Easter Questions

[Thorne]

God in the old testament demanded sacrafice as a way to atone for the sins of people.

Wait! Didn't god MAKE the people? If he made them sinful, why do we need to atone for HIS mistakes? He should be atoning to us!

When Adam sinned ... the only way this could be atoned, was by a blood sacrifice. The reason for blood? - Exodus tells us the life of a creature is in his blood. Thus the need for blood - one life in the place of another.

Why? Why not a scolding, or a mea culpa, or even a good spanking. Why kill an innocent creature (or person!) for your own sins? If I kill my neighbor, can I atone for it by sacrificing his virgin daughter, too?

God never created a Son. He is God. He is just as much God as God the Father is God. He has just another function, another job if you will. And remember the sacrifice needed to be perfect? Who is perfect? Without sin? Only God. And that is why only God ( the Son) could be the final sacrifice.

So God sacrificed himself, to himself, to atone for the mistakes he made during creation? Makes perfects sense, I guess.

God gave His life...(The gift).

So God is dead? No, wait. He isn't dead, is he? Something about a resurrection? So he didn't give his life, he just had a couple of bad days, went into a coma for a day or so, then woke up? And this is supposed to make up for all of the sins of mankind? How?

Atonement was made and proclaimed (told you about the gift) and the only way to have the 'benefit' (thus forgiveness from sins and a living relationship with God) is by accepting it as a undeserved gift.

What of those who happened to be born, and died, in places which DIDN'T hear about this gift? Why didn't God announce this 'gift' to the Inca's, or the Aztecs, or the American Indians? What happened to them before they were so violently 'saved' by missionaries?

In theory yes, we could. But.... If you really grasp the concept of the offer, the sacrifice and the effect on the soul...then sinning would be something that would not be done without thought and then, after realising the sin.. You would not be at peace before you have asked, begged frogiveness from God.

So I can slaughter families, neighborhoods, entire villages even, and get off with a simple prayer of forgiveness? That doesn't seem right.

And what happens if I refuse this 'gift' of God's, but still lead a good, moral life. Am I still 'saved'? Or do I have to suck up to the priests and tithe to their churches in order to attain this 'gift'? The whole thing sounds suspiciously like an ancient version of the Nigerian letter scam!

[sub_sequent]

Wait! Didn't god MAKE the people? If he made them sinful, why do we need to atone for HIS mistakes? He should be atoning to us!

But You forget. God did not make man sinful. He made him perfect. Without sin. Adam and Eve always had a choice to obey God or not. Otherwise how fair would that be? Adam and Eve made a concious decision to disobey a clear and direct order from God. There is No mistake from God's side there. This rests on man.

Why? Why not a scolding, or a mea culpa, or even a good spanking. Why kill an innocent creature (or person!) for your own sins? If I kill my neighbor, can I atone for it by sacrificing his virgin daughter, too?

I explained why a confession is not good enough. Only a blood offer. And never of another person.( Cause no-one is sinless) Always an animal. And yes, an innocent animal. Because a guilty could never be an offer.


So God sacrificed himself, to himself, to atone for the mistakes he made during creation? Makes perfects sense, I guess.

It actually does. He in fact then gave Himself for something He is innocent of. A perfect sacrifice.

So God is dead? No, wait. He isn't dead, is he? Something about a resurrection? So he didn't give his life, he just had a couple of bad days, went into a coma for a day or so, then woke up? And this is supposed to make up for all of the sins of mankind? How?

The Romans did everything medically known in that time to prove that He was dead. (Sword through His heart.... Not blood coming from the wound but a clear liquid) They proved He was dead and not in a coma. After He rose, He appeared to more than 500 people. They all testified that He was alive. It was THE sacrife needed because He was sinless in all aspects.

What of those who happened to be born, and died, in places which DIDN'T hear about this gift?

