Could it have done more humanly ?

Originally posted by buckky
Jesus had to be crucified because that is what God wanted. The shedding of blood was all that had to be done so that God the Father could forgive mankind for the mess up in the Garden . Why then did the deciples not kill Jesus in a more human way than the hanging from a cross agony ? I've never understood the need for the drama of the Romans and Judas and the ...[text shortened]... tending that it all just happened and making villians of those that completed the will of God ?

Why Did Jesus Have to Suffer?

http://abundantliving.org/Articles/jesussuffer.htm

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Why Did Jesus Have to Suffer?

http://abundantliving.org/Articles/jesussuffer.htm

What a silly link. It basically just outlines the Doctrine of the Scapegoat. Here's a link for you in return:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-sacrifice-of-reason

Originally posted by buckky
Jesus had to be crucified because that is what God wanted. The shedding of blood was all that had to be done so that God the Father could forgive mankind for the mess up in the Garden . Why then did the deciples not kill Jesus in a more human way than the hanging from a cross agony ? I've never understood the need for the drama of the Romans and Judas and the ...[text shortened]... tending that it all just happened and making villians of those that completed the will of God ?

Maybe God came up with an especially terrible ordeal and death because he knew Jesus would resurrect. He knew people would look at a death by, say, cutting his wrists, as inadequate atonement for their sinfulness because after all if he's coming back to life, it's almost like sleeping for three days. The punishment has to fit the crime and it would downplay mankind's sinfulness if the punishment were just a slap on the wrist. The punishment also got more media attention. 4 gospels, after all.

This way God could say don't expect me to go to this much trouble again, killing my own son for your salvation especially when he's me, too.

Not to be cynical. I think this is a viable theory from the point of view of the NT as literature.

Originally posted by buckky
None of it makes sense. That is why I'm pointing out just how crazy the story is.

I guess what I found odd was the fact that you focused on the fact that it could have been done "more humanely" when the underlying premise is even more "crazy".

As C4 pointed out in another thread:

Jesus (God) died to save us from himself (God).
Jesus (God) sacrificed himself (God) to save us from eternal damnation which he (God) would inflict upon us.

Then to top it off, even this "ultimate sacrifice" was insufficient to save everyone. Seems that most Christians believe that it's also necessary for one to fully embrace this story even though there's no reasonable evidence that it's true. As such, the end result of all this is that "eternal damnation" is now only inflicted on those who are unable to fully embrace this bizarre story. If God is omnipotent as many seem to believe, then it seems that ALL could be saved simply by declaration.

To make it even more bizarre is that fact that while Jesus walked the Earth, He taught "salvation through righteousness" which is irreconcilable if not antithetical to the concept of "salvation by grace". At least the concept of "salvation through righteousness" makes sense.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you could look at it from a different perspective. god deemed it necessary that his son come to us and teach us hippie stuff. he knew we would kill him because of course we will, but his teachings, his sacrifice would be remembered.

so we could say that god never intended his son to be murdered. it was simply a highly probable outcome to jesus co e lesson that one should do what is right even if the outcome for him might be less favorable.

Surely you must recognize that because of the teachings of Paul and others, "Christianity" has become something very different from what you describe.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Surely you must recognize that because of the teachings of Paul and others, "Christianity" has become something very different from what you describe.

and as with all teachings, they must be adapted when the society they were meant for no longer exists.


you are probably referring to how women are to behave according to paul. that might have been useful then, it is no longer useful now. it was never right, but feminism had no use in those times.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a big problem: This is supposed to be a message for all mankind. But it was told in a tiny tribe and still 2000 years later some folks on Earth have never heard of and never did and never will hear of this Jesus dude. The whole thing reeks of self fulfilling prophecy, the 'coming' of JC supposedly in a prophecy thousands of years before.

It coul ...[text shortened]... humanity has been duped into this fairy tale. Not a good result for a supposed omniscient god.

there is no problem. the message was given in the time of the roman empire. it had the opportunity to spread across the world, influence millions.

any more coverage would probably only be achieved through jesus appearing as a figure in the sky simultaneously across the planet.

from wikipedia:

As of the early 21st century, Christianity is the world's largest religion,[17][18] with approximately 2.2 billion adherents.

dunno where you get your 15%.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Zambia.

[b]... and his message would get across europe and influence the following centuries.
Clever, clever, throw in a strawman why don't you.

no you didn't. and you also missed my point. you said he could have been born in a better society. if you claim such a society existed and jesus being born in it could have not gotten him killed wh t have had to be born.
I am claiming simply that your original claim is blatantly false.[/b]

Zambia?

you mean the zambian empire that had trade ties with most of the world and would allow him and his disciples to spread their words? the zambia nation whose wikipedia page only starts in the 13th hundreds ad? great example little buddy.


"Clever, clever, throw in a strawman why don't you."
i am starting to wonder why i ever respected you as a debater. lately you are not making one ounce of sense. the purpose of jesus was to spread the hippie ism. if his purpose was to stay alive, he could have stayed a carpenter.


