I have recently been arguing that religious beliefs should not be extended unearned respect simply because people believe them and believe them deeply. If the belief is ridiculous perhaps someone should come out and say it is ridiculous. I think I've convinced myself that now is the time.
One problem in doing these "what's wrong with religion posts" is that someone almost always comes along and says something to the effect, "The God you are arguing against is not the God I believe in." And everybody else seems to think that makes the argument somehow invalid, even the people who DO believe in the God I am arguing against.
So I thought I would start off this series of posts by accusing one of the central principles of Christianity of being ridiculous ... the idea that Jesus Christ died for our sins. While there were early Christian sects that did not believe this, I don't think one can logically claim to be a modern Christian and not believe this. But perhaps I will be proved wrong on that conjecture.
I read an email from my wife's neice a while back. She is a physician ... a neurologist ... and a very educated person. She is also a devout Christian. She had just gone to see Mel Gibson's movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. She wrote us saying what a great movie it was. She said she cried thinking about the sacrifice that Jesus made for us.
I know she is an intelligent thinking person. I recognized her sincerity. I believe she had a cathartic moment. But I think it totally ridiculous. The whole thing makes no sense.
Jesus died about 2,000 years ago. Unless I am badly mistaken none of us were even born at the time. We were totally without sin. So Jesus' death is evidently some "pay-forward" sacrifice. This means that somehow his death makes every sin humans make from that time on forgiveable by God.
How does that work? Is it even reasonable? There are a lot of people who have been, are now, or will be in prison convicted of a capital offense. These people face emminent death. I suspect a few people have (or had) a relative -- a parent most likely -- who would willingly die in their place. Would it be a good idea to have a law allowing such an act?
After all, if it is a good thing that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for us, isn't it a noble and good thing to allow these people to be Jesus-like and make the ultimate sacrifice for the ones they love? Of course it wouldn't. And the reason is obvious ... it would be unjust to have an innocent person punished for the sins of another. And justice is not served by letting the wrongdoer off. So instead of achieving justice, all that has been done is to compound the injustices.
If it doesn't make sense for us to allow that on the part of a parent for his sinful son, what sense did it make for God to allow it for Jesus on behalf of a sinful humanity?
A second aspect of the sacrifice that makes it suspect is that in reality it did nothing. What was it about Jesus' death that allowed God to do something he couldn't have done without it? .... Nothing! That means at best, Jesus' sacrifice was a symbolic act. Symbolic acts that involve REAL suffering and death are not good things.
Some Christians claim that Jesus was paying a debt. Humanities sins required some type of retribution, and Jesus paid that for us. But the only reason some type of retribution would be required is to satisfy God's sense of justice. And as we have already seen justice is not served by having an innocent person pay the price of the guilty.
A third aspect of Jesus' sacrifice that is suspect involves the timing. Why 2000 years ago? Did people go to heaven before Jesus? Most Jews prior to Jesus did not believe in God taking human souls into heaven. To them heaven was a place for God and Angels.
But a few Jews did believe that a "righteous" person could get to heaven. But to be righteous one had to live by the Torah, or the Law. And that is spelled out in the first five books of the Hebrew bible (aka the "Old Testament" by Christians). I will not at this time go into the morality of a person who would ACTUALLY live their life by the barbaric laws in Leviticus. Instead I will say that there are actually over 600 different commandments that one is expected to obey. And they are virtually impossible to obey completely. Failure to obey was a sin.
To be forgiven of these sins required one to offer food sacrifices; burnt offerings, sin offerings, wave offerings, grain offerings etc. A whole plethora of them. I doubt anyone could possibly do it for every potential sin. So at best people were likely to have some sins that were not properly forgiven (whether they knew it or not). And if sins were not properly forgiven then they weren't righteous and they couldn't make it into heaven. These people sure could have used a Jesus-like "all your sins are forgiven, if you believe in me" type of option. Were they just not worthy?
Wouldn't a Jesus-like sacrifice have been more appropriate just after the fall of Adam? That way everybody could have gotten an equal chance at salvation.
Finally, if Jesus died for OUR sins then why was he crucified by Romans? The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) suggest that Jesus was crucified because of his heresy in the Jewish Temple. He made a havoc and ran off the money-changers. Historians are generally skeptical. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and the Romans would not have much cared that Jesus created a scene in the Temple.
Instead historians point to the claim that Jesus was proclaimed "King of the Jews", and that during those days there were a number of "Messiahs" who were fomenting revolt. Thus, they feel it more likely that Jesus was crucified as a revolutionary. But in either case, his crucifixion was for HIS perceived sins, not ours. If God had wanted Jesus to die for our sins, he could have done it in a more appropriate manner.
So neither the rationale behind Jesus' sacrifice nor the circumstance of the sacrifice make any sense. And that is one of the most foundational beliefs of Christianity.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Well written.
I agree that Jesus dying for our sins is unjust. -- ties in to the idea that life is unfair. But I think thankfully, life isn't fair. If it were, we would all be paying the price for our sins: eternity in hell. And perhaps Jesus's crucifixion in our place was symbolic, however all God wanted was something to prove his ultimate love for us (giving up his son) and that is much more tangible than symbolic in my opinion. And in another sense, Jesus's death was completely REAL; he felt all the pain and suffering that any human being feels during physical death. Thus, the pain he felt makes up for the pain that we should -- which means there's a concrete thing that took its place. (not really just symbolic) Since he overcame death (the resurrection), He overcame that which was impossible before, (also us not going to hell could have been claimed as "impossible.")
I don't think the Romans crucified Jesus because of the temple scene -- they thought he was saying blasphemous ideas by claiming that he was God.
