Why is Jesus dying a big deal? For one, he didn't really die, Jesus is alive. Second, he already knew life after death exists so he wasn't sacrificing anything just returning to his former state.
How could He know life after death exists when He hadn't died yet?
>>439741
Because He is God and knows everything?
Either that or he is just a fallible human and his teachings shouldn't be followed
the creator of the universe chooses to become corporeal and suffer with and for his children. it's like how soldiers will have infinitely more respect for the general that charges with them than the one comfy in his tent scribbling battle plans in his tent while the real fight's going on
i don't really believe it but it's an extremely beautiful and evocative idea
>>439744
My point was that His death opened Heaven; there was no comforting afterlife, as far as the Jews of his time were concerned.
If you read the Gospel, He clearly felt great doubt, pain and fear in the garden before the Passion; ergo his tears of blood. You'll have to accept that omniscience doesn't mean the same thing as absolute certainty about every event. On top of that, as a conditioned temporal being (which He was during His life, if not before and after), it is possible and even likely that Christ did not know everything all the time, even if He had the verbal IQ to cuck the Pharisees whenever Be got the chance. Omniscience, except in the case of the Father, is always qualified and conditioned.
>>439761
>God is omniscient
>But not really
Still not a great sacrifice. All he had to do was die, something that every human ever has to do.
>>439767
This, dying early just means sacrificing X years of life and potential.
>>439761
Christianity is some balls-out Warhammer 40,000 shit when people explain it properly.
>>439767
Eh, if you're not willing to think about what the divine attributes are or how they relate to each other, I don't k ow what else I can say to you. The Father was satisfied with the sacrifice, and the possibility of redemption seems like a good consequence of it.
>>439773
Christ had no potential beyond His mission, which He accomplished with His death.
>>439775
The God-Emperor has nothing on God.
>>439795
>Christ had no potential beyond His mission, which He accomplished with His death.
So he sacrificed nothing. No one wants to die, but everyone dies. It's called the ultimate sacrifice, but all that really changes is the when. The difference is between the now and then, that's what was sacrificed, that span of time.
because it fulfilled prophecy. also his dying was a big deal because his image as a man - the image of sin - was destroyed on the cross. only through this process could satan actually be defeated. his death also allowed him to overcome that death (and satan), and after became the life-giving spirit, dispensing that spirit into us so that we could turn to it and be saved. his death and ascension were instrumental in god's plan of returning us to him.
life after death may exist but it is not eternal life. jesus' death granted us eternal life if we so join him.
>>439767
no he had to be judged on the cross by the father as well
>>439811
I don't see how His life was the same as nothing. You'll have to explain to me how something is the same as nothing if you want your hyperbolic statement to hold water.
>>439832
>Christ had no potential beyond His mission
Christ was not sacrificing his potential when he died. He was fulfilling it. Therefore, nothing sacrificed, because for a normal human the only thing is the sacrifice of the potential of those years lost.
Fear is not the same as sacrifice. Fear is simply a negative emotion of aversion. At best you could say he was brave.
>>439845
He wasn't sacrificing His potential, He was sacrificing Himself--that is, His actual life-force was destroyed in the Crucifixion. He fulfilled His potential by destroying His own actuality, or by allowing it to be destroyed.
>Fear is not the same as sacrifice
I never said His fear was His sacrifice, I said He was afraid because He knew He would be sacrificed. Check your reading comprehension.
1. Man is a sinner
2. The penalty of sin is death
3. God loves us so much that He died for us
4. Man can now go to Heaven by simply believing in Jesus Christ
>>439739
I'm atheist but let me explain it.
Whether we should take the bible literally or not, it can be divided in two functional parts. The first shows the story of Jesus, his followers, their life and struggles. No matter of the angle from which you'd interpret it you have many different people here. From state officials to fishermen all living their life and trying to become better. Then you have didactic part, which tells you the principles of faith. Again you can believe that Jesus said it all or that it's something that's just attributed to him - it ultimately doesn't matter.
What matters is to show the listener, reader or whatever that his sins are forgiven, but it doesn't mean his struggle ends - it's death that ends it.
>>439884
>He wasn't sacrificing His potential, He was sacrificing Himself--that is, His actual life-force was destroyed in the Crucifixion.