"That was your point? You had a funny way of making it. Seriously, how do you get from your Celts comment to that?"
so basically you make a claim that had no backing, i give some counter examples to illustrate how the world was mostly the same back then, and still i am the funny guy. let's recap: you say he should have been sent to a nicer society, i say there was no such society that would allow him to preach to a wide audience. i still am not proven wrong, because i don't count that mockery of an example as a counter argument.


i defended my stance with arguments, you didn't. you didn't even make your stance clear. how about you start debating, anything, and stop with the "strawman"
accusations. honestly, you used that so incorrectly i have doubts you know what it means. you do seem to use it a lot though.


"I am claiming simply that your original claim is blatantly false."
and what claim is that? that jesus needed to spread the message? speak clearly and try for a little less arrogance, i am getting tired of your ... whatever you call your debating manner.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and as with all teachings, they must be adapted when the society they were meant for no longer exists.


you are probably referring to how women are to behave according to paul. that might have been useful then, it is no longer useful now. it was never right, but feminism had no use in those times.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the introduction of concepts such as "salvation by grace", "original sin", "once saved always saved", the blood sacrifice of Jesus frees "believers" of the "penalty of sin", the entire Bible being the "inerrant word of God" and so on....

But Paul's teachings on women does give clear indication that his teachings do not hold up to the light of truth.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
.... the message was given in the time of the roman empire. it had the opportunity to spread across the world, influence millions.

any more coverage would probably only be achieved through jesus appearing as a figure in the sky simultaneously across the planet.

from wikipedia:

Reminds me of my old Relgious Education teacher. We had to write an essay on God's brilliant timing and how Jesus came at a time of worldwide communication. ... mmmm southern Europe and a bit of Asia.

Why not wait for the British Empire?

Why not wait for photography and radio?

Why not wait for google and facebook?

Either god didnt foresee the future or he thought word of mouth more potent than video evidence.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
dunno where you get your 15%.

Catholics 19%
Protestants 8%
Doesnt seem fair lumping them together as one religion.

Originally posted by buckky
Jesus had to be crucified because that is what God wanted. The shedding of blood was all that had to be done so that God the Father could forgive mankind for the mess up in the Garden . Why then did the deciples not kill Jesus in a more human way than the hanging from a cross agony ? I've never understood the need for the drama of the Romans and Judas and the ...[text shortened]... tending that it all just happened and making villians of those that completed the will of God ?

It wasn't the shedding of blood.

The shedding of blood was merely an indication that the work was done, and the life He lived could be released.

It was the work done on the cross, not blood itself.
Blood is merely representative of the work.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am starting to wonder why i ever respected you as a debater. lately you are not making one ounce of sense. the purpose of jesus was to spread the hippie ism. if his purpose was to stay alive, he could have stayed a carpenter.

But that was not included in the original claim you made. Hence you introducing it now to counter my argument is a strawman. I have not argued that Jesus would not have been killed in other societies perfectly situated for maximum spread of his religion. You added that condition later then pretend that I knew you meant that all along. Sorry, but it was your omission so don't blame me.
Your original claim remains false.

so basically you make a claim that had no backing, i give some counter examples to illustrate how the world was mostly the same back then, and still i am the funny guy. let's recap: you say he should have been sent to a nicer society, i say there was no such society that would allow him to preach to a wide audience.
You cannot prove the rule with examples. Surely you should know that?

i defended my stance with arguments, you didn't. you didn't even make your stance clear. how about you start debating, anything, and stop with the "strawman"
All your arguments were flawed as I have explained, including a strawman. Why can't I give the flaws in your arguments their correct labels. What is so wrong with that? Must I instead explain what a strawman argument is and leave out the word 'strawman' because you don't like it?

accusations. honestly, you used that so incorrectly i have doubts you know what it means. you do seem to use it a lot though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Explain how I used it wrongly.
I argued that Zambia would have been nicer to Jesus than the Jews, and your counter argument is that Jesus could not have spread his religion. Where did I say anything about Jesus spreading his religion? Its a strawman.

and what claim is that? that jesus needed to spread the message? speak clearly and try for a little less arrogance, i am getting tired of your ... whatever you call your debating manner.
Go back and read your original post. I get the feeling you don't know what you wrote. It says nothing about a requirement to spread the message to the maximum number of people, and nothing about Europe which you now seem to think was a specific target of his.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
like what society?

maybe the celts, who were a warrior society and beheaded their enemies to steal their souls?

maybe jesus should have been chinese or japanese, a country with much more rigid social structures, where a peasant was not allowed to leave his village.

maybe he should have been a hippie, 2000 years later, if hippies would have been f ower of khali for example.

i disagree with your disagreement. it seems very poorly thought.

How about Indian Hindu society?

The Buddha was born in a B.C. Hindu society and was not murdered, alas, he was eventually made an avatar of Hinduism.

Originally posted by buckky
Jesus had to be crucified because that is what God wanted. The shedding of blood was all that had to be done so that God the Father could forgive mankind for the mess up in the Garden . Why then did the deciples not kill Jesus in a more human way than the hanging from a cross agony ? I've never understood the need for the drama of the Romans and Judas and the ...[text shortened]... tending that it all just happened and making villians of those that completed the will of God ?

It makes for a more interesting story. Jesus (god) sacrifices himself (god) to himself (god) to save us from god (himself). The sense it makes is nonsense. 🙄