These are just my thoughts. Nice post.
http://progressiveu.org/160921-self-nostalgia
Thanks for the comment. Your comment has a VERY BIG problem that in my comment I am going to intentionally ignore for the most part. I will just touch on it in this next two paragraphsd to make you aware of it and let you think about it on your own. But I do not want to add a level of complication to this discussion at this time. And furthermore, I plan to write up another one of these blogs on the logic of hell in the future.
You keep implying that we all deserve an eternity in hell. That we deserve unmitigated punishment. I don't know what you have done, but I don't think I have done anything of the sort. Let's take a concrete example. And I doubt you have either.
Some Christian apologists I have had discussions with like to point out that the Communist Chinese dictator Mao Tse Tsung supposedly was responsible for 60,000,000 deaths. I don't know if that is true or not, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume it is on the low side, let's assume it is really 100,000,000 people. Furthermore, let's assume that were he not to do what he did the people would have lived 100 years of wonderful life. So that totals out to 10 billion years of wonderful life that Mao took away. So you may argue that he deserves punishment. But an eternity in hell?? Eternity is a long time. If Mao goes to hell after 10 billion years he will not have even scratched eternity. At some point in eternal torture the punishment will outweigh the crime. ... even for Mao. 10 billion years, 10 trillion years, 10 google-plex years, you still haven't even touched eternity. When the punishment outweighs the crime that is a crime in and of itself.
For the rest of this discussion I will deal with your implications of eternal hell as though it were actually an acceptable solution.
Thanks
OK, let's explore that a little. What is it that makes life unfair? It is luck. Just by the luck of the draw some people will have bad things happen to them that are of no fault of their own. That is what makes life unfair. Can that be applied to Jesus' crucifixion? Nope. That was an intentional act. GOD'S INTENTIONAL ACT. God is what is making that unfair, not chance.
Intentional acts have a morality to them. Unfair intentional acts are immoral. So taking comfort in God's immorality is not a good thing.
If you EVER have someone tell you that they are going to prove their love for you by sacrificing their own son for something bad that you have done ... then RUN AWAY That is only proving his psychosis not his love ... even if his son is willing to do it for you. It is evidence of his psychosis not his love.
Er, then why can't God take you to heaven torture you to give you the pain that you deserve and then be done with it? Justice would more likely be served and you would still receive your eternity of bliss (after the torture of course).
What is wrong with him overcoming death after living a great life and dying of old-age? Why this horrible circuitous manner that bears no actual relationship with why he died?
The synoptic gospels have Jesus kick the money-changers out of the temple and this upsetting the ruling priests, the Sanhedrin. They met and decided to capture Jesus. Judas betrays Jesus and points him out at the garden of Gethsemane. There Jesus is captured. It is unclear whether his captors are forces for the Sanhedrin or are Roman soldiers. I think if Jesus was actually crucified (I don't put as much trust in the bible as some other people, but I have no evidence that says he wasn't crucified) then I think it likely that he was thought of as a revolutionary trying to foment revolt (and I wouldn't be at surprised if that assessment were not accurate).
Take care,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) suggest that Jesus was crucified because of his heresy in the Jewish Temple. He made a havoc and ran off the money-changers."
1) I never heard that before
2) That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard
because
3) Who on Earth would put you to death for being annoying
especially seeing as
4) The guy was a rabbi and had a large Jewish following
This is going to be a source of amusement for me.
A very interesting blog.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
it would be unjust to have an innocent person punished for the sins of another. And justice is not served by letting the wrongdoer off.
And this is why I think I prefer the idea of 'purification' after you die... your soul gets tortured by all the bad things you have done. The more you have done wrong (or perhaps the worse it is, killing someone being more serious than telling a white lie, for example), the longer you stay there.
Of course, I know you don't believe in a soul or the afterlife, but I still prefer that idea to the idea of everyone going to heaven if they 'accept' Jesus.
I have to do a little more research before I can respond to some other parts of your blog, but my paper on women in Mesopotamia takes priority right now.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
As a christian one still pays for their sin in a 'you still get the consequences for your stupid actions but you wont go to hell' sort of way. Like David and (I know I am going to get this wrong but I bet I am in the only hotel room with no bible in it) bethshiba...yeah I know that is wrong, he was forgiven for 'being' with her but still got to have the consequences.
Anyway that is the only part I can almost say anything against at this hour.
Great post once again.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
This is an argument from ignorance. The authors' point is that because he does not understand something, it cannot be true. In truth, the only thing established is that the author is a dilettante.
There is no shortage of published scholarship - pro and con - on the Christology and soteriology of the atonement, but the author expects to understand the concepts without actually studying them. I wish him the best of luck on this point, but note that such a pentecostal experience would qualify as a miracle in its' own right and negate his original position.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To prove to the 'possum that it could be done.
Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Because the Apostles would not have completely accepted his divinity with anything less than the evidence of their own eyes.
Darwins Beagle did not say that Christianity is false. He is explaining why he thinks it is ridiculous. I'd watch calling him ignorant. You'll probably find that slapping you in the face.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Thanks for the comment.
I was wondering how long it was going to take for this argument to come up. Not long, I guess. The argument is that since I have not addressed EVERY APOLOGY Christians have put forth for a ridiculous idea then my argument is invalid. They do not have to address my argument at all (which you haven't [I'll discuss your possum analogy in a bit]).
It seems to me that many Christians will accept anything that supports their belief even the allogation that a logical one exists somewhere in the world. I have yet to see one.
Here is a deal I will make you, Oh learned master .... why don't you pick the one best argument and present it here (or in a blog of your own) and I will go into detail as to why it too makes no sense. I promise I will actually address your argument. By the way, I would appreciate it if you would use your own word instead of just a link to someone else's argument. That way I will get an idea of what your understanding is.
I live in Texas, I heard the joke as "armadillos" instead of "possums", but in any case, they are both born dead by the side of the road.