This is a question many people ask...and the answer is not difficult. Romans 1 cleary says that they will be judged NOT on their knowledge and acceptance of Christ. (Because they have no knowledge of Him) But on their acknowledgement of a Higher power through nature. And their living their lives with a clear consuance (sp) according to the laws of their times. Again, Your question speaks of an 'angry god' unfair and unjust. This is not true. His plans made that concession -becuase He is just and fair.

Why didn't God announce this 'gift' to the Inca's, or the Aztecs, or the American Indians? What happened to them before they were so violently 'saved' by missionaries?

My answer above applies here too. And i agree... 'Saved' is NOT what those so-called missionaries did at all!

So I can slaughter families, neighborhoods, entire villages even, and get off with a simple prayer of forgiveness? That doesn't seem right.

You are right. It cannot be right. I think it's important to mention that i am not of the Catholic faith. And have my own history horror stories to tell of Protestants being murdered.

And what happens if I refuse this 'gift' of God's, but still lead a good, moral life. Am I still 'saved'? Or do I have to suck up to the priests and tithe to their churches in order to attain this 'gift'? The whole thing sounds suspiciously like an ancient version of the Nigerian letter scam!

No, personally i believe that a good and moral life (with knowledge of God and His offer-So, Romans 1 does not apply) will not save a person. Neither does tithing or confession without sincere repentance and 'turning away' from sin.
Only a personal acceptance of this Offer and the implications in my life will lead to true salvation.

[Thorne]

But You forget. God did not make man sinful. He made him perfect. Without sin. Adam and Eve always had a choice to obey God or not. Otherwise how fair would that be? Adam and Eve made a concious decision to disobey a clear and direct order from God. There is No mistake from God's side there. This rests on man.

But God created man with the capacity to do sin. Therefore man is imperfect. Therefore God is imperfect.

And just why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? To test his creation? Why would he need to do that? Being omniscient he would already know the results of that test.

And finally, the tree in question was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So why doesn't God want man to have knowledge. He prefers stupid worshipers? For that matter, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being need worshipers in the first place?

No, personally i believe that a good and moral life (with knowledge of God and His offer-So, Romans 1 does not apply) will not save a person. Neither does tithing or confession without sincere repentance and 'turning away' from sin.
Only a personal acceptance of this Offer and the implications in my life will lead to true salvation.

And this is the crux of my problems with religion: Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible (or Quran, or Torah, or whatever holy book) says one needs to do for salvation, and such interpretations cause schisms within religions. How can anyone know who is right? And why would God write a book of instructions which was so contradictory and ambiguous that it can be used to justify the beliefs of a (hopefully) moral and decent person such as yourself while at the same time be used to justify the abominations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Why, it's almost as if the Bible were a concoction of ancient mythologies and fairy stories!

[sub_sequent]

[QUOTE=Thorne;966044]But God created man with the capacity to do sin. Therefore man is imperfect. Therefore God is imperfect.

So, following your reasoning: every man has the capacity to be a mass murderer and therefore IS a mass murderer. Just because Adam and Eve had the capacity to sin, it doesnt make them sinners. We know they DID make the choice to sin...THEN and only then they were sinners. So, when they were made in God's image they were sinless, as He is.

[Thorne]

So, following your reasoning: every man has the capacity to be a mass murderer and therefore IS a mass murderer. Just because Adam and Eve had the capacity to sin, it doesnt make them sinners. We know they DID make the choice to sin...THEN and only then they were sinners. So, when they were made in God's image they were sinless, as He is.

No, it's not ME claiming that we are all sinners, or mass-murderers. Listen to a good-old fire and brimstone preacher telling his flock how evil and perverse mankind is, and that will tell you who thinks we are all sinners. And they get it from the Bible.

What I am saying (and it's all hypothetical, since there probably is no God) is that God made man with the CAPACITY to sin, which makes man imperfect. And if we are made in God's image, then God also has the capacity to sin, which makes HIM imperfect.