And we're not disagreeing. But everyone's life-force gets destroyed. Just because you get your life force destroyed now doesn't mean it wouldn't have eventually gotten destroyed later. The difference again, is then and now, and your potential in the span of time between then and now. If he had no other potential in the span of time, he didn't sacrifice anything. He just changed the date of his death.
>I never said His fear was His sacrifice
I didn't say that's what you said. You were using his fear to support the idea that Christ was sacrificing something, fear was used as proof of sacrifice.
>>439901
The crime is life, the penalty is death
>>439761
>You'll have to accept that omniscience doesn't mean the same thing as absolute certainty about every event
kek
>>439911
I think you're only talking about the NT and not the whole Bible, but this is pretty spot on.
>>439923
nice meme
>>439920
>He just changed the date of his death.
I actually don't understand what you're trying to say here. If God had never taken on flesh, God never would have died. The second person of the Trinity wasn't always flesh and blood. Prior to the Incarnation, He couldn't have dieda human death, since He hadn't begun to live a human life.
>You were using his fear to support the idea that Christ was sacrificing something, fear was used as proof of sacrifice.
I was using it to emphasize His humanity, the sacrifice would have been valid if He had laughed through the Passion.
>>439739
Only people who were once actually alive can die. Fictional characters don't fall into that category.
>>439931
Of course I'm only talking NT since for Christians OT serves mostly historical purposes except from few very basic parts because of new covenant and such
>>439951
Don't most historians agree that Jesus was crucified?
Or is that just because most historians are Christian?
>>439901
>The penalty of sin is death
Okay, so a good Christian should kill himself of he believes that
Wasnt, just better documented than others
>>439761
>cuck the Pharisees
Refusing to directly answer challenges and making up your own rules doesn't qualify as beating them in debates. Even in the book of Acts its clear Jews were starting to get wise about the whole Messiah act and they saw it was bullshit, so they focused on gentiles.
>>439923
Boring.
>>439923
Theists literally only have insults to offer, huh
>>439775
some of the desert fathers have some fucking metal descriptions of theology
Like the Eucharist being literally baby Jesus being sliced apart and soaked in His own blood to be eaten as raw flesh, but it's so gruesome to watch it's done through the guise of bread and wine, but the Saints with the gift of clairvoyance see if as it is.
Also all the crazy shit with the angels, like the Thrones. Just look at this thing.
>>441729
Yeah the celestial hierarchies are pretty wacky.
>>439775
You should check out the Summa Theologica:
>It is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. Thus the magicians of Pharaoh by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs. And "when fire came down from heaven and at one blow consumed Job's servants and sheep; when the storm struck down his house and with it his children---these were the work of Satan, not phantoms"; as Augustine says
>Some spells are so perpetual that they can have no human remedy, although God might afford a remedy by coercing the demon, or the demon by desisting. For, as wizards themselves admit, it does not always follow that what was done by one kind of witchcraft can be destroyed by another kind, and even though it were possible to use witchcraft as a remedy, it would nevertheless be reckoned to be perpetual, since nowise ought one to invoke the demon's help by witchcraft. Again, if the devil has been given power over a person on account of sin, it does not follow that his power ceases with the sin, because the punishment sometimes continues after the fault has been removed. And again, the exorcisms of the Church do not always avail to repress the demons in all their molestations of the body, if God will it so, but they always avail against those assaults of the demons against which they are chiefly instituted.
>>443754
So Warhammer is basically a theodicy, defending Catholic spirituality and Thomist interpretations of Scripture by showing a future infested with daemons that can only be fought with righteous fury and which often cannot even be fought at all?
>>443801
I figured a fedora like you wouldn't believe, but Thomas goes on
>>Some have asserted that witchcraft is nothing in the world but an imagining of men who ascribed to spells those natural effects the causes of which are hidden. But this is contrary to the authority of holy men who state that the demons have power over men's bodies and imaginations, when God allows them: wherefore by their means wizards can work certain signs. Now this opinion grows from the root of unbelief or incredulity, because they do not believe that demons exist save only in the imagination of the common people, who ascribe to the demon the terrors which a man conjures from his thoughts, and because, owing to a vivid imagination, certain shapes such as he has in his thoughts become apparent to the senses, and then he believes that he sees the demons. But such assertions are rejected by the true faith whereby we believe that angels fell from heaven, and that the demons exist, and that by reason of their subtle nature they are able to do many things which we cannot; and those who induce them to do such things are called wizards.