I hope this isn't your alternative explanation that you think is so soteriologically sophisticated. So Jesus died for our sins (how?) to prove his divinity to the apostles?? Er ... that isn't dying for our sins at all. It is dying to prove his divinity to apostles.
I suppose raising a few people from the dead wasn't enough? How about meeting with Moses and Elijah? How about a voice from heaven saying "This is my son whom I am well pleased" on the banks of the Jordan? What about feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish?
For that matter, what would have been wrong with magic'ing up some TV's and broadcasting the "Jesus & God" show to get his message across? Then who would have needed the apostles who were often portrayed as not being among the brightest stones on the necklace anyway.
The point being if the purpose is for Jesus to prove his divinity to the apostles, there are a TON of better ways .... more straight-forward ways ... ways that do not involve useless torture .... to do that.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Oh I know better then to take on the Darwins Beagle with my limited knowledge but one thing I have noticed through this line of postings is that the Christian language and, er, nonchristian language differ and some meanings taken for granted by christians is not being communicated or translated from faith to english very well (if at all). I also noticed that nobody, as far as I can tell or remember, has said that God is Jesus somehow. God came down as man, the messiah, AKA Jesus to prove his demented grace and offer an opportunity to forgive us for being wrong and unable to come up with the lofty penances. I see people using these term enter changable and do not seem to noticed the distiction between the two.
Just an observation...you all have good points and a language barrior.
Someone said that Darwins Beagle did not know what he was saying. Although I do not agree with him sometimes and I think he might be a little crazy, educated he is...this makes him a poor mark...So brace yourself he is well grounded in what he knows.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
My assessment of your position is, " I don't understand, and I'm too lazy to do my own research. I prefer to pick other people's posts apart rather than come up with an original thought, so please provide me with one."
"And don't direct me to any authentic sources of knowledge. Use your own words, because I'm depending on the fact that by asking you to explain something this complex in a few brief paragraphs I guarantee myself an easy target."
You are the one who picked out the single most important factor responsible for the entire range of arts and sciences in the Western world and called it ridiculous. Thousands of the best and brightest in every field of human endeavor have believed Jesus Christ died for their sins. The only thing ridiculous here is your reliance on swatting down straw men to support your non-thesis.
And yet, thousands of others don't believe him at all. My history professor specializing in Ancient History, and I can't for the life of me tell what religion he is. He makes references to Jesus being like Odysseus and others who have descended into the underworld, and other references about magic being real (but only if you believe in it).
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
"You are the one who picked out the single most important factor responsible for the entire range of arts and sciences in the Western world and called it ridiculous. Thousands of the best and brightest in every field of human endeavor have believed Jesus Christ died for their sins. The only thing ridiculous here is your reliance on swatting down straw men to support your non-thesis."
Ahh, they believed in Jesus. They didn't believe he died for their sins, at least about half of them. Most of the best and brightest in every field of human endeavor were deists. Einstein, Jefferson, Franklin, Michelangelo(possibility), Issac Newton, etc.
You can assess all you want. But all you have done is assert without ANY qualification whatsoever that I don't know what I'm talking about. It is YOU who have not addressed the argument not me.
It is YOUR claim that there are great arguments out there, not mine. In fact, I claim there isn't. I have presented my argument. You have presented nothing except to claim that maybe Jesus died to prove his divinity to the apostles. I even addressed that.
You have done nothing except direct ad hominem arguments. Well, sorry, I think it is time to put up or shut up.
If you really think there are good argument come on, tell us what it is. Back it up. I am fairly confident that you will not come up with anything that is new to me, nor with anything that I haven't already thought of and found wanting. Perhaps, I am wrong, but if I am, it is incombent upon YOU to back up your charge. Otherwise, the logical conclusion to draw is that it is YOU who doesn't know what he is talking about.
When you put things in quotation marks like you do, it generally means you are quoting someone's words. In a response to my post, it means you are quoting my words directly. I never said any of that. In the next paragraph you are going to talk about "straw men" arguments. A bit hypocritical don't you think.
You can use as much space as you want to explain anything you want. Use as many links as you want to SUPPORT a point. Just don't do it to MAKE a point. The thing I don't want is for you to leave a link to some 50,000 word site with a note saying "take that, that will show you where you are wrong.". That has happened in the past. And what I have found is that the site is usually inappropriate to the argument, they don't understand what the site is actually saying, and it is unlikely they have even read it. I want to be sure YOU understand the argument you claim addresses the problem, because frankly, up to this point you have given me no reason to think that you do.
Do you even know what a straw man argument is? It is a false characterization of your opponent's position with built in points that are easily knocked down ... sort of what YOU did in the paragraph above. With that knowledge, perhaps you can point out exactly where and how I have made a strawman argument.
Yes, I make the charge that Jesus dying for our sins is ridiculous. But unlike you, I HAVE BACKED UP THAT CHARGE WITH REASON. You make the claim that there arguments I haven't considered that satisfy "[t]housands of the best and the brightest in every field of human endeavor". OK, then it should be easy for you to come up with one that you think is the best and it should be so enlightening to us all that we will immediately see the error of our ways. Yet, you don't do it. Why is that?
In other words, IF you have anything of significance to say, say it! Otherwise, all you have to say is ad hominem and unsupported assertion. And that is a waste of everybody's time. So it is time to put up or shut up. You choose the venue. Do it here, do it on your own blog. I don't care. I will find it and I will respond, and unlike you I will respond to your argument instead of asserting that I could if I wanted to.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
So what if lots of otherwise intellegent people accept the story of Jesus Christ? What does that prove? It proves that they are smart and religious. Wow. There are smart people out there who are religious. You mean, even in times, when being a European essentially meant that you were a Christian or dead? Wow. Stunning. Good argument. What about the ancient Egyptians? They never did anything impressive. What about the Chinese? What about Muslims? What about Rome and Greece? What about the Jews? Nothing good ever came from any of these people?
