if he died for his own sins, to demonstrate that there's no reason to fear death. Just like Socrates died for the same reasons. Did the powers that were, the Pharisees and Sadducees, have him crucified because he was a free-thinker like Socrates?
>>468341
>if he died for his own sins
I've never seen somebody be so wrong so quickly.. Children have a better understanding of this than you. At least fire up google for a few minutes before parading your ignorance, son.
>Socrates died to show us theres no reason to fear death
Didn't you ever read Crito?
How was Socrates death in any way a message about not fearing death? He only was fine with it because his feet hurt and all these sophists weren't true Athenians
I stubbed my toe for your mortgage.
>>468367
according to catholics we the people, you and me, all have sins because we are made and born through fucking, so because jesus died he died for our sins, if he didn't die!, only being born was enough for God to torture us for all eternity, but jesus the clever man he was, died for our sins so God doesn't torture us. that is the basis of catholicism, that and masturbating without touching yourself on his mom.
>>468386
>all have sins because we are made and born through fucking
because adam and eve ate that apple and shit
other than that, anon is spot on
>>468386
Thanks. I never thought of it like this.
To recap, Adam and Eve "bit the apple" and then God sent Jesus to the world so he could die, which in turn would save humanity from God's torture if we fucked? I don't get it. What was God's line of reasoning (no pun intended) when he sent Jesus here only to die so he could stop himself from torturing us?
>>468367
Crito was by Plato, none of Socrates works are around today. Basically Socrates died because he though himself a man of justice, and following through with what the state proscribed was the right thing to do
>>468423
Interesting. Thanks anon.
>this thread
Enlightening and educational but man Christianity is fucking ridiculous. I don't know how anybody can actually believe this.
The abrahamic religions are a trip.
In order to fully commune with man, God had to die.
>>468435
Makes sense, its not like God is omnipotent and could have done it some other way
>>468443
By what he supposedly did, he makes himself come off as a Mickey Mouse, the apprentice magician.
>>468417
>I don't get it. What was God's line of reasoning (no pun intended) when he sent Jesus here only to die so he could stop himself from torturing us?
Haha anon, you don't get it. Everyone knows the answer.
>>468457
Exactly why Nietzsche said it's nihilism.
>>468423
But didn't Jesus do exactly that?
>>468462
the whole bible is a compilation of all kind of paradoxical bullshit, that could only be explained with a nihilist statement like "the fuck we know, it just is".
>>468471
Christ's death was very different from Socrates'. Socrates embraced death (at least Plato's version of him), and was anti-material (at least Plato's version of him). Christ was not anti-material, and consequently did not embrace death, he begged God for mercy.
>>468546
Wow.
>>468535
Thank you Constantine.
>>468583
God bless.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of sin at play here.
Sin is an actual active force. An individual goes to Hell not because of an arbitrary judgment by God, but because sin creates separation from God. Sin is the mark, the taint, of that which is not of God. Hence God is the judge because sin is what is opposite of him and therefore relies on his character. To cleanse sin and remove it, blood is required. The blood of something clean, sheep for example, cleanses existing sin. In the case of Jesus, his blood is holy to the point that it suffices to cleanse previous and later sin.
So what I'm trying to say is this. It was not God's choice that certain acts separate individuals from God. It was a mere consequence of his being. By virtue of good existing, the lack of good (evil, sin) exists and separates an individual from God. Jesus' blood therefore serves as a reconciliary force which cleanses sin.
Does that follow?
>>468443
Honestly the adherence to an omnipotent God is foolish and I cannot understand why people require it.
Does it not suffice that God is powerful enough to create existence? That he is the most powerful being? Why the necessity to ascribe infinite properties to him, of which I see no actual scriptural reason to believe. If anything these omni qualities create reasons for doubt, when the texts do not require them.
>>468546
Socrates sounds based compared to that whiny pussy
>>468634
by saying Jesus died for our sins, as in our later sins as you stated, meaning that we are without any future sin as the mankind and could never ever be separated from God.
Thus the question is, why does the idea of Hell still exists, since it is from Jesus henceforth redundant.
>>468417
Hell is not God torturing us. It is the absolute absence of all that is Godly. It is a mire of pure sin. It is, if anything, his absolute lack of presence and action that creates hell. So going there is not by God's choice. It is merely a requirement for creating that which is wholly holy and of God, which is heaven.
>>468653
Okay you're making a slight misunderstanding. The blood of Christ purifies future sins through its continuing action but it did not cleanse ALL sin. For Christ's blood to purify it must be accepted, so to speak. It requires acceptance, by virtue of the fact that sacrifice is an act, so is the renewing of Christ's sacrifice for the cleansing of sin. With each sin a Christian commits, the crucifixion must be renewed.
>>468423
He died because it's the right thing because the state told him to?
I always read it as the state was ruined by poor reason and political corruption and to prove it he committed himself to die to prove that a truly just man could not survive in such an unjust state
>>468650
Well don't forget the difference between their deaths. Socrates drank a lethal dose of sedative, fell asleep, and died. Jesus had a forced march, was severely whipped, and was hung by nails for hours with thorns pressing into his head until he finally died.
>>468669
>With each sin a Christian commits, the crucifixion must be renewed.
meaning in the grand scheme of things, realistically speaking, his act of crufixion in retrospective absolutely meaningless, since Christians have sinned countless of times.
>>468634
That would make sense if God actually defined sin instead of man
>>468679
Hemlock is not a sedative it's an extremely painful poison
>>468650
Socrates had a very different value system. Christianity sees death as unnatural, and the spiritual and the physical as complementary (the "carnal" in Christianity is the physical without the spirit--the old covenant was carnal, as represented by circumcision, the unleavened Pascha, and a carnal, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", code of justice). Socrates saw life as unnatural, and the physical and the spiritual as antagonistic.
When Christianity stresses the physical in opposition to the spiritual, it becomes carnal, like the Pharisees. When it stresses the spiritual in opposition to the physical, it becomes Gnosticism. Both are heretical, orthodoxy is harmony.
>>468682
I don't follow that at all. It has enabled the cleansing of countless numbers of sin. There's also an added component I didn't discuss which is the primary difference, as I see it, between a Jew and a Christian. The blood of Jesus does more than merely purify, it makes an individual holy. There is a spectrum, so to speak, of unclean, clean, and holy. Unclean is the thing tainted by sin. Cleanliness lacks sin. Holiness is of God. Jews, through the sacrifice of animals, were able to remove their sin. The sacrifice of Jesus, however, being blood literally of God enables a Christian to be holy and be thus inhabited by the Holy Spirit. This brings individuals closer to God, so to speak.
>>468685
In what way did man define sin? Sin began with the first divergence from God's will. The eating of the fruit was a direct contradiction of what was of God. It was the opposite of God and thus contingent and defined by God. Man was the first to enter into sin, sure, but that sin was defined as contrary to God.
>>468688
Sorry, did I misunderstand then? His legs began to grow numb, he laid down, and eventually he stopped breathing. Or at least that is what Plato wrote. Was he wrong?
>>468670
And so, as I said, he did it because he thought himself a just man
