If God is holy, He could simply forgive our sins instead of this loophole, a part of it dying on the cross, causing torture on Himself, Jesus! That does not make any sense at all. Are you saying that God could not forgive our sins until Jesus' sacrifice was made!? Which kind of Omnipotent God is if He could not simply forgive?

How does a person who hasn't had a lobotomy make sense of this? — frank

My high school Jesuit teachers had advised me to pray for the Grace to accept (without comprehending) the sacred Mysteries. Well, I couldn't lobotomize myself and thereby permanently gave up God – the zombie rabbi on a stick – "for Lent" (i.e. eliminated supernaturalia from my ontology aka "magical thinking") forty-five years ago.

My high school Jesuit teachers had advised me to pray for the Grace to accept (without comprehending) the sacred Mysteries — 180 Proof

Did you ever try to accept it without understanding it?

Are you saying that God could not forgive our sins until Jesus' sacrifice was made!? — MoK

Apparently so.

Apparently so. — frank

Is there a reason mentioned in the scripture for this torture? That is the God of the very old Testament, Human sacrifice to perhaps please God to do things no one but God can do. What is the difference between the Old and New Testaments?

Did you ever try to accept it without understanding it? — frank

Of course not, there aren't any compelling reasons (other than wishful thinking / childish habit) to do so.

As the song says "If you believe in things / that you don't understand / then you suffer / Superstition ain't the way!" :victory: :naughty:

The Christian myth wasn't that different from other mystery cults and resurrections stories of that time. Resurrection was a common trope going around in the Hellenic world at the time (see for instance the cults of Osiris, or Mithra).

One common theme in religion going back as far as we know, is sacrifice to appease the Gods. It used to be more human sacrifice because the blood of humans was thought to be more powerful for that purpose. Gradually that changed to animals and such, but you had to sacrifice more and more to get the same result because the blood of animals is less potent... If you sacrifice the literal son of God, well now we are talking some real sacrificial value.

People tend to want to blame something or someone for their misgivings, and will look for stories to believe in that give them a narrative that supports that. For more recent examples look at Q 'anon and all the bizarre conspiracy theories that contributed to anti-establishment politics taking over. The Roman empire had a lot of enemies, external and internal. As it started crumbling more and more in the 3th century, Christianity with it inversion of values and apocalyptical vision, had the ideal anti-establishment narrative for end-of-days Roman empire... Christianity was essentially an anti-imperial collapse cult. That there are some holes in the story matters less than the motivational boxes it ticks.

How does a person who hasn't had a lobotomy make sense of this? — frank

How does a person who expects a respectful exchange of information ask a question like this?

How does a person who has survived life beyond childhood think the explanation for all of human history would simply make sense?

We can’t agree if the cat is really on the mat or not. Do you think it will be easy to explain what God is on the cross or not?

Don’t you already know the answer? Lobotomies are fairly easy to obtain. Good explanation. Why are you checking your math?

No one brought themselves into existence. Our lives are a gift. We each take this gift and demand more than we even care to give back, and steal more, and murder and lie about it. Instead of crushing us out root and stem, God marked us down as incurring a debt. Then God paid the debt for us.

Make of this second chance what you will. That’s the story. All makes perfect sense to me.

allowing Himself to be tortured to death. And apparently this strategy worked in spite of the fact that he didn't actually die — frank

You could do the autopsy 20 feet away from the body. The cause of death had something to do with all the blood loss from the beating and whipping and spikes and spear in the gut. There was a burial. As far as walking around afterwards, that’s up to you to trust, but you would need a lobotomy to say he wasn’t dead.

Is there a reason mentioned in the scripture for this torture? — MoK

John 3:16 states the doctrine of the Propitiatory Sacrifice. The torturing part probably comes from the way the Romans executed people. Kierkegaard talks about what it was like as a child to contemplate an innocent person being executed in that way.