[denuseri]

And just why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? To test his creation? Why would he need to do that? Being omniscient he would already know the results of that test.

And finally, the tree in question was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So why doesn't God want man to have knowledge. He prefers stupid worshipers? For that matter, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being need worshipers in the first place?


And this is the crux of my problems with religion: Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible (or Quran, or Torah, or whatever holy book) says one needs to do for salvation, and such interpretations cause schisms within religions. How can anyone know who is right? And why would God write a book of instructions which was so contradictory and ambiguous that it can be used to justify the beliefs of a (hopefully) moral and decent person such as yourself while at the same time be used to justify the abominations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Why, it's almost as if the Bible were a concoction of ancient mythologies and fairy stories!

First off God didn't write anything...men did. Hence the imperfections.

Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.

Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation. It is basically all about overcoming our nature's despite our inherent sinfulness and becoming enlightened and transcending mortal existence. It's not even a Christan or Jewish, or Islamic only theme either...Buddhists, Hindus and a wide wide variety of faiths ( in fact almost all religions) address such aspirations of apotheosis in like manner...as if trying to explain the same universal concept. Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.

[denuseri]

And just an FYI.....not all the crucified were killed in exactly the same manner. Ideally one suffocated after days of suffering. If they really were being viscous suffocation was prevented by different placement like being slanted back at a 45 degree angle. The legs being tucked up under with the heals pointing up was particularly painful and would cause lots of muscle cramping and squirming around apparently. Sometimes one died from exposure other times the Romans got bored and just speared them. Some had their legs broken to hasten the death (not out of mercy but because they wanted to make sure they were dead or would be after the guards had to be leaving the area).

In some cases (especially in regions were the Romans were trying to placate or mollify wide scale rebellion) local cultural practices prevailed and the bodies were allowed to be removed after a time for burial. Though in the Biblical account one must remember there was an eclipse and an earthquake during the event and the Romans themselves were big on augury (they invented the word lol) and perhaps decided the wiser course was not to further anger the gods by leaving one of their favored hanging.

[Thorne]

And just an FYI.....not all the crucified were killed in exactly the same manner. Ideally one suffocated after days of suffering. If they really were being viscous suffocation was prevented by different placement like being slanted back at a 45 degree angle. The legs being tucked up under with the heals pointing up was particularly painful and would cause lots of muscle cramping and squirming around apparently. Sometimes one died from exposure other times the Romans got bored and just speared them. Some had their legs broken to hasten the death (not out of mercy but because they wanted to make sure they were dead or would be after the guards had to be leaving the area).

All quite true, and gruesome. An item I saw on TV the other day talked about the only known relic of a crucifixion, the heel bone of a first century criminal (NOT Jesus) with a nail through the heel. It was placed in an area which missed all major blood vessels, but struck a major nerve cluster. Excruciatingly painful in and of itself, you also have to remember that the victim would have had his legs bent, as described above, forcing him to push up against that nail in order to lift himself and allow himself to breath. Usually, the only reason for spearing them was to make sure they were, indeed, dead, not to ease their suffering. And breaking the legs only insured that they could NOT push up any longer, and thus suffer slow, painful, terrifying suffocation. Try hanging from your arms, outstretched as in a crucifixion, to see how difficult it is to get a breath. And as the muscles in the diaphragm become over worked, each breath becomes painful as well. It was truly a horrific way to die, and designed to last for days. Yet Jesus supposedly died within short hours. Something doesn't scan there.

In some cases (especially in regions were the Romans were trying to placate or mollify wide scale rebellion) local cultural practices prevailed and the bodies were allowed to be removed after a time for burial. Though in the Biblical account one must remember there was an eclipse and an earthquake during the event and the Romans themselves were big on augury (they invented the word lol) and perhaps decided the wiser course was not to further anger the gods by leaving one of their favored hanging.

Yes, they may have allowed them to remove the body, after he was dead, but it's doubtful they would have done anything to hasten his death. And there is no archeological, historical or astronomical evidence for an eclipse or earthquake at that time. And if you try to claim "miracle" you would have to account for the fact that no other records of an earthquake have ever been found, and that a solar eclipse which was NOT predicted by the astronomers (who were very good at that by this time) would have achieved widespread notoriety, not only in Judea. Like so many other things in the Bible, these "auguries" seem to have been completely imaginary. Though the death of their leader might have caused the Apostles to feel as if their world had been rocked and that the light had gone out of their lives, it just never happened in reality.

[denuseri]

All quite true, and gruesome. An item I saw on TV the other day talked about the only known relic of a crucifixion, the heel bone of a first century criminal (NOT Jesus) with a nail through the heel. It was placed in an area which missed all major blood vessels, but struck a major nerve cluster. Excruciatingly painful in and of itself, you also have to remember that the victim would have had his legs bent, as described above, forcing him to push up against that nail in order to lift himself and allow himself to breath. Usually, the only reason for spearing them was to make sure they were, indeed, dead, not to ease their suffering. And breaking the legs only insured that they could NOT push up any longer, and thus suffer slow, painful, terrifying suffocation. Try hanging from your arms, outstretched as in a crucifixion, to see how difficult it is to get a breath. And as the muscles in the diaphragm become over worked, each breath becomes painful as well. It was truly a horrific way to die, and designed to last for days. Yet Jesus supposedly died within short hours. Something doesn't scan there.

He was scourged and beaten prior to the the event...subsequent blood loss from a scourging left completely untreated is probably what killed him so soon comparatively.


Yes, they may have allowed them to remove the body, after he was dead, but it's doubtful they would have done anything to hasten his death.

In some texts they were about to break his legs along with the others and didn't because one of the guards said he was already dead and decided to prove his point by piercing his side with his spear.

And there is no archeological, historical or astronomical evidence for an eclipse or earthquake at that time.

All the bible currently claims is it was unnaturally dark (even mentioning thunder) despite it being mid day which could have simply been a dark storm front passing through.

As for the earthquake....I haven't seen any evidence what so ever that there wasn't a small quake on that day in the region.

And if you try to claim "miracle" you would have to account for the fact that no other records of an earthquake have ever been found, and that a solar eclipse which was NOT predicted by the astronomers (who were very good at that by this time) would have achieved widespread notoriety, not only in Judea. Like so many other things in the Bible, these "auguries" seem to have been completely imaginary. Though the death of their leader might have caused the Apostles to feel as if their world had been rocked and that the light had gone out of their lives, it just never happened in reality.

The only people who will ever know for sure are all gone now anyways...the rest of us will have to believe or not based solely on our faith in their account of events.

All of which is beside the point. The op isn't asking us if Jesus lived or not; only what Easter is about.

[Thorne]

First off God didn't write anything...men did. Hence the imperfections.

That would depend upon which sect you listen to. Many of them believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, even if it was transcribed by men. Mormons believe the same of their holy books, as do Muslims. They can't ALL be right!

Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.

In some interpretations the creation story is literally true! Again, how can you tell whose interpretation is right? And if you are correct, and God intended for mankind to attain knowledge, why did he supposedly curse us with Original Sin? Why is attaining knowledge sinful in the eyes of so many of His followers? As a parable, I have no problem with the idea of the story of Eve, but using it as the basis for demeaning and hating women, as so many theists do, is just plain wrong! By your interpretation we should be praising Eve, and her daughters, for doing what God intended in the first place!

Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation.

It stands alone without religion, too. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." This applies to society as a whole, not just to revolutionaries.

Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.

It IS a good concept. I firmly believe in it myself. What frosts me is when theists, of any stripe, try to claim exclusive rights to the concept, claiming that you cannot be a good person unless you follow the tenets of their particular brand of shamanism. And then they will only apply that concept to those they deem worthy!