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
you make complete sense, but that is the point, religions are not based on reasoning and logic and sense, and i am a semi religious Muslim. Religions are based on faith, faith in something that my mind tells me is unreasonable but my heart says there has to be some god or some higher being above us all, watching my actions and i will get judged on them. the sins argument is something i have never ever understood in Christianity but i won't judge that because there are a lot of things in islam i ahve never ever come to terms with. in islam, we have a Day of Judgment, and no one will take the punishment of your sins for you, you will be the one who will have to pay repentance by going to hell if your bad deeds outweigh your good ones and me thinking that this day of judgment will come is unreasonable but it's my unreasonble religious belief.
Above All - Do no harm
God DB(no pun intended), where do you get some of this stuff. It's brilliant.
Couldn't Jesus have possibly been a sociopath?
Jsaj, the assertion by the Beagle was that the idea that Jesus died for our sins is ridiculous. Except for the title, Christianity as a whole was never under discussion.
Veridicality at not at issue either. We are discussing if Jesus dying for our sins is absurd or laughable, not if it can be proven correct.
All that is necessary to demonstrate that the idea of atonement is not ridiculous is to show a single reasonable explanation, which I did. Likewise, the fact that so many persons known to have solid - even exceptional - scientific and mathematical minds are believers proves that a reasonable mind can indeed believe in the atonement.
So you DO think that Jesus dying to prove his divinity to apostles was a "reasonable explanation". Your standards of reasonable are severely lacking. I have already addressed why your argument is NOT reasonable.
Er ... not necessarily. It could just as easily show that some people with exception scientific and mathematical minds are capable of believing ridiculous things. Which should come as no surprise. Even Darwin, my personal hero in science, believed that the body produced gemmules that would be transported to cells in the body and transmit their characteristics to future generations.
That is why in science we never accept an argument from authority. An argument is accepted solely on the basis of evidence
I must say that it is looking more and more like you have no argument of any substance whatsoever. That's too bad, I was hoping for something better.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
In a what way did I stray from the subject? I responded to points that YOU made.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I'm pretty new to this site, but I've been reading a lot of your posts because they are so well-articulated and well-reasoned. I have always been an atheist although my parents were Catholic and I had to go to church when I was younger. I never felt the "presence" of god or saw any validity in the illogical arguments, emotional pulling, or intolerance towards others. Just recently I read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (who I think is amazing) and I've been really drawn to your posts because of the similarity of your writing styles and arguments. Just wanted to say another great post and keep them coming!
-JP
You did no such thing. You provided a creative "things could have happened differently" scenario, but you didn't address my (actually, Peter Abelard's) explanation.
Take this paragraph:
I am pleased to note that you believe these events are factual, and so use them in support of your position. You would have to be a complete fool to support your argument this way if you didn't think these miracles actually happened.
A ridiculous fool, in fact.
But in any event, the fact that you can invent alternative explanations has no bearing on the reasonableness of my explanation. Peter's denial, Thomas' manipulation of the wounds, the encounter on the road to Emmaus all indicate the Apostles were not completely convinced of the divinity of Jesus on Good Friday.
We have the following statements from Jesus that the Apostles did NOT understand as you and I both agree they should have:
“Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also?”
(Matthew 15:16 NAS95S)
““Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up?”
(Matthew 16:9 NAS95S)
““How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?”
(Matthew 16:11 NAS95S)
“But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.”
(Matthew 22:29 NAS95S)
“And He *said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?”
(Mark 4:13 NAS95S)
“But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him.”
(Mark 9:32 NAS95S)
“Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?”
(Mark 12:24 NAS95S)
That's only two gospels. Statements about the Apostles lack of understanding continue through Luke, Luke/Acts and John.
So using facts instead of conjecture this time, please explain why my explanation is ridiculous.
Please use the reply link at the bottom of the comment to respond to it. It helps keep the flow of conversation.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
I'll say that you sure are ballsy charging ANYONE else of not addressing your argument considering the way you have not been forthcoming in addressing mine. But the fact is that I DID address your argument ... more on that in a little bit.
Sarcasm seems to be lost on you. In an effort to keep the scope of this argument within a manageable range I am not addressing the ridiculous claims of the bible. I have addressed some of them already in other blogs, and I plan to do more of that. But for the sake of this argument, and I have been quite consistent in that, I will for the time being accept other claims of the bible.
I also can't help but notice how you failed to include the next paragraph. Failing to do so gives a misleading claim about my argument. For someone who chastises others of "straw men" arguments, you seem to use that technique quite a bit.
Here is the next paragraph and it should more than be sufficient to convey the sarcasm:
One thing I like about arguments on forums like this is that there is a history of what has been said. In the future I highly suggest that you address arguments instead of mischaracterizing them.
Er ... yes it does. The argument is that if it were Jesus' goal to convince the Apostles of his divinity then doing it that way is RIDICULOUS. There are much more reasonable ways to do it.
Yes, as I said the bible does portray the Aplostles as being dumb as stumps sometimes doesn't it. But again you conviently leave out a bible verse or two that contradict your point of view..
Let's look at Peter's confession of Christ (Matthew 16:13-20 for full context)
This shows that at least Peter was aware of his divinity, and more importantly it shows HOW he became aware of it ... It was revealed by Jesus' "Father in heaven". That is a much more reasonable way of doing it than Jesus dying on the cross. If God could do that for Peter then he should be able to do it for the other apostles as well.
I just have .... and for the second time. But since sprackle doesn't sparkle, let's formalize the argument a bit for you. The argument as originally stated by you:
The reasons this argument is ridiculous are:
(1) It is not even an argument that Jesus died for our sins. It is an argument that Jesus died to convince his disciples of his divinity.
