Raised Catholic but never got the "sacrifice" of Jesus's death

[K8-EEE]

One thing I never understood is the basic concept of blood sacrifice -- ie, the unjust torture and murder of Jesus OR ANYBODY serves a purpose and "saves" other people.

IMO, it shouldn't have happened -- and yet Christians are glad this happened because it's in a violent script that was written for him BY HIS OWN FATHER.

Like if Jesus would have just been able to live his life and express his philosophies, it would have served no purpose without this violence.

And is it really a "sacrifice by God of his only son" if God is EVERYONE'S father and can do or have anything he wants on his own terms....and could have "begotten" a million more sons in the same way.

This always seemed like such an uninspiring story to me. The Christian God seems like a mean alcoholic dad.....I think there might be a God somewhere but I can't believe it would be a "father" figure that would set in motion things that would be psychotic for a human father.

[Bread and Circus]

1. The blood sacrifice is a fundamental myth in the human psyche that well predates Jesus.

We love sacrifices, the bloodier the better.

[fasttense]

2. When I was very you, and first paid attention to the "Christian" story,

I was very disappointed. When the nuns in Catholic School got to the part where they beat Jesus and nailed him to the cross, I asked, "Did Jesus cut down everyone with flames and torture?" Since he was God's son, why did the people get away with hurting him?

The "Christian" story has no consistent internal logic to it.

[liberal N proud]

3. How about this:

Jesus had to be sacrificed because of one sin by two people. Yet we are all saved regardless of our sin.

Really, Adam and Eve ate an apple which they were told not to, this caused Jesus to be sacrificed. Yet many have been killed and can be saved if they believe.

[MADem]

6. Well, that apple is a metaphor, you know.....

Adam and Eve did the nasty....that's why there was a SNAKE involved!

Ergo, men and women are henceforth required to feel guilty about sex!

It's in the BIBLE!!!!

:rofl:

[K8-EEE]

12. I can see Adam and Eve being a metaphor for greed

Like, when you have everything you want what you don't have -- for instance in you have a wonderful spouse and are happy, someone not as good can come along and because you can't have them you want them, your bad behavior causes you to lose your family.....

Or the same with money, you have enough to have everything you want and and up in a jail cell because you had to cheat people in order to get more.

I don't think the Bible stories are stupid except when taken literally. I was 40 years old before I met a fundie who actually believed that story happened, talking snake and all. Catholics to sort of teach the moral to the story and not Bible literalism.

[MADem]

18. I see them as "doing what comes naturally" and getting hollered at for it!

You don't dangle an apple at someone (load them full of hormones) to "test" them. The whole lesson, to my mind, is OBEY AUTHORITY. Become an idiotic tool. Do NOT QUESTION. EVEN if it makes NO sense!!!!

It's why I find the whole fable just....dumb.

And of course, the religious authority you aren't allowed to question is usually the guys in the dresses (liturgical Christians, Muslims) or the bozos in the cheesy shiny suits. And we know how they have managed to abuse their authority over the years.

That sort of teaching is just, well, perverse. It's like wandering into a Weight Watchers meeting with a great big honking tray of freshly made brownies and waving them under the dieters' noses, while telling them that they're not to have any--only a really mean sumbitch would do such a thing.

And the "Supreme Being" really shouldn't be cast as a mean sumbitch, but he (and it is always a he, I notice) is. They try to gloss over this bit by suggesting that HE works in mysterious ways, and that's why his brutality just "seems" mean.

But we're not stupid. That kind of teasing, toying, and cruelty, even if it is just a silly fable, is perverse and a lousy lesson. It does make The Supreme Being seem like a vicious drunken stepdad!

[get the red out]

25. People lost their teacher

and needed to find reason in it. I think they went the wrong direction, the opposite of what their teacher would have wanted. It seems that Christians have tended to crave "sacrifice" because of the way they justify their teacher's execution rather than joy and love. It seems love almost makes them ill at this point.

[MADem]

29. And love, ironically, was the teacher's greatest lesson. NT

[K8-EEE]

31. Yes I also think they crave sacrifice & persecution

as a result of having that story pushed on them.

I had a Christian tell me with a straight face that Christian politicians are "punished for their beliefs" I'm like um....are you kidding me? Someone like me, an agnostic, could not even run for national office in this country! I could have maybe 200 years ago but not now. It seems to me that agnostics are the ones who have cathedral ceiling, unless of course they get all Jimmy Swaggart and start faking it (which I have a feeling is the case a lot of the time)

They just tend to think they are persecuted even when they are doing the persecuting (ie, gays "threatening marriage" when it is in fact the Christians who threaten the gay marriages!)

