then again, in the case of the crucifixion, the child volunteered.
it comes down to jewish tradition. in jewish tradition, a sacrifice could be made (and was) to atone for the sins of all the people. in the case of the crucifixion, the idea was that this one sacrifice, since it was made by god and was voluntary on the part of the one being sacrificed, it acted as the ultimate atonement sacrifice, negating the need for any others.
But, seriously...so, Jesus apparently volunteered, but from what I can tell he was betrayed (interesting how the religious groups are denouncing the gospel of Judas - how many more gospels have been sacrificed to fit in with the philosophy of any given religion?) and marched up the hill by a group of heavily armed centurions and couldn't do much about it if he wanted to. I don't think it has ever really been explained just why this death freed us all from sin, and if Jesus really willingly went to the cross, could this not be construed as the evil sin that is suicide?
And most to the point, does Jesus really want us to remember him by wearing a cross around our necks? That's like if John Lennon came back and we were all showing him replicas of bolt-action rifles. If that were me, that's the last thing I'd want to see.
ah, but if he really was the son of god (big if, but we are talking within the context of the belief system) then i imagine he could have dealt with the armed soldiers easily enough
( ... )
I do admit to stealing the cross idea from Bill Hicks on that one.
I like your reasoning and arguments, though. God does seem to be very bloodthirsty, but did seem to mellow out a little between the old and new testaments. I guess they say having kids does that to you.
well, there was 400 years between the last book written in the old testement and the events that supposed;y take place in the new testament. that means 400 years of god not telling anyone to kill anyone. so humans killed each other anyway. :)
The texts included in The Bible (as we know it) were selected and compiled by the Catholic church. They are not the only documentation of the events they cover. They are not the be-all-and-end-all of qualified information on the subject. They were intended as a reference for priests (the only ones who could read them when it was first suggested) and harnessed later as a tool to educate the masses, who had become literate in their own right. The Bible is more like a Christian's Cliff Notes. You shouldn't assume that nothing happened in between. That's just ignorant.
The symbol of the cross was chosen by members of the Christan faith as a potent reminder of what it cost Him to give that gift. It is for the believer to see and not a command from God.
it comes down to jewish tradition. in jewish tradition, a sacrifice could be made (and was) to atone for the sins of all the people. in the case of the crucifixion, the idea was that this one sacrifice, since it was made by god and was voluntary on the part of the one being sacrificed, it acted as the ultimate atonement sacrifice, negating the need for any others.
or at least, that's how i understood it.
still pretty fucked up, though.
Reply
Reply
Reply
And most to the point, does Jesus really want us to remember him by wearing a cross around our necks? That's like if John Lennon came back and we were all showing him replicas of bolt-action rifles. If that were me, that's the last thing I'd want to see.
Reply
Reply
I like your reasoning and arguments, though. God does seem to be very bloodthirsty, but did seem to mellow out a little between the old and new testaments. I guess they say having kids does that to you.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment