a suspicion I share, expressed, or implied however. You appear to hitting reply to my posts but going off on wild tangents without replying to anything actually said in them. My only point was, and remains, that relative to the wealth of tortures our species has devised, what we read of in the Bible is quite mild. That says absolutely nothing about what it was, or would be, like to endure.

Absolam

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective then. I think I can confidently say that were I subjected sequentially to every one of the the wealth of tortures our species has devised, no matter where placed in the order I think I would be unlikely to describe being crucified as quite mild. Or even relatively mild. Maybe it's just me though.

nozzferrahhtoo

Then we are in agreement it seems given I never described it as "mild" either.

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then we are in agreement it seems given I never described it as "mild" either.

We're certainly in agreement that you never described it as mild... that's true

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

a death with relatively mild torture