[Critters2]

88. All human groups engage in scapegoating and sacrifice.

Witness the treatment of AIG bonus recipients.

There's nothing new under the sun.

[raccoon]

79. Or a vicious drunked biological dad. nt

[Why Syzygy]

80. Do you really believe

that the temptation was about sex?

[patrice]

24. Regardless? So it doesn't matter what a person does?

[liberal N proud]

33. Depends on the story the precher is telling

[MADem]

4. The Christian God seems like a mean alcoholic dad.....

:rofl:

The Muslim version isn't all hearts and flowers, either!

[K8-EEE]

5. Muslim God as well, mean alcoholic dad even though

being Muslim he would not be drinking....

I find both fundie Christians and Muslims obsessed with violence & attribute it to their religions glorifying it.

[MADem]

10. Hitting the hash pipe, then....

The fundies on all sides of the fences are a bit tiring.

[Why Syzygy]

7. The wages (cost) of sin is death.

It was demanded by sin, not God. The Resurrection is the real story.

[rox63]

8. I was raised Catholic as well, and I didn't understand it until

I saw the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ", which the widely protested by the Church as blasphemous. Twelve years of Catholic school only served to make me an ex-Catholic.

[patrice]

27. Read the book in Catholic highschool. It just encouraged me to believe what is real in

Christianity, though not necessarily real, or not 100% real, in Catholicism.

[Xipe Totec]

9. As a student of Aztec blood rituals, I totally got it

The New Testament makes a lot more sense in the original Nahuatl...

[Orrex]

11. A great deal is fundamentally wrong with that myth

First and foremost, if a person and only that one person could redeem billions by his own death and suffering, however horrific, then what kind of asshole would that person have to be not to go through with it? Especially when that person is one and the same as The Almighty?


A more profound sacrifice would be this: to lose one's "divine" birthright, to suffer, and to die an ignominious death, thereafter enduring hellish torment for eternity.


As it stands, the myth basically says "put five dollars in the poorbox, and then in three days you'll get one hundred trillion dollars in return."



I've never found it especially convincing, except as a means of guilting Catholic kids into doing this or that thing against their will.

[MADem]

13. You just explained the why of it, though--it's a Ponzi Scheme--something for very little!

As it stands, the myth basically says "put five dollars in the poorbox, and then in three days you'll get one hundred trillion dollars in return."

See, that's how you keep 'em in line--you promise them a treat LATER if they're good NOW.

Islam does the same thing--paradise and virgins.

[Orrex]

19. Funnily enough, I didn't even mean it that way

I was simply referring to the low-risk nature of Jesus' sacrifice. Sure, it totally sucked for a few days, but after that it's smooth sailing.


But you're right, in that the metaphor is the kind of "hook 'em" scheme that really gives the religion its leverage.

[patrice]

32. It doesn't say that because his next to last words on the cross were "Father, why have you forsaken

me?" and then "It is finished." Doesn't sound very hopeful does he?

Then, the tomb was empty; they did not know exactly what happened to Jesus. There were those who "saw" him here and there before he "ascended", but if you've ever been around anyone who has lost someone near and dear to themselves, that kind of language is quite common AND those stories were written down AT LEAST 20 years after it all happened.

It boils down to this: there was this great teacher; he taught from a recognized tradition (which in its orthodox form doesn't even acknowledge an "afterlife"), but also independently from that tradition and regardless of the wishes of his government; this got him in trouble with both church and state, so they colluded to torture and kill him, JUST LIKE HUMANS HAVE BEEN DOING TO OTHER HUMANS FROM TIME IM-MEMORIAL ALL OF THE WAY UP TO THIS VERY MINUTE; no matter what the specific facts of the life/lives of a man/men who became known as Jesus, the things that t/he/y taught ARE TRUE. If people NEED facts to BELIEVE in, they have no Faith, but regardless of whether they have Faith or not, Truth does not require Faith. Faith ***MAY*** be sufficient, but is not NECESSARILY sufficient, to Truth. Whatever you believe about that empty tomb, the Truth that Yeshua taught does not depend upon what you believe. Truth/Right is justification unto itself, without any kind of quid pro quo. That's the message Yeshua was living and that's why he, according to the myth, does not recognize rewards in his last words.