>>444462
At last I truly see how scientific and philosophically sound Catholicism is
>>444462
Not a fedora, I was being completely serious. I'm a confirmed Catholic. Warhammer is closer to Catholicism than anything else, aesthetically.
>>445111
... Why would you believe in something that is clearly fiction?
>>445120
Are you talking about Warhammer or the Gospel? I don't believe in Warhammer.
he did die.
he was 100% God, 100% man. he was physically born, he was a child, he was lived a human life for 33 years. he suffered on the cross like a human would, putting the sins of the entire world on his back
it's a big deal, because the literal creator, the one who gave you existence, was abused, whipped, spat one, killed, so that you can have eternal life. so long as you believe
>>439767
On the cross He endured the pain of the judgements from the sins of all of humanity
>>440574
Nope, he should spread the word of God with the life he's given
>>445139
Any magical book... Just... Why?
>>445335
The Bible is a falling le document, produced by inspired (but fallible) human beings. It isn't magic at all. Its narrative recounts sacred histories, but it's ultimately just a finger pointing at the moon.
If you're asking why I'm a Christian, it's because I simply believe in the Resurrection and in the salvation of mankind, and I don't think there's a superior religious ethos to Christianity's. I find Catholic theology to be a fascinating and essentially correct system of belief.
>>445361
>it's because I simply believe in the Resurrection
Just... Why? Might as well believe in Warhammer, or not a believer at all since you know in your heart you have no good reason to believe the lie
>>445394
Why do you believe in Atheism and Bernie Sanders?
>>445394
Why do you believe you're alive? Might as well believe in Warhammer.
>Ancient peoples used to believe that blood-sacrifice could atone for sins and restore harmony between man and the divine
>Jesus gets politically outmaneuvered and killed by more intelligent men shortly into Jerusalem visit
>Apostles can't accept man they followed for years being snuffed out faster than Ned Stark
>"He planned to piss everyone off so he could die the whole time! It was only through sacrificing himself that he could wipe away the debt that he was holding against humanity, ever since Adam and Eve ate from tree of Knowledge and plunged humanity into sin."
And yes, inherited Original Sin is a concept that must be accepted to be a Christian. A savior would be useless without something to save humanity from.
>>439739
I'd take the question more seriously if you didn't use a Dawkins memepic.
>>447833
Dawkins raises a good point and it is relevant to the question
>>446166
Give us some evidence and reasons to believe we're alive and that the young God-Emperor isn't walking among us right now.
>>439739
>For one, he didn't really die, Jesus is alive
>he already knew life after death exists so he wasn't sacrificing anything just returning to his former state
Jesus did in fact die, he then was resurrected, I would hardly call "being resurrected in the spirit" a "return to former state"
>>449461
The former state would be godlike in heaven
>>449445
We have a pulse.
There is as much evidence for the god emperor as loch Ness monster, zero.
>>439942
>If God had never taken on flesh, God never would have died.
Except God didn't die, and he knew he wouldn't die before taking on the flesh. His limitations of omniscience only apply when he is in the flesh.
>>449476
>Jesus existing before Jesus's birth
Jesus is the incarnation of the word, also
>using the word "godlike" for God
>>449527
So you're saying God wasn't always a trinity?
Also, yes, godlike because some Christians claim that Jesus lacks God's omniscience, "but about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"
>>449491
What do you mean?
>>449541
The Word was always God. The Word was not human prior to Christ's taking on flesh.
>>449562
Is God dead? Are you Nietzsche?
If God died but isn't dead, then his sacrifice is not the same as someone who dies, and remains dead. Therefore, his death was not death in the human sense of the word and can not be compared to human death.
Therefore, before becoming flesh, he knew becoming flesh would not have the same implications as someone actually born of the flesh undermining his supposed sacrifice.
>>449567
>He doesn't understand reverence
>>449571
The son obviously existed before it became human. So yes, it returned to a prior state. Or perhaps even to a better state. Either way, not much of a sacrifice
>>449573
Why do you think that's true, though? You're just making assertions about the nature of Christ's death (it can't be compared to human death) but I don't see anything supporting them. What does anything I said in that post have to do with Nietzsche?
>>449576
nigga you can talk about your dead jew friend without literally sucking his cock every time you type out "he"
>>449581
>not much of a sacrifice
That's subjective. God disagrees, as do a billion+ of people on Earth.
>>449588
We must capitalize His name to reassure everyone that He has a Penis and is male, the Son and the Father are superior to and woman god
>>449588
>Capitalizing letters = fellatio
I guess it is 2015, after all
>>449589
He objectively didn't sacrifice anything. Nothing was lost
>>449587
So is god omniscient or not? The only claim why god would not be omniscient is because Jesus was in the flesh and therefore not omniscient. If God isn't dead, he didn't die in the human sense. People die when they are killed.
>>449594
That isn't objective. Do you know what a sacrifice is?
>>449595
>The only claim why god would not be omniscient is because Jesus was in the flesh and therefore not omniscient.
Therefore His omnisicence was conditioned. The Father was unconditionally omniscient while the Son was conditionally omniscient.
>If God isn't dead, he didn't die in the human sense. People die when they are killed.
The Creed says
>He suffered death and was buried
Not
>He suffered a death identical to that of any other human and was buried
Christ was fully human and fully divine. Demanding that he simply die and not exist after that is demanding too much of his divine fullness.
>>449624
>Do you know what a sacrifice is?
Yes. An act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.
>he didnt really die
He did. He literally physically died.
God Himself, as a human being, died.
He paid the price of our sins.
>>449594
you're ignoring all the replies that end your argument
>>449732
His death was merely an abandonment of the flesh. That's not much of a sacrifice.
>>449670
So He (important, because He was God become flesh) was a sacrifice (given up despite his value for the sake of something more worthy).
>>449786
No it wasn't. He literally physically died. He went though a phenomenologically and empiricallu identical process to the one normal humans go through when they die.
>tfw you are starting to believe that we are living in a simulation of some sort and that Jesus was a brief self-insert by the creator because he felt compassion for us
The question is what heaven would be then.
>Jesus had to die for our sins
>Because we couldnt
Sorry I can save myself, thanks.
>>449853
Heaven, obviously, since you've basically just described Christianity. The Matrix is Neoplatonism for plebs. If you accept the premise that Jesus was a Neo-figure who came to reveal the nature of the simulation and make it possible for us to escape it, you accept the conclusion that Christianity is correct.
>>449833
>given up despite his value
Except he's still alive and well, and all value is retained.
>>449900
How?
>>449906
So if I were to crucify you, right now, that wouldn't be a meaningful sacrifice?
>>449912
Not if I ascended to godhood afterwards, no. And my life it just one life out of billions.
>>449833
So do you plan on being God after you die?
>>449912
It would be a loss, but not a sacrifice (unless my death caused something good to happen as well)
>>449905
I wonder why the church doesn't describe Christianity more along these lines (not literally calling life, a Matrix, though of course). I feel like it would resonate a lot more with people.
I am not very religiously educated beyond knowing a few hymns from two years in a Christian school and going to church every Christmas. Would somebody mind telling me more about how heaven is described in scripture?
>>449923
>It would be a loss
How can you justify that?
>>449930
>I wonder why the church doesn't describe Christianity more along these lines (not literally calling life, a Matrix, though of course). I feel like it would resonate a lot more with people.
The problem is that borders very strongly on gnosticism.
This world is fallen, but it's very real, and it's not inherently evil.
We are not trying to escape this world, but the corruption in it.
>>449906
but his sacrifice grants us eternal life. we drink the water and the blood cleanses our sins
>>449908
If I was the one that fell into sin in the first place, doesnt it only make sense that IM the only one who can redeem myself?
>>449938
no there will literally be a new world on the second coming
>>449945
no, only god can save those from sin. sin is weakness. you can't escape weakness through weakness
>>449948
But isnt admitting you cant do anything anymore and require a savior the weakest thing I could do?
Wouldnt I escape sinful weakness by having the strength to live up to virtue on my own?
>But humanity is inherently weak!
Says who? Why cant I gather the strength to withstand sin and overcome it?
>>449945
Let's not even get into redeeming yourself. Have you stopped sinning anon?
>>449978
>Why cant I gather the strength to withstand sin and overcome it?
Because you are not god, and your unwillingness to accept that fact is the source of all sin.
>>449920
No, because I'm not fully divine and fully human. I'm only fully human.
>>449978
you can't escape sin without god's salvation
>>449989
Dying seems like a considerably less meaningful sacrifice when you are both fully divine and human rather than when your humanity is the only thing that is you.
>>449981
What is sin?
I have not acted from greed or pride for a long while as far as I can remember. I stay relatively healthy and keep up with my studies.
But let me guess, I have sinned, because all humans sin? If this is the case, humanity is inherently sinful by the very nature of its humanity. Why should I then be ashamed to be human? Why should God forgive me for my very nature; do I forgive toads for being slimy or lions for being murderous? Does God?
>>450007
except that jesus's sacrifice is the most meaningful sacrifice to ever occur, considering the entire point of human existence is to contain god and be one with him. this is only made possible through his sacrifice as the last adam. no point considering this from a humanist point of view
>>449931
I would be gone, it would at least be a loss to my family and the company I work for.
>>450016
>I have not acted from greed or pride for a long while as far as I can remember. I stay relatively healthy and keep up with my studies.
How many hours a day did you spend helping people, anon?
All you've offered so far is respectable bourgeois values, not being free from sin.
>>450016
sin is not the default nature of humanity. man was not created to be sinful, but took on the aspects of sin and satan when he ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, rather than the fruit from the tree of life, which was intended for him. sin has corrupted man and separated him from god.
>>450036
>I would be gone
You can't verify that.
> it would at least be a loss to my family and the company I work for.
All value is retained if you persist after death, remember?
>>450024
>except that jesus's sacrifice is the most meaningful sacrifice to ever occur, considering the entire point of human existence is to contain god and be one with him. this is only made possible through his sacrifice as the last adam.
It's a meaningful sacrifice only because what was gained was so much, not that what was lost was so much.
It's like having to sacrifice your all your money for getting 10 tons of gold.
>>450049
Oh boy, I hate to tell you anon, but meaningful sacrifice really is not possible, with your understanding of it.
>>450040
What is the knowledge of good and evil?
It sounds an awful lot like Rationality. Is God mad at us for having Reason?
>>450065
You seem confused.
The entire event, including the positive gains, were extremely meaningful, because of the positive gains.
The sacrifice itself measured in what was lost or given up is was relatively very little.
Since there are some theologically knowledgeable anons ITT:
(to play devil's advocate) If you are a moral person and don't accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, will you be allowed into heaven?
>>450086
No, because then you rely on your own works and deeds.
God says that none is good, we have all sinned.
>have you ever told a lie?
>have you ever stolen something?
Every human that has lived is a sinner and has broken God´s laws at some point.
Self righteousness won´t get you into heaven, it also makes you prideful and boastful.
There has to be an intermediary, a bridge, a saviour. That saviour is Jesus Christ.
>>450086
>devil's advocate
You're advocating for the Devil, and the Devil means to lead man astray. Since it it a plot from the Devil and needs you to advocate on his behalf, no. I'm not even going to answer your question. The answer to whatever plot you're trying to do while trying to pose a seemingly innocent question is a Devil plot.
>>450105
What if you kill baby when it is born?
>>450111
:^)
>>450037
Oh, so freedom from sin is a postitive duty?
But spending all my life helping others isnt something EVERYONE could be doing; then there would be no one to help. Thus is falls on only select few; but then charity as you say it cannot be a universal duty (freedom from sin or virture), as it cannot possibly be universalized. So is freedom from sin different from person to person, and thus sin itself different for each man?
>>450086
My understanding of Heaven is in keeping with the Eastern Orthodox perspective. The difference between heaven and hell is not one of worldly pleasure, and worldly torments, and we go to one or the other if we reach a certain score.
The difference is one of how we relate to goodness itself. Place in the light of goodness, of God, some people react and will react differently.
My favorite way to explain it is that for an alcoholic, heaven is a place with no alcohol, and hell is a place with a 24 hour open bar. He's going to have to chose where he wants to spend eternity.
The reason why we're not big on this thing being decided by being a "moral person" is that outward morality is largely the effect of you circumstances.
Christianity is "check your priveledge" at a cosmic level. You weren't born into the Second Congo War and drafted into a rape gang when you were twelve. You never had anyone elses neural configuration. You never encountered or can know all the tests that you haven't failed because god hasn't put them in front of you.
>>450127
These are good questions! Will answer when I get back from the gym.
>Non-theists proposing challenging, thoughtful questions in a civil, genuine manner
>Christians retorting with strong responses that show understanding and acceptance of questioning
>Not a shit has been flung
Jesus /his/ really is the worst fucking board, fuck you guys.
>>450044
>You can't verify that
What? What are you even arguing for anymore?
>All value is retained if you persist after death, remember?
Except I rot in the ground
>>450081
You sound like you don't think human life has any value.
>>449590
> Cult-tastic!
>>449930
Heaven is existence in the presence of God.
I would say that the big difference between this interpretation of Christianity and Gnosticism is that Gnostics see matter as evil. To say that matter isn't evil but merely inferior to the Divine substance is entirely in keeping with mainstream Christian doctrine. The ultimate goal of Christianity is entry into the presence of God and salvation from the levels of existence where God's presence is occluded (Earth) or unknowable (Hell).
>>450127
>Oh, so freedom from sin is a postitive duty?
Freedom from sin is freedom from everything that holds you back from greatness. It's not just that you don't do the work, it's that you're held back by things that make it "work." We call it freedom from sin for a reason.
The choice of the life of a saint and the life of a sinner isn't one of taking the hard path of perseverance through will into a joyless existence, and an easy path to simple pleasures.
The happiest people I know are holy people, people who live their lives around love of their fellow man, and love of God. Sin is not just my failure to live like them, but everything that holds me back from doing it.
>But spending all my life helping others isnt something EVERYONE could be doing; then there would be no one to help. Thus is falls on only select few; but then charity as you say it cannot be a universal duty (freedom from sin or virture), as it cannot possibly be universalized.
It can through a virtue ethics framework, that is, all of us have to be the kind of person who will aid others in need without hesitation, even if that aid isn't required.
This is the difference between the word of god and the word of satan. Satan (and understand I am talking about something bigger then a man with a pitchfork here) wants us to believe our virtue is not required if the consequences can be negated. We can all be misers if no one is poor. We can all be rapists, if no one is a victim, we can all be gluttons, if there is too much food to waste.
But your point that if we all did our duty, our duty would be meaningless leads exactly into why we cannot atone for sin.
Even if one of us went forth and sinned no more, and achieved through our own will, heavenly perfection, that person could not atone for their sins. Every sin is a violation of a divine commandment, and every act of obedience is merely the fulfillment of them. It would be as if I could cease to be a murderer by simply not murdering people again
>>450289
It has value to an individual because it is the entirety of that person's existence as an individual, and irreversible. For God-Jesus, it's only part, and reversible.
>>450448
>It has value to an individual because it is the entirety of that person's existence as an individual, and irreversible
Why do you think this is the case, though? You're just asserting.
>>450305
Only men can be priests, because how could a woman rape an alter boy up the ass?
>>439739
>be yaweh
>omniscient
>make man knowing he will sin
>get angry when man sins
>send self to earth in the form of own son to die agonizing death for man's sins that you created
>>451876
crucifix shaped strap-ons....
>>450453
If I had full divinity, I'd be willing to give up my humanity in full much more easily than if my humanity was my only self, as it is now.
>>450453
The "both fully human and fully divine argument" is retarded to say that the human sacrifice is just as much of a loss as for any human.
Say there are two kinds of people, people with two eyes, and cyclops. If both people sacrifice an eye, the physical flesh and organs lost are the same. One eye each. But the loss for the cyclops is far greater, because he loses the ability to see. It's the same with the "fully human" and "fully divine" argument. A person who is not divine may give up the same flesh as Christ, but they lose more, because they lose the ability to be.
Before accepting your arguments about Jesus, sin and sacrifice, you must first provide an explanation of why the Bible is a reliable source of information, much less the divine word.
>>452086
An argument can be valid without being sound