(2) If the bible is true in its portrayal of Jesus there was already enough information for any reasonable person to believe in Jesus' divinity, and the disciples already had that as "evidence of their own eyes". So there is no reason to assume that this would have worked either.
(3) If the bible is accurate in the portrayal of Jesus then a MUCH more reasonable way had already been found to convince the disciples of Jesus' divinity, that being revelation from God, himself.
That should do it.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You were not being sarcastic, Beagle. You simply embarrassed yourself . You have been around long enough to know what a smilie is , and why they are used to indicate sarcasm. And you argued your point long enough for everybody to tell you were serious.
I do need to flesh out how the atonement, Jesus death and resurrection and the Christian church are related. The Pharisees had completely lost their faith and Judaism was reduced to a series of rules without meaning. By establishing the Christian Church, Jesus restored the possibility of salvation which the Pharisees had long neglected.
The story of Gospels is the story of Jesus training the Apostles to establish a Kingdom of God upon the earth. After the resurrection, the Apostles succeeded in spreading the good news and reestablishing a method for obtaining salvation.
God chose to do things this way and the success of Christianity is unparalleled in the history of humanity.
As for your second point, we don't have to assume it worked. We KNOW it worked. The success of the Christian Church is unparalleled.
Your third point remains pointless. The possibility of other reasonable courses of action does make any single course of action ridiculous.
1) I don't know, that statement seemed sarcastic to me. Not all people use the same little symbols to mark what they're saying. Seeing as he doesn't beleive that happened (which should be fairly clear), any person really paying attention should have been able to grap the sarcasm.
2) I see. So what are the meanings of modern Christian rules? What is the point of banning homosexuality? What's the reason? Why do you have to go to confession? Why can't you confess to god directly? And what set of Christian rules are the right ones to follow? All the different sects have different interpretations.
3)Those apostles were mighty good at that. If only they were alive today, they'd be the richest advertisement company on the planet. They changed things to make it more appealing to non-Jews to become Christian. First of all, they did away with a lot of the restrictive OT rules, like keeping kosher and they created a mythology that would appeal to the pagan Romans, who did beleive that gods could come to Earth and have children. Also, Chrsitman is of pagan Roman origin. I beleive it was a feast honoring Bauchus and the Christians adopted it to be a holiday celebrating Christ. It kept the Romans happy. The Romans really liked holidays.
4)The success of Christianity is not uparralelled. Islam is younger, but its growing faster and it already has a sizeable amount of followers.
5) I think you missed the point of DB's second statement. He is saying that if Jesus was real (which he probably was) and did all the things it is claimed he did (which he probably didn't) then his apostles should have figured out he was divine without him getting crucified. Since they didn't why did Jesus assume that martyring himself would do the trick?
6) Actually, you are completely wrong in regards to his third point. If you could save a child from being hit by a car by running to him, picking him up and running out of traffic, that would be much more reasonable than hurling yourself infront of the car. However, if hurling yourself in front of the car was the only way, it wouldn't be so unreasonable to do so. You'd think that the apostles, who were religious men, would have trusted the word of god when god told them that Jesus was his son. That's the equivilant of picking up the child and running. Jesus sacrificing himself was the equivilant of throwing himself in front of the car if he could have just as easily picked the child up and ran away.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
(1) I'll let others judge who is embarrassing himself in this argument. But if you REALLY think that I accept the validity of any miracle in the bible then you are in severe need of skimming some of my other blogs.
(2) Your assertions about Pharasees losing faith is baseless, Saul of Tarsus (later to become Paul of Tarsus) was a Pharasee and the zeal that he persecuted Christians bespeaks of a dedication to a religious cause. Furthermore, the Pharasees were only one of four prominent Jewish philosophies at the time. Besides the Pharasees there were Saudicees, Zealots, and Essenes.
(3) The rest is just a repetition of your now baseless assertions.
(4) Christianity's success IS paralleled. It is parallelled by the success of Islam.
(5) The success of Christianity owes much more to Constantine than it does to any "proof" of Jesus' divinity to apostles. So it is unclear that your "proof" did anything.
(6) When there is a way to accomplish your goal that does not require the tricking of others to commit murder and torture, then there it sure does make choosing the murder and torture way ridiculous.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Darwin's Beagle made great points in his blog entry. As a persuasive argument, the entry tallied with most of my beliefs, probably because I have been raised as an atheist. The back-and-forth between Darwin's Beagle and other bloggers has been interesting as well. (Honestly, it reminded me of a heated debate that was featured in TIME earlier this year. The article was titled "The Science of God," ironically.) However, the basis of the arguments prove to be bombastic yet frail. Literal interpretations of the Bible have little validity logically. The Bible was written centuries ago, by a group of men who might have been falsifying information. The existence of Jesus is widely accepted, yet there is no proof he actually did live, or performed unmatched miracles.
"I have recently been arguing that religious beliefs should not be extended unearned respect simply because people believe them and believe them deeply. If the belief is ridiculous perhaps someone should come out and say it is ridiculous." To a certain point, I agree with this statement made by Darwin's Beagle. While religion does have a dark side, it seems to be almost essential to society. The masses need a set of rules by which to adhere, doctrines that instruct them not to kill, maim, etc. While many of these doctrines have been made into law, people who follow the rules because of their personal beliefs and religion are much more willinglty to follow them than if it was just because these doctrines are the law and a product of the legal system.
Another point I would like to address is the post, "God chose to do things this way and the success of Christianity is unparalleled in the history of humanity." The success of Christianity? I was astonished to read that! While I will concede that religion has provided stability and a doctrine for some people, the "success" of Christianity is more of a failure. Christianity has caused some followers to commit some of the most horrific acts in the history of the world (the classic, cliched example of the Crusades, but also genocide and acts of terrorism).
Another aspect of this post I don't agree with is the sheer antagonism displayed on both sides. Resorting to attacking each other's intelligence and knowledge is a weak argument. Up to a certain point, this blog entry was posted to merely facilitate a discussion, but I seriously doubt the intent was to create enemies. While I am an agnostic, I maintain respect for people of all religions. I don't agree with evangelists, fundamentalists, and people who try and force religion on each other, I also don't agree with an all-out attack on religion as a whole.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
Beagle, thousands of people have been tortured to death because they were Christians This is still happening today.
Undoubtedly they gave some thought to the torture and death of Jesus before they expired. Why do you feel the manner of Jesus death is an absurdity? The relationship seems obvious.
Union Jane, when someone starts out saying that a person's beliefs are ridiculous and undeserving of any respect whatsoever they are not instigating a discussion. They are simply hurling insults. And I admit there were some people who did - and still do - misuse Christianity but don't you think you were a little one-sided? Science was founded as a branch of Christianity. Hospitals too. The Civil rights movement. Heroes such as Mother Theresa and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Try to imagine what life would be like if there was no Christianity and goverment and business today were run according to the religious system of ancient Rome.
"Beagle, thousands of people have been tortured to death because they were Christians This is still happening today."
So what? Being wronged doesn't make you right.
"Undoubtedly they gave some thought to the torture and death of Jesus before they expired. Why do you feel the manner of Jesus death is an absurdity? The relationship seems obvious."
The absurdity is that it need happen. The point is that, assuming that everything else is true (which I don't), it still needn't happen. If Jesus was the Son of God, there were better ways of proving it than getting himself kiiled. If you want to go back and claim that he died for our sins, then why that? Why did god have to send his son to dye to absolve humanity? The only reason I've heard is that god works in mysterious ways. That is not a valid argument, I'm sorry.
"Union Jane, when someone starts out saying that a person's beliefs are ridiculous and undeserving of any respect whatsoever they are not instigating a discussion. They are simply hurling insults. And I admit there were some people who did - and still do - misuse Christianity but don't you think you were a little one-sided? Science was founded as a branch of Christianity. Hospitals too. The Civil rights movement. Heroes such as Mother Theresa and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. "
People disagree with Darwins Beagle. His title was a little inflamatory, but that was the point of the blog. His arguments were well reasoned. The first one to hurl insults was you.
Science existed before Chrsitianity. In the west it flourished after Christianity was founded, but once again, so what? I'll ask you again: What about the Chinese? What about the Ancient Egyptians? What about the Jews? What about Muslims? What about the Aztecs or Mayans or Incans? Terrible as some of their customs were, one could hardly say they were totally ignorant. Christians have made advances in science. So have non-Christians.
What about the Civil Rights movement? There were Christians who worked for the cause of Civil Rights. Other people did to.
"Try to imagine what life would be like if there was no Christianity and goverment and business today were run according to the religious system of ancient Rome."
Rome wasn't run on a religious system. First it was a Monarchy, then a Republic, then an Empire. The government of the United States is influenced by the Roman Republic, which was pre-Christian.
As for the Roman Religion, what of it? Sure, we think of it as ridiculous, but is it really any more ridiculous than the Son of God being born of a virgin and rising bodily from the dead after three days? If it is, I'd be glad to hear why.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I agree with jsaj in response to Sprackle's comment. I was taught that science originated in pre-Christian Greece. It has been theorized that it began in Mesopotamia, which was certainly not a Christian nation. If you wish to look at the roots of science, the only reason we have it is thanks to the Muslim nations of the world. If they hadn't decided to preserve the writings of the Greeks and Roman during the Middle Ages, I seriously doubt the world would have developed technology as quickly as it did. As it were, many of the greatest Roman thinkers, such as Socrates, Aristotle, and Cicero, those who penned the first works calling for democracy and an equal government, were known heretics. Many of them perished because of their beliefs at the hands of Christian Rome.
In my first comment, I was trying to be fair and give concessions to both sides. But when it comes down to insulting people over their beliefs without cause, I can hardly support you. Good luck gathering a decent argument against Darwin's Beagle. We're all breathless with anticipation.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
For the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment everything you said above is true. That says nothing about the logic of Jesus' sacrifice. THAT still remains ridiculous. All your statement would do is make the loss of more life an even sadder situation.
It also begs the question of whether this is unique to Christians. It is not. Many Muslims would argue that a large part of the Iraqi death toll is due our lack of respect for Islam. The same rationale could be applied to Muslims in Palestine killed by Israelis. Jews could argue that they were killed in huge numbers because of their religion. Tibetan Buddhists have been killed for supporting the Dalai Lama.
Dying for one's religious beliefs has been a fairly common historical occurrence. That doesn't make it laudible. It makes it sad.
... But it doesn't address the logic of Jesus dying for our sins.
[snip Sparkle's complaint of MY ad hominem] I would encourage anyone interest in this type of thing to go through this post and make a list of our responses that can be rightfully called insulting without addressing he crux of an argument. I think one will find that one of us has a significantly longer list than the other.
Er ... no. Archimedes, Democritus, Pythagoras, Euclid, Aristotle et al. were BCE Greeks.
Er ... no. Hippocrates was also a BCE Greek.
I will only make mention of the fact that Mother Theresa, we are finding out, would be much better classified as an 'agnostic".
Christianity's role in the civil rights movement has been equivocal at best. In the Antebellum South, Christian institutions were among the most strident SUPPORTERS of slavery. And often their support was based on scripture. During Jesus' time slavery was a thriving institution and he is not quoted as saying a word against it.
But again this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Even if it were all true, it would say nothing about the logic of Jesus dying for our sins.
Why THAT dichotomy? Do you think that if Christianity had never existed that we would still have Roman Rule? What country EVER ruled that long?
How about this ... Try to imagine what life would be like if there was no Christianity and goverment and business today were run according to a REASONED set of law ensuring the maximal amount of opportunity for everyone.