[Orrex]

43. 'It is accomplished!' sounds downright triumphant, though

I guess it's a matter of which Gospel is to be taken as, well, Gospel. :shrug:

Also, since as you note the stories date from substantially after the purported events, the writtent text can't seriously be taken as accurate or authoritative. And that's before we even get into the issues of canonicity and who held editorial power.


Great teacher? Sure. Why not? His message wasn't particularly new or particularly original, but it was enough to qualify as sedition and to get him nailed to a cross, and any way you slice it that's got to suck.

[patrice]

45. Yes, I guess, if you assume you know the definition of "It". People make a lot of assumptions about

the powers of human language to equal the ineffable. Jesus used the only words he knew.

As to our points about the accuracy and authority of the written texts, agreed, and that doesn't even mention the fact that ALL of it was spoken for at least 20 years, before it was even started to be written.

"Great" in the sense that many people recognized the truths he offered to them and they are still recognizable today, in the same way that Shakespeare was a Great teacher too.

[grammysandie]

14. Well, I'm no theologian but...

The way I understand it is that Jewish law required blood sacrifice to atone for sin. Jesus was the final blood sacrifice that fulfilled Jewish law once and for all, closing that chapter and opening the door to everyone: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

As far as Jesus coming to earth to live as a mortal man, it was so that he would be able to see the temptations and woes of life through our eyes and therefore be more compassionate toward us when we are weak and fail.

The emphasis on God giving his only begotten son kind of annoys me, because he didn't lose his son in the same way I would lose my son if he died. God got him right back a few days later, so focusing on his "generosity" in "sacrificing" his child seems to me like missing the point entirely.

[Lint Head]

15. I think Jesus it is an example of sacrificing self for the greater good.

His life is basically the first example in human history of someone dying to communicate the willingness to die for others and to shine a light on the poor and unfortunate. It is something that rises above ones self when you are willing to die to basically 'advertise' the fact that we need to care about each other and help each other. Looking at it that way is not blind faith or hee-bee jee-bee religiosity but a truism of human existence.

We all need to rise above the 'cave man' mentality of survival of the fittest and the greed of 'I am more important than you' BS because we are all in trouble when it comes to the increasing violence to each other and to the planet we live on.
:dem:

[K8-EEE]

22. I understand that martyrs are brave

But if the dad writes the script before he is born -- it's like a suicide bomber, not a very beautiful story, just IMO.

[patrice]

34. It's not a beautiful story. It's Horrible and Sad and eternal until each and every individual

freely recognizes the Truth that Lint Head refers to above. That's where religion got off track; they sanitized it all and sugar coated it so they could sell it and, in the process, ENSLAVED those who became addicted to their self-righteous justifications, instead of seeing their own complicity and GUILT in crucifying Yeshua EVERY DAY.

Oil Kings = Pilate (the Oil state/government);
BushCo = Herod (money as religion);
ALL of the Innocent Dead = Jesus.

And I mean that as a literal Truth.

[patrice]

35. Very well said.

[Critters2]

83. This is it exactly!!!!

Have you read the works of Rene Girard? If not, you don't need to. You're restating them beautifully!!

[Speck Tater]

16. My own pet theory ...

which is probably nonsense, but it makes sense to my uneducated mind:

When an animal was tied up near a tree to be killed and butchered for food, eventually some animal herders began to notice that the figs (or apples, or mangoes) on the butchering tree grew larger. Not realizing the fact that blood makes excellent fertilizer, they might have come to the conclusion that the fig god, (or the apple god, or the mango god) was pleased by the sacrifice and rewarded the herder with better or more abundant fruit wherever blood was spilled.

Eventually, the notion catches on that the gods (or THE God) reward blood sacrifice with better crops. Once the practice of blood sacrifice finds its way into the culture then extending it to the Son-Of-God myth is perfectly reasonable. The reason why it makes no sense to us is that we understand how fertilizers work, so the notion of blood sacrifice is no longer relevant when Miracle Grow works just as well as blood, and there is no longer any need to include God or gods in the carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen loop.

[Hugabear]

17. Not much of a sacrifice when he supposedly raises him from the dead, is it?

Of course the whole thing is pure myth anyways.