Religion was, and still could be, a teaching mechanism, used to inform people of the laws and morality of their society. Religions, or their gods, are not the origins of these laws and moralities, though. And given the excesses to which so many religions have fallen, they certainly don't deserve the respect and adoration given to them by their followers. Especially when they must lie and threaten to keep those followers from walking away with their money.

[thir]

Secondly: In some interpretations the entire creation story is allegorical with the tree of life being the ultimate goal that can only be reached by first eating one's way through the tree of knowledge. Since God is perfect, "the serpent" acting out of jealousy or not...is still doing exactly what God intended it to do (so is mankind by the way), which is prompt mankind to seek knowledge so that one day eternal life could be obtained. The act of taking the apple being one of rebellion, yet also one of seeking to be like God. After all Eve was only tempted because she was told that if she ate of it, she could indeed become like God.

I do not quite understand what you say - seeking knowledge (eating through the tree of knowledge) was the point, but not by eating the apple??

As for the alligorical angle, I learned recently that the way Danish Christians got past Darwin as it were, without loosing their faith, was to see the words of the bible as alligorical, or 'the free word'. Thus, everything had to be interpreted, and no conflict existed between the bible and Darwin. I believe other protestant sects have this view as well.

I have had thoughts about this story about Paradise and the tree of knowledge in terms of maybe we should never have eaten of it, metaphorically speaking, because our knowledge, that which in these days makes us equal to gods in that we can create life and do very many and quite alarming things, but, lacking the wisdom of god or gods, we screw it up and Earth is no garden of Eden.

Nature never was peaceful, or that is only one aspect of it, but maybe it was more like Eden than now.

Third: The overall message...that we should all become more loving and peaceful with each other and work together seeking harmony (in essence be like God wants us to be) stands alone regardless of interpretation. It is basically all about overcoming our nature's despite our inherent sinfulness and becoming enlightened and transcending mortal existence. It's not even a Christan or Jewish, or Islamic only theme either...Buddhists, Hindus and a wide wide variety of faiths ( in fact almost all religions) address such aspirations of apotheosis in like manner...as if trying to explain the same universal concept. Which is a good concept...love one another as you would wish to be loved.

Loving one another etc is a good concept. But the idea that we are born sinful (agressive, brutal, 'red in tooth and law') I do not believe. Sometimes it feels like the discussion will have it that either we are all love and sunshine, or we are all brutes! I believe in neither. I think we started out simply doing what we had to do to survive, like all the other animals.

But somewhere along the way something happened - ?? and with it, cruelty, brutality (towards our own) greed, hate, power games and all the rest.

I do not think we were 'born' with it - as in started that way as a species. But something happened.

[Thorne]

I have had thoughts about this story about Paradise and the tree of knowledge in terms of maybe we should never have eaten of it, metaphorically speaking, because our knowledge, that which in these days makes us equal to gods in that we can create life and do very many and quite alarming things, but, lacking the wisdom of god or gods, we screw it up and Earth is no garden of Eden.

Knowledge is not evil in itself. It is only in our applications of that knowledge that we find evil. But willful ignorance is far more evil. Ignorance is the birthplace of the gods. It allows people to accept supernatural explanations for perfectly natural occurrences which they do not understand. The search for knowledge allows us to throw off the supernatural and understand how the world around us works. If you accept lightning as a punishment from a god, you are always going to find yourself at the mercy of the thunderstorms. But if you study it and learn its nature, you can protect yourself with a piece of metal and some wire! It's a pretty woeful god whose wrath can be deflected by a simple lightning rod!

But the idea that we are born sinful (agressive, brutal, 'red in tooth and law') I do not believe. Sometimes it feels like the discussion will have it that either we are all love and sunshine, or we are all brutes! I believe in neither. I think we started out simply doing what we had to do to survive, like all the other animals... I do not think we were 'born' with it - as in started that way as a species. But something happened.