Now THAT sounds pretty good to me. No country ever suffered by becoming TOO reasonable.
But even MORE importantly to this particular thread, absolutely NONE of this deals with whether or not the concept of Jesus dying for our sins is ridiculous or not. But then you haven't addressed THAT at all anyway.
I've mentioned this twice now, but I haven't emphasized it. I think now is the time.
The only argument you have made concerning Jesus' death is (again in your own words):
This is NOT an argument at all for Jesus dying for our sins. It is an argument for Jesus dying to convince the apostles of his divinity.
Obviously, I think you make even that argument poorly. But suppose you hadn't. Suppose you were absolutely convincing in that argument. Then you could say that Jesus dying the way he did made sense so that he could convince the apostles of his divinity. But that is not what my argument dealt with. My argument dealt with the ridiculousness of Jesus dying FOR OUR SINS. So even if Jesus did die to convince his apostles of his divinity, it does nothing to solve the problem that his death does not absolve us of our responsibility for our own actions. It does not resolve the problem that punishing one person for the misdeeds of another is unjust. It does not resolve the problem that Jesus' death came before any of us were born and such a pay-forward punishment of future crimes is ridiculous. It does nothing for solving the problem of unfairness to pre-Jesus people. In other words, it DOESN'T address my argument at all.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"I will only make mention of the fact that Mother Theresa, we are finding out, would be much better classified as an 'agnostic".
I would say she was 'agnostic' for the sixty years that she didn't feel God. Possibly she could be considered a deist.
about mother theresa and her struggles with religion
and i don't think it is wrong for me to learn about the things that she had questions about and this and that shit that goes through all of our brains...and i actually have more respect for her and for anyone who shares their doubts about religion because this is so complicated and complex
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
I don't understand any of these arguments. Perhaps because I am not that intelligent. But seriously, if the "wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in CHrist Jesus", then the sacrifice of God (i.e. CHrist) is like bankruptcy court. Is it justice that someone's debts are wiped clean if they can't pay them, and society takes the financial blow? Likewise if someone cannot repay sin debt, because the wages of sin is death, then God takes the blow, is that justice? I don't know, but it certainly isn't any less ridiculous than filing for bankruptcy. And someone has to take the debt, if there is an economy of sin debt in the spiritual realm, and if it was some other human that would be terrible!
Your argument is a restatement of the classical argument that I argued against. Your argument is that Jesus is paying off some type of debt that we owe God.
But what type of debt is that? A horrible painful death? I don't claim to have lived a blameless life but whatever I have done, a tortured death is punishment out of proportion to any wrongs I may have done. I'll bet it is out of proportion to any wrongs you may have done as well.
But let's suppose that we DO warrent a tortured death. Then how is justice served by Jesus dying in our place? If it is just for Jesus to do that then isn't just for a father of a person on death row to give up his life so his son can go free? Shouldn't we have a law allowing that?
Of course we shouldn't. And the reason is obvious ... justice is NOT served. If justice is not served here, then why is the analogous thing that Jesus supposedly did for us serving justice?
Our economy does take a hit if debt is forgiven. It is not clear to me how heaven would take a hit if sin is forgiven. .. After all, isn't forgiving sin something that God is supposed to be good at doing.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I'm not sure, but I think that smont agrees with your point.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Well it seems then the issue here is really is the "wages of sin death"? If its not death than I agree that Christianity is the stupidest idea ever and we need to move on, because there is no need for any 'atonement' and/or forgiveness. Believe me I don't 'think' I warrant a torcherous death either, but when I think about what several girls dads would try to do to me if they knew what I was secretly thinking about their daughters, I start to wonder whether I have a good sense of justice or they do. "for the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those being saved it is eternal life".
OK, just as an exercise, let's assume that the "wages of sin is death" and see if that makes Jesus' sacrifice make any sense.
What is meant here by "death". According to most people's interpretation of the Genesis 2 account of creation, there would have been no death if only Adam and Eve hadn't eaten that damned fruit. Because they did that, death entered the world.
So if the phrase is referring to that, then Jesus' sacrifice makes no sense since it accomplishes nothing We still die.
But you are using the phrase in context with his sacrifice and you must mean death to be something other than our physical death that we are going to go through anyway. So what could that be?
Perhaps you think that non-believers don't get a life after death (no hell ... just non-existence) while believers do. And that is the sacrifice that Jesus made for mankind.
But this too makes no sense either. If the biblical account is true then Jesus is heaven right now sitting at the right hand of God. So he HAS eternal life. He never made THAT sacrifice of eternal death that one would expect need to be paid in order to "balance" the ledger.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Guess I was wrong.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Seriously, there is a wealth of information on this subject already available, as it is one point on which Christianity stands or falls, and it has been debated for 2000 years. i.e. visit http://www.theopedia.com/Penal_substitutionary_atonement where you can get both critical and supportive arguments about the concept of divine substitutionary atonement in the scriptures. The critical is similar to what you have already said, the supportive is obviously a lot different. Its good to get the full picture on these issues before coming to the most intelligent conclusion. As it says in proverbs, "It is stupid to hate being corrected", and "the wise seek counsel".
I still believe in God, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't mean I think you're a horrible horrible person for not believing in Him. I guess when I stopped having faith in Him for like 2 or 3 days...(which is the most confusing time in my life I'd have to say) I just kept thinking about how the bible is something that I would follow.
Mostly bc the bible tells stories of Jesus and his followers and the struggles they all went through with faith and everything. Even if you think or have great belief that the bible is just like a made up childrens book wih alotta pages and words, you can learn something from it. I still attend church, and I'm not going to whip out all the stories I've heard, but I know that the majority of them don't deal with Jesus performing miracles. They can easily compare to things we do every single day.
It's been hard for me with my belief in God, but I try so hard every day to just ignore all the negative thoughts about Him.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I don't believe in what you are saying. But I think it's pretty cool that you admit to it, bc you shouldn't hide how you feel.
I guess I'm just doin the same thing
Ok i admit that i did not read all the comments on this page. I may be totally repeating or going over something already debated. (if so, sorry about that and feel free to roll your eyes and ignore this)
I think you have the wrong opinion of hell itself. Hell was never intended to be a punishment per-say. God didn't say "you have done bad. I want revenge so you have to go to eternal torture" The thing is that God is so holy, so pure that he can't be around sin. God repels sin and sin repels God. Hell is not the punishment for sin as much as the consquence. Hell is not intended to be a place of eternal torture for our sins, it is the place that is completly devoid of Gods presence because God cannot be around it. The reason hell is torture is BECAUSE it is completly devoid of Gods presence.
Yes, but god has the power to absolve a person of sin. However, if you don't believe in him, e refuses to do so. Therefore, you are being punished for your lack of belief because god doesn't like people who believe in the wrong god or no god at all and that is spiteful.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Sure it's not. That's why in the Bible it talks about a lake of fire we get thrown into if you don't believe in the supposed "only" God. Yeah, doesn't sound like torture to me.
But the fact that you can write that with a straight pen seems to me to be another example of the mind numbing desperation of theists to accept anything that provides a comforting sound bite.
In your scenario God doesn't toast my spiritual ass, but instead exiles me to some metaphysical wilderness never to have anything to do with me for the rest of eternity. Let's take a closer look at that.
(1) Depending upon how interesting this metaphysical wasteland is, that may not be such a bad thing. If your God is anything like the God of the bible, he is a thoroughly unpleasant guy, and if this spiritual wilderness is an interesting enough place then I may very well enjoy it more. But if it isn't then I will spend eternity in complete boredom.
(2) You say your God "is so holy, so pure that he can't be around sin. God repels sin and sin repels God". Er ... what type of wuss is this God of yours? (A) If God can FORGIVE sin, then by definition God can be around sin. Otherwise there should be no one in heaven. (B) Why should a fanatic who persecutes Jews, Gays, atheists, and any other he may consider unholy, be awarded this eternal blissful communion with God simply because he truly accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior, while an atheist like Mark Twain who brought joy to a great number of people but didn't think Jesus' sacrifice made sense should be left out in this spiritual wasteland? (C) After I spend ... let's say 40 to 50 googleplex years in this netherland, does it REALLY make a difference what I happened to believe those 100 years I spent on earth? Eternity is vastly long time, if we experience it, at some point the relatively short time we spend here on Earth becomes meaningless. Wouldn't make sense once we realize that we are in this spiritual wasteland to reconsider the evidence? Why should God think our acceptance of him in the spiritual realm is of no value compared to our acceptance of him in this world?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
sorry, but it's peevishly argumentative and not a substantive argument. therte's a difference . this section:
"Jesus died about 2,000 years ago. Unless I am badly mistaken none of us were even born at the time. We were totally without sin. So Jesus' death is evidently some "pay-forward" sacrifice. This means that somehow his death makes every sin humans make from that time on forgiveable by God.
"How does that work? Is it even reasonable? There are a lot of people who have been, are now, or will be in prison convicted of a capital offense. These people face emminent death. I suspect a few people have (or had) a relative -- a parent most likely -- who would willingly die in their place. Would it be a good idea to have a law allowing such an act?"
is emblematic of the problem. the first paragraph veers between sarcasm and a simple restatement of doctrine with the inclusion of the word "somehow" as proof of the doctrine's falsity, or perhaps its silliness.
the second paragraph asks a couple of unrelated questions about our social compact and uses a kind-of straw man argument to question the wisdom of a law that would allow stand-ins for capital punishment. the only analogy remotely connected to this might be the analogy that the romans were silly for enacting a law that allowed someone else to die in the place of the nazarene; worse still, the romans had done exactly that: that business with barabbas. they thought it was a swell idea.
criticism is hard. read "the god delusion" by richard dawkins. brilliantly argued and, amazingly, warm and occasionally humorous: the model of accessible atheism.
(1) The point of this blog is that the basic tenets of Christianity are ridiculous. The first paragraph you mention is to restate the problem in a way that show this ridiculousness.
(2) The word "somehow" is NOT intended as proof of anything. It is intended to highlight that there is no apparent reason for Jesus' sacrifice to do what Christians claim it does.
In a second, you are going to talk about straw-man arguments. A straw man argument is presenting a version of an argument that is not made and then shooting it down. That is sort of like what you have done here.
(1) The second paragraph you mention was meant to ask the question, "If it is a good and Godly thing to do to die for the sins of others, then shouldn't we humans do it as well."
(2) I was not questioning the wisdom of a law that would allow stand-in for capital punishment. I assumed the answer to that was obviously ... NO. I was questioning the wisdom of God having done the analogous thing with Jesus' sacrifice.
(3) If you think that it is analogous to the crowd choosing Barabbas to free instead of Jesus is more closely analogous to the premise of the paragraph than is Jesus' sacrifice then you are severely analogy-impaired.
(4) Analogies are analogies because they do not EXACTLY mimic what they analogize. But they do have a point behind them. My analogy is as I have stated above. I fail to see the straw-man argument you alledge.
To take? or to give?
It isn't hard to take IF it is on-point. Then it is very beneficial.
It IS hard to give useful criticism. You need to take a person's argument seriously. You need to make an effort in trying to understand what the person says, and not make up a meaning that you can criticize (THAT is a strawman argument, by the way).
LOL... I am very glad you like THE GOD DELUSION. I too think it is a very good book. But you are the first person I've encountered who used the word "warm" to describe the book that refers to God (Old Testament version) as "... one of the most unpleasant characters in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocide, filicidal, pestilential, megalom