[Lint Head]

20. Raising himself from the dead was something that other people

said after he supposedly died. That would mean he did not make it up someone else did. The reason may have been a message to the king and military that they had a power over them that the military could not kill. There was a lot of superstition at that time.
Everything we are saying is just speculation 2,000 years later.
:dem:

[K8-EEE]

62. I think that's a really good point

Especially since so many things in the Jesus story were sort of urban legend type things floating around different parts of that region back in the day.

After all many different rulers have been successful in co-opting the Jesus legend for their own gain. Just the fact that we of European descent are here in this continent is kind of Exhibit A re: that!

[patrice]

21. Because that happened, we have Communion. In the words of the Consecration you have those

something to the effect (you'll have to pardon me, it's been a while since ...) "this is the bread, work of human hands, may it become the bread of life forever). We are to learn compassion and service from the suffering of others, not only because we are at least indirectly responsible for their suffering, but also because what their un-requited suffering denies each of us in our own humanity.

[provis99]

23. read "The Golden Bough" by James Frazier

it is pretty much about how the "blood sacrifice" permates every religion. Nothing particularly new or interesting about it in Christianity.

[K8-EEE]

26. I know it exists in other religions but from my experience

It always seemed barbaric. I can get into some Jesus teachings and the morals of some Bible stories but the bloody death and subsequent "rewards".....it's not something that I've ever believed in or been inspired by.

[patrice]

37. An important piece of early Religious Anthropology.

Also, from a linguistic/semantic perspective, Robert Graves's The White Goddess.

[Critters2]

85. Which Girard disputes in _The Scapegoat_. nt

[patrice]

38. I looked it up when I noticed it in one of the scenes in Apocalypse Now, with Brando

in his lair, speculating on the meaning of his life.

[Critters2]

84. Actually, there is something new and interesting about it in Christianity.

Christianity says it was a bad thing, names it as violent and wrong, and hopes it stops happening.

[hlthe2b]

28. One of many areas of Catholic doctrine that makes little sense...

Lots of others, but a basic question: how can the religion be monotheist when we have all these Saints and the holy trinity to worship?

I ceased trying to make sense of it. As Bill Maher points out with respect to Catholicism, the Pope and the Priests, why would God insist on all the middle men?

[K8-EEE]

30. well you don't worship them exactly, Catholics believe in the "intercession" of the saints

The saints are more or less like middle men, also, there are specialists among them, for instance if you lose something you pray to a specific saint (I believe St. Anthony) so as not to be bugging God for every tiny thing.

I know it sounds silly but I did believe my "patron saints" were hanging around for little requests, to help me out -- that I did believe as a child , the whole "jesus died for you" I never got that.

[patrice]

46. Magical thinking is a primitive form of understanding that the recognition of Truth IN - forms us

and, thus, makes truth manifest in our lives, which makes some things possible (though not gauranteed), such as sub-consciously remembering, and thus going to, where it was that I left that darned ____________, like "the power of positive thinking".

[hlthe2b]

49. Admittedly, I still hope that St. Francis looks after my beloved...

doggy girl (who sadly has a rapidly growing mass in her abdomen).... It is a reassuring and hopeful thought... Why not?

[K8-EEE]

68. I totally understand that.....

It's nice to think there's somebody who can control stuff we can't control. It's therapeutic in a way -- but I still don't believe it's true. The saints are kind of like a more grown up version of Santa Claus IMO.

[patrice]

39. By definition, why would ANYONE be able to say anything specific about "God" one way or the other?

[Marrah_G]

74. Especially when some of those "saints" are really just remade Pagan Gods and Goddesses.

Brigit/Brigid comes to mind quickly.

[zeemike]

36. It is a case of humans making something complex out of

something simple.
The whole purpose for the death of Jesus had noting to do with the ancient notion of blood sacrifice at all.
But you would only know that and understand it if you know and understand the story.
The reason Jesus had to die as a young man is to show the disciples that there is life after death. You must remember that at the time the Jews did not believe that the soul went on after death and Jesus for all his abilities to explain it to them was not enough to erase years of traditon...that is clear at least to me in the accounts in the Gospel.
Had he just died then his teachings would have been forgotten and there would have been no new testament and we would have not known of Jesus or his teachings.
So Jesus preformed the ultimate trick he raised his body from the dead and came back to show the disciples that what he tried to teach them was true. And remember that only after that did they become an organized church because of his appearing to them in the body to show them what is possable...All of this is clear if you actually read and understand the new testament as a story.
It was only later after the church was corrupted, that all the mumbo jumbo started with the vague and confusing stuff about blood sacrifice.

His death was a demonstration not some pointless sacrifice with a vague purpose.

[patrice]

40. So, there must be a reason to believe the Truth? The NT Truth would not be real if Jesus didn't

acquire "life after death"?

[zeemike]

42. Not to them at that time.

In their belief at the time the Christ was going to come to earth and defeat the Romans and free them from the occupation of Israel.
They had been taught for centuries that death was final and there was no life after death. And he was unable to convince them by saying that his kingdom was not of this earth.

[Why Syzygy]

53. Your point is exactly what

people are choosing to willfully ignore.

It makes them feel more godlike if they can condemn the death rather than examine the resurrection.

[K8-EEE]

63. Raising yourself from the dead is a trick even after natural death....

I don't see why he needed to be tormented & murdered first....

[zeemike]

65. One rarely get to chose the type of death

And if he could have I am sure he would have chosen to be hanged or something. But the Romans used crucification and were in charge of execution them.

[K8-EEE]

66. But it was all predicted ahead of time

So the people who did it were in a way just going along with the script....so it was really God's fault.

[RandomThoughts]

41. This is how I think about it.

Not sure if it matches any accepted theologies or doctrines of churches, so I am not trying to speak for any church or anything, this is just the way I think about it.

If you accept that sin or spirits exist in the material world, and they inhabit people. And the stain of sin is letting them into a person, then you have an existence where when a person sins, they are not clean and have a spiritual thing inside them.

If you are tempted, and stay in the spirit of God, and do not allow the sin in, it does not bother you, nor inhabit you. But when a person gives in to temptation, that spirit of sin it is in them. If a person maintains the spirit of God, by staying in love, and kindness, humility, and the other things of good, then the only spirit that is in us is the Holy Spirit, made up of the saints and heavenly angels through Jesus Christ.

In many cultures in animals sacrifices, The sin of a person is put into the animal, then the animal is killed, and the sin runs into the ground through the blood. Or it goes to death when the sacrificed animal dies.

Of coarse even this mechanism was taken to create sadness when some groups started to sacrifice people, that is wrong, in that it creates sadness and goes against one of the strongest loves the love of a persons family. Some cultures were being compelled to sacrifice children, an unneeded modification to sacrifice.

That is why Abraham was shown that the sin could be ran into death with a ram and not his son.

Also Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable to God, because it was not living, and could not run the sin into death. And with the sin still in him, Cain then murdered.

The scapegoat is the same thing, the spiritual sin is put into the goat, and the goat is ran out of town.

So God had a way to solve the problem completely. By sending his own son, with God's spirit in him, that son, Jesus Christ, with the spirit of the one that lives in all time simultaneously, could take the sin of the entire world past and present into him. And then into death through his crucification on the cross.

When a person asks for forgiveness today, that sin is part of the sin that was taken into Jesus when he died on the cross 2000 years ago, he can at any time take all our sins if we just ask him to. And when we ask he takes those sins into death, 2000 years ago. And being the son of God, with the keys to heaven and hell, he left hell with the saints, and rose again in the resurrection.

So now to run sin out of a person, to chase away that which makes us unclean, all we have to do is turn that sin over to the lamb of God, and in the moment we do that, that sin then is taken to death 2000 years ago, and is not a burden to us.

That was the sacrifice of Jesus the son of God on the cross for me, that is how I think about it.

The book "The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe", has another take on this, or expands on it, where it says that when man gave power to evil in the garden of eden, evil gave that power up when it crucified an innocent man, the son of God. In that book, the table for sacrifice was ended at that point.

Another interesting look at it, where it says that the blameless Christ took away the power of evil to ever judge, since it proved it judged wrong by sacrificing the son of God. So again only God can judge, and I think God judges by allowing people judge themselves by how they judge others, and always offering away out of self judgment with his love and grace.

Others may think differently on this, this is just how I chose to think about it.

Today we do not have to sacrifice, nor wallow in sin, we can be made clean by Jesus's sacrifice. And being clean we can think on the better things, and try to be joyful without sorrow or shame.

Some think the taking of sin from us is to let us sin and just 'get away with it'. I believe It is to make us whole and clean again so the Holy Spirit can once again guide us in the ways of God's love and peace.

[saltpoint]

44. Agree with others here that blood sacrifice predates Jesus of Galilee by

some centuries.

So it is no more, and no less, than an extremely ancient idea superimposed on the stick figures in the New Testament.

“He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood shall have eternal life.”

--Jesus of Galilee, c. 30 C.E.

“He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall know salvation.’”

--Zarathustra, c. six centuries before Jesus

The pre-Homeric pantheon of gods and goddesses also required sacrifice and often intervened to impose sacrifice or redeem it.

[struggle4progress]

50. I'd be interested in any evidence supporting your claim that the founder

of Zoroastrianism is the source of words commonly associated with Christian communion

Since the religion survives, and since traditional religious forms change only slowly, you ought to be able to support your claim precisely, if it is (in fact) true: it is my understanding that there is no real evidence to support the claim

[saltpoint]

52. Z followed a ritual eucharistic meal.

This construction predates Jesus, by some centuries, and very likely predated Z as well.

The contention hinges on its antiquity.

Allegory of flesh to bread or blood to wine is not "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian."

That it was used across centuries bolsters Jung's claim that the allegory/metaphor is enigmatic to the "uninitiated ear," but understandable and welcome to "the initiated." And it supports Jung's claim of antiquity as both the realm of myth and the wellspring of archetype.

"The eucharist," as it is practiced in many (though not all) Christian churches, is archetypal in that it springs from the modern unconscious unbidden, its source being the deep past.

Z and J were respective adherents to the mysteries.

[struggle4progress]

56. Um ... I asked for "evidence," not bald assertion

[saltpoint]

57. You're in a dictatorial mood this evening, s4p.

I'm sorry you don't like my comment on Christianity.

I'm keenly interested for some years now in antiquity. If you want a discussion, I'm willing to have one. But I'm not jumping through your hoops of fire.

Sacrifice by fire, as it were.

[struggle4progress]

59. Translation: you can't support your claim about communion

[saltpoint]

76. It's actually quite a bit more than not being able to support the

quotation, inasmuch as I have it as Zarathustra's and not Mithra's, to whom it should be ascribed.

The translation is that I bungled completely the quotation to advance a point.

As well, there is only one person in this exchange who was correct from the start, and that is you.

I am sorry to have bungled a chance to open the conversation a bit, which was my intent, despite my obviously testy behavior which I would assess as akin to a horse's ass.

And for which I sincerely apologize. I was raised to know better and I am sorry.

I have long read your posts on DU and respect the intelligence that informs them. Don't think I don't, and expect me to give them the respect they deserve in all future readings.

[struggle4progress]

77. It's my understanding that the only surviving Mithraic liturgy dates from

the fourth century. The following translation does not mention bread, and here is the part that mentions wine and death:

... O Lord, while being born again, I am passing away; while growing and having grown, I am dying; while being born from a life-generating birth, I am passing on, released to death -- as you have founded, as you have decreed, and have established the mystery ...

Take a sun-scarab which has twelve rays, and make it fall into a deep, turquoise cup, at the time when the moon is invisible; put in together with it the seed of the lotometra, and honey; and, after grinding it, prepare a cake. And at once you will see it (viz. the scarab) moving forward and eating; and when it has consumed it, it immediately dies. Pick it up and throw it into a glass vessel of excellent rose oil, as much as you wish; and spreading sacred sand in a pure manner, set the vessel on it, and say the formula over the vessel for seven days, while the sun is in mid-heaven:

"I have consecrated you, that your essence may be useful to me, to _______ alone, IE IA E EE OY EIA, that you may prove useful to me alone. For I am PHOR PHORA PHOS PHOTIZAAS (others: PHOR PHOR OPHOTHEI XAAS)."

On the seventh day pick up the scarab, and bury it with Myrrh and wine from Mendes and fine linen; and put it away in a flourishing bean-field. Then, after you have entertained and feasted together, put away, in a pure manner, the ointment for the immortalization. If you want to show this to someone else, take the juice of the herb called "kentritis," and smear it, along with rose oil, over the eyes of the one you wish; and he will see so clearly that he will amaze you. I have not found a greater spell than this in the world. Ask the god for what you want, and he will give to you ...

http://www.hermetic.com/pgm/mithras-liturgy.html

[Why Syzygy]

54. I think some connections between

Zoroastrianism's water and fire can be inferred. But, not communion, I agree. I think. I thought I was replying to "blood sacrifice". As for taking the communion sacraments as literal, I believe that is a mistake. More likely, the blood is Life and bread the sustenance.