One common theme in religion going back as far as we know, is sacrifice to appease the Gods. It used to be human sacrifice because the blood of humans was thought to be more powerful for that purpose. Gradually that changed to animals and such, but you had to sacrifice more and more to get the same result because the blood of animals is less potent... If you sacrifice the literal son of God, well now we are talking some real sacrificial value. — ChatteringMonkey

I wonder if swallowing the cognitive dissonance could be taken as a personal sacrifice. Christianity is really gruesome and then the Holy Communion is supposed to give you some of Jesus' blood and flesh to eat, just in case the whole thing wasn't weird enough up to that point.

That there are some holes in the story matters less than the motivational boxes it ticks. — ChatteringMonkey

So this is my question: is it more that a bizarre narrative (whether Christian or Q-anon, or whatever) is a expression of something deeper in the community? Or is it something that's warping the consciousness of the community? Or both?

How does a person who expects a respectful exchange of information ask a question like this? — Fire Ologist

I just typed it in and pushed the button.

John 3:16 states the doctrine of the Propitiatory Sacrifice. — frank

I asked for a reason why such a thing is right from God. John 3:16 states what I asked: Whether Jesus' Sacrifice was necessary. I also asked what the difference is between the Gods of the Old and New Testaments.

I asked for a reason why such a thing is right from God. John 3:16 states what I asked: Whether Jesus' Sacrifice was necessary. I also asked what the difference is between the Gods of the Old and New Testaments. — MoK

The OP is asking about the lack of logic in the core Christian doctrine. I don't think it makes sense, but it's survived for about 1800 years. How does a story that makes no sense survive that long?

I wonder if swallowing the cognitive dissonance could be taken as a personal sacrifice. Christianity is really gruesome and then the Holy Communion is supposed to give you some of Jesus' blood and flesh to eat, just in case the whole thing wasn't weird enough up to that point. — frank

It wasn't weird at the time, Christianity took from common tropes. Maybe it is now and that's part of the reason it doesn't work as well.

So this is my question: is it more that a bizarre narrative (whether Christian or Q-anon, or whatever) is a expression of something deeper in the community? Or is it something that's warping the consciousness of the community? Or both? — frank

I don't think the narrative is so bizarre compared to other myths, it is bizarre if you expect it to be realistic in a modern way. But yes I think it is an expression of deeper needs of a community, and it has in turn an effect on the consciousness of the community too yes.

I think a community forms around or with certain ideas and narratives, otherwise it's not really a community. I've said this part before, but etymologically religion comes from the verb 'to bind together'... I think as an eu-social and language-using species we need something that fills that function.

It's pretty simple. But I shan't spoil it for you and others like you.

Basically, back then, there were much, much, much less words in existence that could only be communicated with context in speaking. Written languages are relatively new. Your so called "earliest recorded history" despite proof of intelligent human activity long before.

In the original language before what is commonly attributed to original language in the Bible, the words "large", "tall", and "intelligent" are the same word. So the "giants", or "sons of God" were basically your modern day intellects. Who had to be "flooded" or "overwhelmed with force" otherwise they would have killed off all humanity leaving only themselves. Remember, they weren't murderous, they just saw how we create our own hardship and wanted to relieve unneeded suffering in the world. But I digress. I've said far too much already. Ask and ye shall receive, of course.

We do our best to translate and listen to those greater than ourselves. But we inevitably always fail.

Perhaps people read this exchange and change their minds!

It wasn't weird at the time, Christianity took from common tropes. Maybe it is now and that's part of the reason it doesn't work as well. — ChatteringMonkey

I think it's weirder than you're giving it credit for. John 3:16 is alluding to Abraham and Isaac, with God the Father as Abraham and Jesus as Isaac. That was not a common trope in the Roman world where Christianity took shape. There might have been knowledge of child sacrifice that took place in Carthage centuries earlier, but it would have been contemplated with dread, not devotion.

The twist is that in the Christian myth, Abraham and Isaac turn out to be the same entity. They're two aspects of one God. So at best, the story is horrifying, at worst, it just makes zero sense.

What myth is even close to that bizarre?

There might have been knowledge of child sacrifice that took place in Carthage centuries earlier, but it would have been contemplated with dread, not devotion. — frank

It's something you won't understand unless you're raised into it. You'd just go crazy and think the world is a simulation if you knew the truth.

Think of it as being on a desert island before a boat was invented. There's a whole new realm to be discovered, at least, according to those who believe in said branch of religion(s).

Really. Just imagine it. You're on this island, it's all you ever know. And some guy starts talking about how there's "a whole world out there basically like Heaven with flowing waterfalls, delicious meat, food, and such beauty it would make your heart skip a beat." You'd call the dude crazy. Laugh at him, maybe give him a little smack "back to reality" as you'd say, and continue on with your delusion that the world you know is all there is to know and all it ever shall be. That's what's going on here. At least, religious-minded people will equate your sentiment as parallel to the aforementioned scenario. Since you asked. You did ask, after all. At least hear out what those whom you're asking have to say.

The twist is that in the Christian myth, Abraham and Isaac turn out to be the same entity. They're two aspects of one God. So at best, the story is horrifying, at worst, it just makes zero sense. — frank

I wouldn't expect the typical believer to be that concerned with thinking things through to this extend.

I wouldn't expect the typical believer to be that concerned with thinking things through to this extend. — ChatteringMonkey

A long string of educated men apparently believed it.

I bet a good part of them only pretended to believe.

from His own wrath

God sent His Son out of love so that He can be both just and merciful. God is not wrathful: I don’t know why the OT describes Him that way, but the NT makes it clear He is not.

And apparently this strategy worked in spite of the fact that he didn't actually die 

The death itself is not what fundamentally saves you and I: it is that something of infinite dignity was offered to repay our sins. This could be, in principle, done in various ways.

most people didn't get saved

What do you mean?

How does a person who hasn't had a lobotomy make sense of this?

Why do you have such hostility for Christianity? This seems disingenuine, an ad hominem, and mean.

 Could it be that most Christians throughout history didn't know this is the Christian narrative?

Frank, it isn’t the Christian narrative. According to Christianity, when you sin you offend God and you cannot repay that sin; so God, out of love, offered Himself to repay that debt so that you can repent.

@Frank

Imagine that you knew someone was in debt to you so much money that they never could pay it back. You could absolve them of the debt with the snap of your fingers, but you be being unjust: they deserve to pay that back and you deserve that money, but you are forgoing it to allow someone to be in a condition that they do not deserve out of some motive (perhaps love or kindness). In this case, you would be having mercy on them, but at the expense of being just.

If you want to be just, though, you cannot do this; but if you make them continue to be in debt (to be just) with no way out, then you are not being merciful.

So, can you be both merciful and just? Is there a way to synthesize them? Yes. For example, in this case, you could take the money from a volunteer who is wealthy enough to pay the debt for this person and thereby absolve them of their debt when they don't deserve it (i.e., be merciful) and preserve the proper respect of desert (i.e., be just).

It's not a perfect analogy, but this is what God did.

God sent His Son out of love so that He can be both just and merciful. God is not wrathful: I don’t know why the OT describes Him that way, but the NT makes it clear He is not. — Bob Ross

What would you say the sacrifice of Jesus was meant to accomplish?

Why do you have such hostility for Christianity? — Bob Ross

If Christianity was just the core message of Jesus, I would say I love Christianity. The doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice just doesn't make any sense.

The Catholic Church teaches that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us... from His own wrath... by allowing Himself to be tortured to death. — frank

Where does it teach that?

Here is the comment which both motivated and suffices to answer your OP:

Bob Ross - The reason these threads are tricky on TPF is because asking TPFers religious questions is like going into a bar and asking the patrons about quantum physics. They will have a lot to say, and none of it will be remotely accurate. Toss in the large number of anti-religious cynics like Frank and the quality dips even further. — Leontiskos

How does a person who hasn't had a lobotomy make sense of this? Could it be that most Christians throughout history didn't know this is the Christian narrative? Or did they know, but just held it at arm's length? Are myths always this way? Or is Christianity a special case?

I can understand your cinicism coming from a country where religion is such a dividing line. I’m in a country where religion is barely mentioned, plays almost no role in life. Most people are atheist, or just ambivalent and you wouldn’t know the difference between them unless you specifically asked.

I see this narrative, along with other ancient religious narratives as a mythology steeped in the kind of discourse that was used at the time. But with a kernel of truth underlying it. This was about the moral and ethical struggles involved in the birth of civilisation. Where order and cooperation were necessary for cohesion. This is laid out quite well in the Moses narrative.

This process probably happened many times in the ancient world before recorded history and the religious narratives which survived form the basis of our modern (last 2,000-3,000years) religions.

History is littered with examples of where order in civilised groups broke down.

can understand your cinicism coming from a country where religion is such a dividing line. I’m in a country where religion is barely mentioned, plays almost no role in life. Most people are atheist, or just ambivalent and you wouldn’t know the difference between them unless you specifically asked. — Punshhh

I'm not cynical. :grin: I just put in the op in energetic terms.

But with a kernel of truth underlying it. This was about the moral and ethical struggles involved in the birth of civilisation. — Punshhh

I'm interested in the idea of underlying truth, especially when attempts to express that truth result in a convoluted story.

Rome was the cradle of Christianity and it was dying, not emerging. The old Roman religion still existed, but it had become dry and hollow, much as you describe your country's religious climate.

What would you say the sacrifice of Jesus was meant to accomplish?

I explained this in my responses to you:

Imagine that you knew someone was in debt to you so much money that they never could pay it back. You could absolve them of the debt with the snap of your fingers, but you be being unjust: they deserve to pay that back and you deserve that money, but you are forgoing it to allow someone to be in a condition that they do not deserve out of some motive (perhaps love or kindness). In this case, you would be having mercy on them, but at the expense of being just.

If you want to be just, though, you cannot do this; but if you make them continue to be in debt (to be just) with no way out, then you are not being merciful.

So, can you be both merciful and just? Is there a way to synthesize them? Yes. For example, in this case, you could take the money from a volunteer who is wealthy enough to pay the debt for this person and thereby absolve them of their debt when they don't deserve it (i.e., be merciful) and preserve the proper respect of desert (i.e., be just).

It's not a perfect analogy, but this is what God did.

And:

The death itself is not what fundamentally saves you and I: it is that something of infinite dignity was offered to repay our sins. This could be, in principle, done in various ways.
…
Frank, it isn’t the Christian narrative. According to Christianity, when you sin you offend God and you cannot repay that sin; so God, out of love, offered Himself to repay that debt so that you can repent.

But you didn’t address them. Your view is a straw man of Christianity.

God is all-just and all-merciful; so He has to synthesize the two analogous to the debt example I gave. You seem to think God can just forgo punishment for sins and that is best; but that is mercy at the expense of justice. If the judge absolves a person of a rightful conviction sentence out of mercy, then they have sacrificed justice.

I'm interested in the idea of underlying truth, especially when attempts to express that truth result in a convoluted story.

I’m not a biblical scholar, so I will leave that to others. I will point you to the kernel of truth in the kernel of truth I gave you. That once humanity reached a certain point in intellectual development she was not any more governed by instinct and adaptation to ecosystem changes. But became unshackled from these constraints and was able to do many novel and imaginative things through the power of thinking.
So a new constraint was necessary to avoid all manner of destructive (to the ecosystem and themselves) behaviour. Religion and it’s precursors played this role.

Have you read my exchange with @frank?

Yes. For example, in this case, you could take the money from a volunteer who is wealthy enough to pay the debt for this person and thereby absolve them of their debt when they don't deserve i

Do you believe that Jesus is God?

:up:

An overview of the problem you've identified and some of the criticisms and responses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution