About 60% of incarcerated people in the US are poor people. Maybe better education and job opportunities?

I guess that myth-makers create their god-stories for the same reason parents tell their own children about the tooth fairy : to get compliance without argument. "If you do this, something good will happen, But if you don't . . . .". Gods bring the goodies, or not, depending on your obedience. — Gnomon

True, and the sacrifice of Jesus has clear magical connotations: sacrifice this human, get good crops. So the sacrifice is celebrated at Easter, around the time of the spring equinox, which vaguely coincides with the last frost date in temperate zones. It's a fertility rite.

In the case of religious beliefs, professional priests exploit adults for their inborn trust in authorities*1, in order to get political compliance without rational arguments. Even adults, when they reach the age of reason, may begin to doubt the official stories. But when everyone they know seems to believe the myth, they may go along to get along. — Gnomon

For some reason, the belief in Hell is particularly potent. I'm not sure what psychology its tapping into, but the original Hel was a Norse goddess. She was just the ruler of the field of the dead. There was no torturing going on.

Moreover, communal myths*2 tend to bond individuals into team players and tribal roles. — Gnomon

And this is definitely true of Christianity even now. Christianity was a base for reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. As somebody mentioned earlier, maybe community solidarity can be more important than the details of the dogma.

You're free to sacrifice your life at anytime. There's nothing moral about that.

That’s horrible. You are saying that if you naturally need to do something then it is automatically permissible to do. If there were a species that needed to eat people to survive, would that be permissible to you? What if there was an alien species that needed to torture people from other animals or else they would necessarily fall into deep, deep depression to the point where they necessarily would kill themselves? — Bob Ross

If you have to do it to survive, it's amoral. It's neither good nor bad.

Yes, and they were wrong. We don’t need to reject God’s existence to accept that that was wrong. We don’t even need to reject Jesus to accept that.

The catholic church has done a lot of immoral things: that’s true. — Bob Ross

I wasn't using it as an argument for the non-existence of God. I was saying please, please, please, don't use a dignity-scale as a justification for killing. It's ok to kill rabbits and eat them because you're an omnivore. Your brain is a obligate glucose consumer (which means there's no way to turn off its demand for glucose). You're evolved to eat meat because your survival could depend on it. And plants don't have less dignity either. They're living things like everything else. We eat them because that's who we are: plant eaters.

:smile:

Farming, like heavy production, is such a fundamental process. They are not created in one day or one year and are calculated for a long time. It's painstaking, slow work that doesn't like swings and change. For this category, a dynamically changing world is a challenge. — Astorre

I was going to say something along these lines. There's a Roman story that some Roman was out farming and some foreigners came over the hill to attack. The Roman put on his armor, went out and kicked ass, and was back behind the plow in 16 days. Farmers need stable borders. They aren't looking for adventure. They aren't trying to save the world.

The whole message is quite powerful. — boundless

Give it meaning, and it will give meaning back to you.

That’s the problem, you see, Catholicism. Maybe we could try Quakers, or Shakers. Although, I admit it might not translate well via the keyboard. — Punshhh

I used to know a Quaker. Awesome guy.

Yes. In broad outlines, the Christian narrative is that God sacrificed his Son to save the human race from something. That alone captures the oddness of the narrative. That Christianity has survived about 1600 years with that narrative intact testifies to the ability of Christians to accept it. Whether they ever really make sense of it is another matter.

Maybe it's like a I Ching poem.

Then why all this focus on Catholicism?
All these doctrinal abominations you and Banno are going on about are just over reach in the Catholic Church. There are other religions and theologies. — Punshhh

I just used Catholics to pin down the narrative about the meaning of Jesus' death. If you say Christians believe x, there's going to be an exception somewhere.

That most Christian of Western nations is the one that still allows capital punishment. The acceptability of retribution, indeed the equating of retribution and justice - hadn't thought of that as a Christian attribute. — Banno

The United States was involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade at the level of about 7% of the total. Portugal started it and after a few centuries, was by far the largest participant. Most of the proceeds went to the Portuguese Crown. The second biggest participant was the UK, masters of the triangular trade, involving the British Caribbean. At the bottom of the list are the Spanish, the Dutch, and last is the USA. The US ended importation of slaves from Africa in 1808.

The greatest portion of the crime of the Atlantic Slave Trade is not celebrated in films, or discussed every year during Black History Month. The huge number of people who died miserable deaths should be more well known. Those unnamed victims should be brought into the light of day.

That you assume the Pope would have blessed importation of slaves to the US is a testament to that country's fearless admission of guilt. I for one, am proud of that.

ps. Americans wouldn't have looked to the Pope for guidance. They were mostly Protestants.

retribution is evaluated primarily based off of the dignity of the offended party (hence why shooting a rabbit illegitimately is lesser of an offense and deserving of less of a punishment than shooting a human the exact same way). — Bob Ross

There was a time when black people weren't thought of as having the same "dignity" as white people. Hence, it was ok to enslave them. This is another example of how doctrine blinds people to what's moral. The Pope gave his blessing on the beginnings of the Atlantic Slave Trade, one of many cases of all out moral failure.

As if blame were genetic. The story of original sin appears morally indefensible. Theology is that defence. — Banno

If a child was not baptized, it wouldn't be buried on sacred ground, and the mother would be told it was in Hell. Horrible.

The idea that children should be held responsible for the sins of their parents is also... problematic. — Banno

It partly comes from primitive intuitions about inheritance. You have your parent's physical features, so wouldn't you also inherit their sinful nature? On the one hand, telling people that they're born flawed can be psychologically devastating. Catholics even have a name for a condition where that belief becomes overwhelming: it's called scruples.

But on the other hand, it can be liberating to know that certain mental health issues and alcoholism have genetic components. It's not a personal failing. It's a link to your family tree.

But the higher point is the methodological one made above, that theology consists in justifying a given series of doctrines, not in their critique. — Banno

And I think that's how religions die. They become rigid. Life leaks out and goes looking for better metaphors.

Yes, and there was no need for torturing himself as well! — MoK

True.

Instead it's all snakes and apples. :grin:
— frank
What do you mean? — MoK

In the Garden of Eden, there was a snake and a couple of fruit trees.

Correct. God, for example, could remove the tree from the scene. All problems solved! — MoK

He could have had a tea party in the Garden. Instead it's all snakes and apples. :grin:

I was taught that it wasn't so much rules beyond his control so much as the sin-nature makes us incompatible with his pure divinity. — MrLiminal

That view fits well with the Neoplatonic vision that says reality is a grand round trip out of heaven, down into materiality, and then back again, ending in reunification with God. The ground of your being is God, so it's like you're a part of God that has amnesia.

Many early Christians were Neoplatonists who adopted the Christian narrative, consciously using it as a myth. They didn't take any part of it literally. Over time, Christianity settled into dogma, retaining the outlines of earlier mysticism. How literally are we supposed to take the narrative? I don't think there is one answer to that.

Not necessarily, if a person is a good person and serves his fellow man. He does not require redeeming. Isn’t Christ the fisher of men, seeking out the virtuous ones*. — Punshhh

I don't think that's how Original Sin works. Catholics believe humans are born cursed. That's why they baptize infants. The death of Jesus offers a way to be redeemed from the curse.

Yeah, the argument is that humans were permanently tainted by the fall, which required the sacrifice of Jesus to make humans redeemable. The logic is that humanity fell through the actions of Adam and Eve and accepting Jesus is the way to use free will to get around our inherent sinful nature. — MrLiminal

Right, so the narrative is that Jesus redeems us from the curse of Adam. Without that redemption, we're condemned.

I don't think it's usually assumed that God is contending here with rules beyond His control. Being omniscient, He would have to have known Adam would sin. And being omnipotent, he could change things if we wanted to.

The idea is that there is a mysterious grand purpose in all of this. To some extent, that's coming from the Neoplatonic roots of Christianity.

I would argue (at least some) Christians believe God would prefer no one go to hell, and the sacrifice of Jesus was the alleged evidence of that. — MrLiminal

:up:

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall to the ground except your Father knows.

30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. — Matthew 10:29

It wasn't taught like you're describing; it was sold as the sacrifice of Jesus almost acting as a sort of loophole God used in order to save humanity from its own imperfections. — MrLiminal

How did they explain the source of human imperfection? It's often framed in the scriptures as the outcome of events in the Garden of Eden. Is that what you got out of it?

Ok. Have a good day.

Goodness. You've read things into my post that weren't my intention at all.

I meant the OP as a question about the nature of myths. Maybe I should have picked on the OT instead?