[davidwparker]

47. To redeem man, a man would would have to die. If you never got the

"sacrifice," then you should have gotten "penalty for sin is death." Therefore, the death -- the shedding of the blood -- was needed for redemption.

It is true that Y'eshua (Jesus) is the Son of God. It is also true that Y'shua (Jesus) is part of the triUNITY, along with the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). It is the Sh'ma that says, "Hear O, Israel: The Lord our God, The Lord is ONE." (Deut 6:4)

So, the Son is God, since the God of Israel is ONE (ehad). And, far from being a "mean alcoholic dad" as you expressed.

It is God's grace that he chose to redeem man, rather than annihilate Adam and Eve on the spot. It was God Himself who took the corrective action to deal with man's sin and at the same time remain true to His nature. God demands perfection and with Y'shua's sacrifice, paid the penalty for man's fall with salvation coming to those who believe. (The second death to those who do not.)

If you didn't "get" the Catholic doctrine, try Messianic Judaism. Google it and see if there is a congregation in your area.

[K8-EEE]

48. Oh no thank you I'm not looking for any congregation or doctrine!

No I certainly do NOT believe that torturing and/or killing anybody is ever a good or necessary thing nor do I believe in collective guilt, ie, I have guilt re: somebody else's sin. Especially sins committed thousands of years before I was born!

I'm just like having a forum where I can ask questions that got me in so much trouble in school! It's interesting everyone's different take on it.

[Why Syzygy]

55. Does that mean

that you are without sin? Excellent! You get to cast the first stone!

[K8-EEE]

60. Without sin, no

Without sin would be perfect, I don't believe being in a "congregation" makes one perfect? Also as I said -- my sins are my own and I try to learn from them and become a better person. I did not inherit sins from Eve eating and apple. No other person can die for my sins -- I don't believe in such things.

[Why Syzygy]

64. The most difficult

thing for all of us, is to admit our shortcomings.

[Why Syzygy]

81. Does

Messianic Judaism adhere to Zionism?

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Well, I've come to a different conclusion - one that assumes

the interpretation of Jesus' death is off.

I don't think Jesus needed to die in atonement for our sins. I don't think God demanded some sort of sacrifice at all.

I think Jesus' death and resurrection were the strongest possible message that God could send to us - about the impermanence of death and about the depth of God's love for us. A love so great God willingly took on human form, human fears, human pain, even human death - to show us that it's not all there is, and to use the strongest possible message that humans could understand. Words would only reach so many on their own, prophets and teachers only so many. To me, this isn't about punishment or attonement at all. It's about a supreme act of love by a loving God, told in the language that was most likely to reach us.

[rug]

58. We wouldn't get it if it was anything less.

[struggle4progress]

61. Jesus Christ (Woody Guthrie)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDS00Pnhkqk

I don't think Guthrie quite gets the theology right, but I think he explains pretty well why one should regard the crucifixion as inevitable

[K8-EEE]

70. I love that

In the days I was into Catholicism, that's what I really loved, the social justice aspect, this was in the 80's when so many courageous priests and nuns were standing up to RW regimes in South America.

I don't know what happened -- but by 2004 when I left the church, I couldn't find anybody who even thought that way. My (what I thought was) liberal congregation in L.A., everyone was so sucked into the GWB wars, nobody seemed to give a shit about the people we were bombing over there. Even the priest was so freeper-esque about looking at the Iraq war like, God was all for it. It literally made me lose my religion which for some time had just been a habbit anyway. In a way I can thank GWB for getting my Sunday mornings back!

[hedgehog]

67. I am attending a seminar on the writings of St. Paul offered by the Religious Education

office of our local Catholic Diocese.


From 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1:

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."
20
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
21
For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
22
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.


(1 Corinthians, Chapter 1)

Clearly, people were already debating the meaning of the Crucifixion in this, one of the earliest written Christian documents.

In the class, we were told that God did not demand nor want Jesus to die on the Cross. Jesus went up to Jerusalem to proclaim the truth knowing that the odds were that he would be killed. What happened, happened. He put himself in other people's hands and was crucified. Consider for a moment what might have been if those involved had allowed themselves to hear Jesus's words. Did Jesus really have to die?

Put this in terms that we can perhaps relate to better. What if Martin Luther King had not been shot? Would this country still be segregated today? King knew he was risking death. He didn't want to die. But he also knew that unless he stood firm, nothing would change. This one man will be remembered and honored for centuries while the powerful men who killed him are already being forgotten.

Jesus took the worst we could hand out, and it didn't matter. He wouldn't stay dead. He died an excruciating, humiliating death, but triumphed.


FWIW - in the last two Sundays, two different priests have preached at Mass that God demanded that Jesus die on the Cross. I have to say, the interpretation we were given in class makes a lot more sense.

[K8-EEE]

69. That is interesting.

It's true that getting killed makes more "news" and is a more dramatic statement....

The version I always heard was that Jesus knew he would die and even magically knew some specific details of how it would go down (ie, before a certain time a specific person will deny me to the authorites X amount of times.)

Having been through Catholic school (which I am very grateful for, it was all in all a great experience & great education) I can see how the emphasis on pain and cruelty Jesus went through "for me" frankly, is used by the Church to guilt trip you from the earliest stages of life, ie, make you feel guilty for complaining about the classroom being too hot and stuffy.

The nun would be like, "well do you think Jesus was comfortable on that cross with nails in his hands? And you complain about sitting in a hot room??" And of course in the greater scheme of things, it's convenient for the Church to encourage martyrdom, if people feel they will have a special place in heaven they will get very jihadist courage-wise, charge right into the infidels.

So this standard of "whatever you suffer, Jesus suffered WAY MORE" is kind of a useful tool to control people, IMO.

[hedgehog]

71. I would say that you are describing people distorting the meaning of the Cross

as a way to control other people. I'm not saying that this was always done deliberately. For example, a lot of women in those days entered the convent and a lot of men entered the priesthood not because they were called but because they felt that by suffering they were somehow fulfilling God's will. I know women who left after Vatican II because they finally understood that it wasn't God's will that they suffer.

I don't think that Jesus died to make a dramatic statement. There's a joke about firemen being the ones crazy enough to run into burning buildings while everyone else is running out. While many have mixed motives for being firemen, at the bottom they run into burning buildings hoping to save a life and every year some of them die. Do they want to die? No. Are they forced to enter the fires? No. They freely choose to do the best they can to save other people.

Anyone who suggests as someone did in a thread above that it was easy for Jesus to die on the cross because he knew it was temporary doesn't understand pain.

[K8-EEE]

72. No I understand it was not easy but it was also done to other people

besides him....I mean that was their regular weekly thing, now it would seem to me that Christians would be against the death penalty (my church was) and against torture and brutal occupations of other nations etc. but unfortunately, if you look at the "Christian values voters" like at Freeperville, they ONLY are against Jesus's pain and suffering and actually kind of dig the idea of doing it to people they hate.

[Critters2]

86. Sounds like your teacher has been reading Girard, who is Catholic

and blames humans, not God, for Jesus' death.

[Marrah_G]

73. I never quite got it either.

[K8-EEE]

75. I just want to thank all the posters on this thread!

It is really, really rare to be able to question basic tenets of religion and get such interesting and thought out answers for so many different perspectives. The questions that got me in trouble as a kid can be discussed in a civil manner here. DUers (of all different beliefs!) are just the best!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. substitutionary atonement is a stupid doctrine.

Zombie death cult, it is.

[Critters2]

87. And wasn't a part of Christian doctrine until the late middle ages.

It was invented of whole cloth by Anselm. No one thought this way before him.

I recommend you read the works of Rene Girard on this.

[Critters2]

82. Girard says that all groups of people engage in scapegoating

and sacrifice, and religions were created to help people feel less guilt about this practice. The usual pattern is to sublimate the violent sacrifices by creating myths that blame the gods for the violence, or that show them as being a good thing. Then, the act of the scapegoating itself is forgotten.

The difference in the Christian telling of the sacrificial story, though, according to Girard, is that Christians did not sublimate the story, but kept telling it in its most explicit and violent form, and laid responsibility at the feet of the crowd, Pilate, Herod, and even some of Jesus' followers (as in Peter's denial).

The idea of substitutionary atonement, blaming God for the sacrifice of Jesus, doesn't arise until the medieval scholastics, most notably Anselm. Before this, the story was told with humans being held responsible for the murder of Jesus. God "gave" his Son up to this violence, but did not commit the violence Godself.

As to whether Jesus should have lived out his life teaching his philosophy, Girard says Jesus' purpose was to stop sacrificial violence by shining a light on it and by teaching empathy for the victims of violence. By going through it, he showed it for what it was.

Girard states these ideas in his book _The Scapegoat_, which I recommend.