/rel/ - Religion

Jewish view:
Jesus died as a threat to the Jewish leaders' power.

Christian view:
Jesus died for the sins of humanity.

Muslim view:
Jesus didn't die.

>>78
>for the sins of humanity
what does that even mean?

There are several reasons. The one known most is the one where Jesus dies to pay for the sins of man. This means that Jesus' blood covered the sins and wiped them out, similar to animal sacrifices. There "is no forgiveness of sins without blood, Hebrews 9:22). So some one had to pay for it. This was an offering to God for it (a sweet savor). Basically, he sated daddy's anger.

There is another one, in the far far past the Christian god can also be known as a monotheistic composite of the Ancient God El, since this is the same being known as Saturn or Kronus, he enjoyed human sacrifice. There is one forgotten verse before Abraham and after Noah that God claim to want all the first fruits of the earth after the flood, this included plants, animals, and young men. Either through ritual or war.

Another one is that Jesus needed to die. This death isn't the same as the first, but rather Jesus had to die to disincarnate and enter into the realm of Schoel. Due to Satan, having the power of death "for he loosed not his prisoners". Satan died to enter into this place to retrieve the spirits of ancient times that died and held prisoner there. Thus he took hold of the keys/power of death, which is repeated in the Revelations. Not without the power of death, Satan can't keep us.

The Last one comes from Edgar Cayce. Adam and Jesus was the same person and when he reincarnated as Jesus, he paid for his old mistake with his new action. The problem with this is that Jesus is known as the First born, not as Adam, but as the new spiritual man. So I wouldn't accept this one.

>>83
>Basically, he sated daddy's anger.

so that means i don't have to do anything and i go to heaven?

sweet

If I had to guess, I think it serves as a reminder that good people need to make sacrifices. Jesus was exceptionally moral, but was still executed as an example. This has repeated in some fashion throughout history, with good people making huge sacrifices just for doing good things.

My best guess. Kind of invented the noble martyr, at least in our minds.

>>79
Many religions, including Judaism at the time, slaughtered animals in sacrifice to God (or god).

Christ dying on the cross is a reversal of this. Instead of people offering sacrifices to a god, God is sacrificing himself for the people.

Pretty revolutionary idea.

>>91
No, it only means they you can finally leave schoel, not go to heaven

>>79
Basically to reconnect humanity to God by bearing the sins himself. God makes himself man in order to free humanity from the slavery it imposed upon itself by its initial rejection of God's guidance by eating of the Fruit of Good/Evil. Instead of being innocent we became tainted by Original Sin but Jesus allows us to rejoin with God and go to heaven after we pass from this Earth.

>>209
>There's no sacrifice if your immortal.

God became man and chose to sacrifice Himself. His flesh died, while His godly substance remained the same, and has remained the same in eternity.

>Why is the sacrifice needed in the first place? Prior rules written by God? God changed his mind about plenty of things, why not blood sacrifices?

After the Fall none but God could have atoned for man's sins and acted to lift man back up.

God has never changed in substance or purpose. Man has chosen to what degree he will conform to or deny God's substance and purpose, if he wills to at all.

>>227
>For whatever reason the people at the top got tired of the people killing and burning perfectly good animals.

This would be a really great argument if it had any basis in history.

>it's hard to say "God changed his mind" even though the Bible does it all the time.
see
>>214

Also, the Bible is not God, it is an inspired text written by men, so even if there seem to be contradictions in it that would not constitute God "changing his mind."

And even then, whatever contradictions you are hinting at more than likely result from your own faulty hermeneutic and an unwillingness to understand the context of a given passage.

>>228
Point 1:
Of course I'm no historian or theologian, so this is speculation as to a possible reason. But yes I think it is likely that for some reason Animal sacrifice became undesirable, which is why there needed a reason to change. Since religion was the way of controlling people it was put into religion. Being the amateur I am on this subject matter I can't offer any hard claims or evidence, though I doubt a religious person could either.

Point 2:
Many Christians, most if not all the ones I usually see, make the claim that "The bible is the infallible word of God." If you accept this than any contradiction or chance in rules would constitute God changing his mind.
The first example I can think of is in Leviticus when animals are said to not be eaten because they are unclean. Then later in Acts when he brings unclean foods and tells him to eat and that they are not unclean.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.

>>229
As a Catholic Christian I believe the Bible is inerrant. This means that of all possible interpretations of the Bible at least one is wholly true and without blemish or fault, conforming to reality and logic. The completely literalist interpretation is inherently and obviously contradictory, therefore it is not an inerrant interpretation of the Bible.

As for the specific instances you have cited:

"Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets."- Matthew 22:37-40

The whole of God's Law consists in loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. The dietary laws of the ancient Israelites were particular administrative expressions of this law in a particular time and place. With the coming of Christ and the salvation of all mankind, man has been lifted up and both Jew and gentile can be cleansed should they so choose.

God's substance and purpose, and God's Love and Law, have not changed. The way that man participates in them has.

>>230
As you may have guessed I'm an Atheist and the bible always has and still is used as a way to manipulate the population imho. They way I see it is to instill similar moral beliefs and a way to make the population look down on things that were/are bad for the society's continued success and growth. The dietary restrictions are one of the things I see this way.
So the unclean foods, such as pork and certain sea foods were deemed bad to eat because God said so. A more likely reason is that because of methods of preparing and storing the foods at the time these would commonly not elimate some of the harmful things in them or they would spoil more rapidly or even before the meat would show signs of not being good to eat anymore. This lead to a lot of sickness when eating these foods. Mass sickness is not good for the progression of society so this was set in place as a way to make people not eat those things.
If you were just told not to do it, its common for people to not take it seriously or think "Maybe some people get sick but not me." Or many other things along these lines. But a commandment from God is whole 'nother can of worms.
They become clean not because any of these things change nothing about the animal changed. Eating it raw would have the same consequences as the day before. What changed was advancements in food preparation and storage. This would make it a much lower risk. Not as detrimental to society's growth and well being. In fact more food sources would actually help the society.

It seems too convenient and too much like it was a commandment to man from man. Because if God were to suddenly make it clean something would have changed other than food handling techniques. Or at least the food handling techniques would have been divinely given that day or something instead of increased knowledge over time.

Your quote of Matthew is essential the Golden Rule with God plugged in. Again The Golden Rule is the best possible thing to keep a society in line.
Again it comes down to people not doing what they're told. Rebellious attitudes toward laws and customs, within reason of course a hard core rebel would even rebel against God.
If the Government or the Society tells him not to be a dick it's more easily overlooked than a commandment from God, with all the potential reward and risk on the line of a God's favor or wrath upon him.

>>232
The fact that religious morality is effective at maintaining an ordered society does not make religion false.

Quite the opposite really.

>The Golden Rule is the best possible thing to keep a society in line.

Indeed, one might say it is the basis of law and civics. In which case:

>pork and certain sea foods were deemed bad to eat because God said so. A more likely reason is that because of methods of preparing and storing the foods at the time these would commonly not elimate some of the harmful things in them

Would mean that banning harmful foods would be a particular expression of loving one's neighbor in a particular place and time where those foods are harmful.

Just because God's commandments have positive utilitarian effects does not render God false.

>>234
I would never try to disprove God's existence. It's quite the impossible mission.

The fact that it's seemingly so designed to control society for it's own benefit, those in charge of society have immense incentive to do this. Thus Religion to control society for it's own overall benefit.

It's more of an Occam's Razor argument.

Under my assumption of religion as a tool of control banning "bad" foods isn't necessarily an enactment of the Golden Rule and could be entirely selfish in that the society you have control over stays intact.

Also the Golden Rule as been discovered as a way of maintaining society in the best possible manner has been discovered by many people without seeing or hearing the words of the bible describing it and by those who follow other gods.
I see no reason to see anything divine about the Golden Rule.

>>235
>The fact that it's seemingly so designed to control society for it's own benefit

Since we're not here to prove or disprove God and just speculating, I'll say again that the fact that religious morality has positive stabilizing effects on civilization is more of a point in favor of the necessity of religion, rather than against it.

>banning "bad" foods isn't necessarily an enactment of the Golden Rule and could be entirely selfish in that the society you have control over stays intact.

It still can be an expression of God's Law in Matthew 22. Just because it may sometimes be derived from a selfish human impulse doesn't impinge on it's proposed divinity. Good things can come from bad impulses. The actions of Judas and King Herod led to the glorification of Christ, but I hardly think that makes Judas or Herod good men.

>the Golden Rule as been discovered as a way of maintaining society in the best possible manner has been discovered by many people without seeing or hearing the words of the bible describing it

This seems more like evidence that God has written the law on the hearts and minds of men (Hebrews 10:16) than a reason for doubting the reality of God.

>>75
Because he was nailed to a wooden cross and left for three days to die. He's not Superman you know.

>>236
I would completely agree that religion WAS necessary. Sigmund Freud has an excellent quote on this.
>The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind.

Yes, good things can come from bad intentions but it's the intentions that matter.
A man who is antagonized into a bar fight and in self defense throws a punch that causes the aggressor to fall in a such a way that causes death is not nearly as bad of a person as a person who has someone yell at him in said bar a chooses to shoot him and end his life.

Also I don't see Judus as a bad person in any way.Yes he betrayed Jesus and we generally see betrayal as a bad thing. Especially so in that it lead to his death and he knew it would.
However, this was his entire role. This was his purpose from God. He is performing his god given purpose in life, by Christian standards how can that possibly be bad?
We could also make the argument that even if it is bad, he had little to no choice in the matter. He was led or influenced by God to do something he normally wouldn't have.
God does influence free will. The best example is the Pharaoh. He is described as a person who might be likely let the Jews go on their religious field trip that they were requesting but God "hardened his heart" to ensure he would decline.

Catholics have accepted evolution to my knowledge.
This makes the Wrote in their heart thing not seem like the best answer to me.
The mind is controlled by a physical organ that is subject to evolution. As soon as humans began to make crude societies, being inclined to care for others in a Golden Rule manner is a clear advantage.

Now even if you accept evolution you can say that God used evolution to write these things on man's heart. I can see that argument coming but I don't think it's the best argument. Natural selection is not divine and in evolution this is what would have lead to this trait becoming common place in humans. Again Occum's Razor.

Also if this was something divinely instilled by God, it would be found in every single human. This is not the case, we do have sociopaths and natural evolution allows this as where divinity does not.

>>239
What has changed about the fundamental moral nature of humanity since Freud made those assertions? I would argue that the events of history since Freud's death are proof enough that explicitly abandoning metaphysics and objective morality has a net negative effect on the stability and longevity of a given culture.

I'm not a Calvinist, humanity has free will. Pharaoh and Judas could have made different choices. Whatever language was used in Exodus about Pharaoh's heart must be interpreted in the light of Christ and natural law or one is not reading the Bible as a Christian. In that light, it seems likely to me that the author of Exodus would have taken a dim view of Pharaoh and used poetic language to express the totality of his depravity, perhaps for the instruction and edification of his (originally) Hebraic audience.

Evolution is a mechanism that explains the development of organisms. As such it has no power to negate the innate moral law of God. Evolution does not preclude the possibility of a creator God and never has. Natural selection is a mechanism of selection, of course it's not divine, that doesn't mean nothing is or can be. Evolution answers the how, it cannot answer the why.

That sociopaths exist does not negate the moral law. If God just broadcasted His goodness to everyone 24/7 and prevented anyone from making bad choices forever, that would negate free will, the ability to love, and the very necessity of moral law in the first place. In the case of objective ethics, sociopathy is the exception that proves the rule. There is a reason it has been deemed a pathology and not just a talent for acting.

>>79
men do a lot of sinning, but the biggest was eve eating the apple, and since we all come from her, we are responsible.

>>251
I don't know, what has changed? Lots of wars? That's been happening since the beginning of time. Terrorism? See previous. Is this the kind of thing you're talking about? These are near all, if not entirely, perpetrated by religious parties who do hold objective moral values.
Are we talking about stuff like homosexuality, and similar things that hurt no one but God frowns on? First, I don't see a problem with it because as I said, it hurts no one and I what is said to upset God has no weight to me. If anything, things have improved.

"I will harden Pharaoh's heart" -God Exodus 7:3 (the formatting where I'm reading this is shit so I may be slightly off by reading the formatting wrong). I being the key word.
I do see what you're saying though. It's written after the fact and could be using certain language to portray a certain picture. This isn't a real argument for literalist however.
I think my argument still stands that Judus was not a bad person, and maybe even a good person.

Of course evolution would not eliminate the possibility of a god. It does not include a biogenesis and only acts once life is in place so just using evolution it's not impossible for a god to have created life and then it evolved.
It does, however, negate a literal creation as per the bible.
Our morality and every thing about our conscious being is caused by our brain, a physical thing that is subject to evolutionary processes. Humans being social animals, development of morality is a clear evolutionary advantage. Having a predisposition to moral behaviors, ideals and beliefs would probably be a better term but you get the idea.
It's not that god could not have done it so much as there are more simple reasons. Reasons that, given the knowledge we have, is easily predicted and explained. God is more a non-answer that just leaves more questions.

Sociopaths do not negate a moral law, no. What it does negate is the God has written moral laws in the heart of men argument.
A normal criminal does wrong, knows it's wrong and may likely feel bad about doing so for a while and eventually develop apathy toward the act but still has the understanding that it is wrong.
A sociopath does not and has never felt that these actions are wrong.
God would have skipped over him in the whole writing moral laws in the heart of men job for some reason.This is something that a god fitting the bibles description, being: all good, all loving and all just; would not do.

>>75

Because he decided to kill himself, and then started fucking around with the code and autoclipped through a rock and into the sky.