Anyway, we're pretty far from a "forum" of trust and charity at this point. I invite you to step back into that domain.

God, however, is immutable and impassible. He does not have feelings as we know them.

That makes condemnation to Hell a little more horrifying. God has no feelings about it one way or the other.


We're always happy to call the hospital chaplain to tell grieving families that God doesn't really give a shit. :grin:

:grin:

Thanks everybody for your answers!

Oh, perhaps Tim's engine will spin by itself. It's how it makes contact with the world that might make the difference.

I don;t see it gaining much traction for you and I. — Banno

Best leave it here, then, huh?

Tim can't articulate your criticism in his terms, it seems. — Banno

I'm not holding my breath. I don't think there are any teeth on the cogs.

“God became man and freely offered Himself to save us from sin and eternal separation from Him.” — Count Timothy von Icarus

God became man and allowed Himself to be tortured to death. Do you agree with this? Taking baby steps here.

Yet this is not how Christians have traditionally understood sin (i.e., in the traditional Orthodox and Catholic Churches). I will allow that there are some forms of Protestant theology that hew a bit closer to this (although I imagine they might have qualms with this description as well). There are also many forms of Protestant theology that don't. — Count Timothy von Icarus

A Catholic accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, which says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. A Catholic also accepts the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice, as outlined in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

Put the two together, and we have God sacrificing Himself, to Himself, to save us from Himself. If there's a part of this you deny, you're enjoying the good luck of living in a world where the Protestants long ago took charge and provided religious freedom so that you don't have to worry about being burned at the stake for heresy. :wink:

This:
...yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person.
— frank
may be as helpful as Summa Theologica. — Banno

:up:

I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God. — Bob Ross

I didn't ask if you believe Jesus was the Son of God. I asked if you think Jesus is God. Catholics do believe that. In fact, most Christians do.

You didn't just read it, frank, you ignored it — Bob Ross

It looked to me like you weren't considering the way the Trinity plays into the problem. You wouldn't answer me when I asked you if you think Jesus is God. So from my perspective, it's you who is being reticent. I just exited the discussion when you wouldn't answer me.

I agree. My point is that you can't take the responsibility for Jesus' death off of God without denying the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice. You can't resolve the conundrum that God is supposed to have sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself, without denying the Trinity.

I think the best answer to this would be what a Southern Baptist seminary student told me after realizing that I was really trying to understand how he could believe in hell. He paused, cupped his hands together, and said, "Christianity is about loving another person."

Baptist seminary students read the New Testament in Greek. They don't fool around. But this one student was willing to just push all of that to the side to say what religion meant to him. It's in people like that that Christianity is still a living religion. In other words, the answer to the OP: yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person.

Saying that Pilate was somehow forced to crucify an innocent man because, — Count Timothy von Icarus

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

There is a long list of scriptures that clearly say that Jesus' death was God's plan.

I wonder if the whole global system is just on auto-pilot with no one really "running" any of it.

The Trump administration recently passed a bill that effectively takes from the poor and gives to the rich. There's no mention of some policy or principle. Why are we doing that? Because that's what we do.

I've been looking lately at what the weather will be like in 2100. Even that soon some areas that are presently occupied will be too hot for human viability. I think that will become the driver of policy eventually.

frank is incapable of responding to my argument for some reason and insists that God meaninglessly sacrificed himself to himself out of wrath. It's just a shame they are unwilling to have a productive conversation. — Bob Ross

I read your post. It just didn't make any sense to me.

That was the best post ever. :heart:

But we can see that conventions do not determine the meaning of an utterance. — Banno

:up:

I'll take it. It occurred to me that I just assumed Davidson meant that projecting intention on the speaker was part of radical interpretation. The words intend, mean, and understand are mixed together in my mind.

Because we're neurotic apes and just part-time rational? Evidently, the elasticity/plasticity of our mental/cognitive lives establishes in such a way that we may be taught, believe, or defend (tooth and nail) false dogmas and fictional stories. Incoherence and incorrigibility make irrational bedfellows in our heads. — jorndoe

I'll buy that. The brain comes with an off-switch. We may flip that switch when we want to. This would contradict Nietzsche's view that religious beliefs hold the key to understanding culture. Official doctrine may be completely opaque. Private, personal beliefs are a different matter.