Sadly, I have to go along with the idea that we are born brutes. I'm having the pleasure of watching my two granddaughters grow up, having the time to really observe them that I didn't really have with my own children. And I'm finding that children are greedy, selfish and cruel on their own. We have to teach them to share and not to hit others and that they can't have everything they want. We have the capacity to be good, but it is not innate within us. It's a learning process, lifelong.

[thir]

Knowledge is not evil in itself. It is only in our applications of that knowledge that we find evil. But willful ignorance is far more evil. Ignorance is the birthplace of the gods. It allows people to accept supernatural explanations for perfectly natural occurrences which they do not understand. The search for knowledge allows us to throw off the supernatural and understand how the world around us works. If you accept lightning as a punishment from a god, you are always going to find yourself at the mercy of the thunderstorms. But if you study it and learn its nature, you can protect yourself with a piece of metal and some wire! It's a pretty woeful god whose wrath can be deflected by a simple lightning rod!

It is true that knowledge can set us free from some fears, but they can start others - like when will the vulcano in Yellowstone pop? When will worldwar 3 start? When will the virus come that will kill us all? And other sunny ideas...

The other argument was that our technology is incredible and can create many things, but without any wisdom on what to do with it. So though knowledge is not evil in itself it can be turned to evil, and so often is. Maybe we are not ready so have so much knowledge.

Sadly, I have to go along with the idea that we are born brutes. I'm having the pleasure of watching my two granddaughters grow up, having the time to really observe them that I didn't really have with my own children. And I'm finding that children are greedy, selfish and cruel on their own. We have to teach them to share and not to hit others and that they can't have everything they want. We have the capacity to be good, but it is not innate within us. It's a learning process, lifelong.

I do not see why we should be like that by nature. I have worked with children many years, and while many are like you say, they are normally not only like that, but can also be helpfull and kind to others, depending on situations and their own mood at the moment.

But aren't siblings often quite hard on each other?

[thir]

And just why did God put that tree in the Garden in the first place? To test his creation? Why would he need to do that? Being omniscient he would already know the results of that test.

You put your finger on one of the questions; why tempt people? For that matter, why create such a tree?

And finally, the tree in question was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So why doesn't God want man to have knowledge. He prefers stupid worshipers?

If I were a god, I'd either want people to have knowlegde and sense - a lot of sense! - or to have less knowledge! That part I understand, except why then put the tree in?

For that matter, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being need worshipers in the first place?

A thing I have wondered many times. Gods do not need worshippers as I understand the word. They already have or are everything.

The answer could be that gods are not something we can really understand, so we create an image from ourselves - what we understand - and give them human weaknesses.

And this is the crux of my problems with religion: Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible (or Quran, or Torah, or whatever holy book) says one needs to do for salvation, and such interpretations cause schisms within religions. How can anyone know who is right? And why would God write a book of instructions which was so contradictory and ambiguous that it can be used to justify the beliefs of a (hopefully) moral and decent person such as yourself while at the same time be used to justify the abominations of the Westboro Baptist Church? Why, it's almost as if the Bible were a concoction of ancient mythologies and fairy stories!

Religion does not equal holy or unholy books. Only dogmatic religions, which are not all religions.

As for the books, I cannot understand anything in them - I simply do not know what is meant!

[Thorne]

The answer could be that gods are not something we can really understand, so we create an image from ourselves - what we understand - and give them human weaknesses.

On the contrary, gods are very easy to understand. We create them to serve our own purposes.

[thir]

On the contrary, gods are very easy to understand. We create them to serve our own purposes.

You think that makes them easy to understand??

[thir]

No, personally i believe that a good and moral life (with knowledge of God and His offer-So, Romans 1 does not apply) will not save a person. Neither does tithing or confession without sincere repentance and 'turning away' from sin.
Only a personal acceptance of this Offer and the implications in my life will lead to true salvation.

But - doesn't that mean that is doesn't matter how we behave?