The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2119
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Hereandnow » November 19th, 2018, 2:31 am

Greta: I separate sex from procreation. I know they're joined at the hip in a bioevolutionary way, but so is haagen dazs joined to nutrition, yet nutrition has nothing to do with delicious experiences. I think Richard Dawkins would like say it is our genes' way of making our pragmatic lives toe the line, and I think this is true, but this doesn't explain yummmm in and of itself. Sitting on the front porch watching the sun go can be blissful, but can dawkins make the same argument? Perhaps a bit: survival and procreation require a stable and motivated organism, and at some time in the evolution's history certain of a group with the mutated genes for happiness emerged and there was something about the general feeling of harmony with the world encouraged success over competitors. Love, of course, and its exclusivity, bonds family, spouses to the benefit of all. I actually think love IS happiness' no difference that I can see. Just walking around and feeling very happy.
digisexuals? I suppose if it works for some, then it works. Mostly, I would think, for those less endowed with people skills. But then, the technology seems to be bent on perfecting the virtual real, and then, one could spculate that fantasy will become reality. I actually envy future generations for what may be a very interesting brave new world.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7694
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Greta » November 19th, 2018, 4:46 am

I agree about separating sex and procreation. People are driven to mate by the pain of deprivation but pressed to bond via pleasure.

There is a very dualistic aspect to it, though. The greatest pleasures can come as relief from the worst deprivations; 'hunger makes the best sauce'. Great pleasure, great pain. 'Tis better to have loved and lost ...' vs 'steady as she goes' :)

Ultimately, what we are is what has been effective at surviving so far. As the tempo of change increases, those old qualities will be less useful. So there will be a sorting, an acceleration of natural selection pressures. Those who are best positioned and adaptable, and the luckiest, will prevail.

I too would like to see how the future pans out but I'm pretty sure I'd hate it. I have a little "theory" that the future would always feel like a straitjacket to denizens of the past. I had an odd little "moment" some years ago while walking to the shops. I saw a man walking a dog coming the other way and suddenly it was as if I was seeing them through the eyes of a cavewoman - and that impression is that they looked inhumanly smooth and slick and perfect, like two little androids. No matter what we do, the future leads us to robots!

Consider the fictional, musical and sporting heroes that people aspire to be like. What are the qualities they most admire, that they themselves would want? Steely, inhuman nerve and control. To be calm and focused under the pressure of the crowds, the cameras, the lights etc. To get out there and get things done under any level of duress. To be unbreakable. Without significant error. Without being hindered by fear or self consciousness. Without being distracted. Without losing control. Basically, being minimally human.

The trend is all very strange and, as you pointed out, interesting, although I expect we'd find the (post climate change mayhem) future confusing, restrictive, sterile and bizarre.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2119
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Hereandnow » November 19th, 2018, 11:49 pm

If I am to worry about being too animal-like, then I had better stay away from that turkey dinner......and the bathroom, for that matter. And all the different kinds of sex, it's complicated, I see. Digisexuals sounds... I don't know how it sounds. I am not of this generation, though I am very curious where this will all go. Projections into the future have always been tainted by the bias of the present, so I guess I can't even imagine how the digi-world is going to handle human affairs hundreds of years hence. But I don't think it will be a move away from our animal natures, but more toward increasing sublimation of them into santized forms, without all the ickyness of our biological, errrr, extras. Eventually people will get bored and start looking for god again, just because the openess of eternity stands before them and when you have AI's doing all the dirty work down here, there is no where else to look but up and out.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7694
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Greta » November 20th, 2018, 2:27 am

In time I suspect that physical community will be almost entirely replaced by remote digital contact due to crowdedness (traffic jams, unreliable public transport), pollution and hard weather. East Asia seem to be the pioneers here.

While we have any biological components I expect we'll continue to have animal natures. However, if over time we replace bit by bit of brains until we achieve a completely synthetic human, then you basically have a lithotrophic or electrophilic species emerging from us omnivores. If there was any residual animal nature, it would be in echoes of the evolutionary path that brought them about.

Jklint
Posts: 1315
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Jklint » November 20th, 2018, 5:05 pm

The very idea is disgusting! It reeks of ancient sacrifices where something always had to die to make up for something else. It's one of the most idiotic theories to ever pollute the West.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2119
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Hereandnow » November 20th, 2018, 8:50 pm

Jklint
The very idea is disgusting! It reeks of ancient sacrifices where something always had to die to make up for something else. It's one of the most idiotic theories to ever pollute the West.
It does, doesn't it? But death on a stick, the crucifixion, is a mighty reminder of human suffering and mortality. Curious that Jesus would do this, knowing how bad it would hurt. Of course, he was nuts, one might say. There is a fine line between being nuts and being enlightened, though.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7694
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Greta » November 21st, 2018, 12:52 am

Numerous divine beings are touted as saviours to come to Earth, and a fair few of them are were crucified: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38600/3 ... nk2HCH0016
More than twenty claims of this kind—claims of beings invested with divine honor (deified)—have come forward and presented themselves at the bar of the world with their credentials, to contest the verdict of Christendom, in having proclaimed Jesus Christ, "the only son, and sent of God:" twenty Messiahs, Saviors, and Sons of God, according to history or tradition, have, in past times, descended from heaven, and taken upon themselves the form of men, clothing themselves with human flesh, and furnishing incontestable evidence of a divine origin, by various miracles, marvelous works, and superlative virtues; and finally these twenty Jesus Christs (accepting their character for the name) laid the foundation for the salvation of the world, and ascended back to heaven.

1. Chrishna of Hindostan.

2. Budha Sakia of India.

3. Salivahana of Bermuda.

4. Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.

5. Odin of the Scandinavians.

6. Crite of Chaldea.

7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.

8. Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phenicia.

9. Indra of Thibet.

10. Bali of Afghanistan.

11. Jao of Nepaul.

12. Wittoba of the Bilingonese.

13. Thammuz of Syria.

14. Atys of Phrygia.

15. Xamolxis of Thrace.

16. Zoar of the Bonzes.

17. Adad of Assyria.

18. Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam.

19. Alcides of Thebes.

20. Mikado of the Sintoos.

21. Beddru of Japan.

22 Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.

23. Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls.

24. Cadmus of Greece.

25. Hil and Feta of the Mandaites.

26. Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.

27. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls.

28. Ischy of the Island of Formosa.

29. Divine Teacher of Plato.

30. Holy One of Xaca.

31. Fohi and Tien of China.

32. Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece.

33. Ixion and Quirinus of Rome.

34. Prometheus of Caucasus.

35. Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia.

These have all received divine honors, have nearly all been worshiped as Gods, or sons of God; were mostly incarnated as Christs, Saviors, Messiahs, or Mediators; not a few of them were reputedly born of virgins; some of them filling a character almost identical with that ascribed by the Christian's bible to Jesus Christ; many of them, like him, are reported to have been crucified; and all of them, taken together, furnish a prototype and parallel for nearly every important incident and wonder-inciting miracle, doctrine and precept recorded in the New Testament, of the Christian's Savior. Surely, with so many Saviors the world cannot, or should not, be lost.

Jklint
Posts: 1315
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Jklint » November 21st, 2018, 5:05 am

Hereandnow wrote:
November 20th, 2018, 8:50 pm
Jklint
The very idea is disgusting! It reeks of ancient sacrifices where something always had to die to make up for something else. It's one of the most idiotic theories to ever pollute the West.
It does, doesn't it? But death on a stick, the crucifixion, is a mighty reminder of human suffering and mortality. Curious that Jesus would do this, knowing how bad it would hurt. Of course, he was nuts, one might say. There is a fine line between being nuts and being enlightened, though.
It's extremely unlikely that the real Jesus would have anticipated the event. But in order to die for ours sins the manufactured Jesus would have known and surrender to it. The story is so bogus it makes Santa Claus look real!

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Eduk » November 21st, 2018, 10:11 am

If my son committed some sin (say armed robbery) could I sacrifice myself to absolve my son of sin? I think most people would say no? There is no logical progression for my sacrifice to effect the sin of another? In other words it doesn't follow, or it wouldn't make sense.
Now it's fine for Jesus not to make sense in sacrificing himself for my sins. But if we accept that it doesn't make sense then we don't need to worry about whether he needed to or not, we can just accept that he did.
What I am trying to say is that you can't expect to make sense of something which doesn't make sense. God can proclaim that up is down but that will be of very little practical use to us.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2119
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Hereandnow » November 21st, 2018, 12:34 pm

Eduk and JKlint: It hard to disagree with the the plain facts of the what you say and certainly by no means does any model of making sense that we know, that is part of our "common" sense, provide understanding. But the matter does not end with this. I have a lot of nasty things to say about popular religions, but I don't simply assess what going on with them exclusively in terms of easy and accessible standards. Such things are the jumping off places for philosophical thinking. Like,what IS a sin?? Does this have any grounding in serious thought at all? i think it does, but common sense will not discern this.

Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Eduk » November 21st, 2018, 12:51 pm

Like,what IS a sin?? Does this have any grounding in serious thought at all?
I can't think of anything more philosophical than asking simple questions like 'what is sin'.
I would claim that religion attempts to own the concept of sin. Perhaps we can agree to call one religious sin and the other could be called secular sin? How I would like to define sin is take everything that secularists and religious both consider a sin.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2119
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Hereandnow » November 21st, 2018, 1:06 pm

But if you are going to take relgious views of sin at all seriously, then you will be nearing metaphysics, and will have to keep a close eye out for "manufacturing," as Jklint calls it,assumptions. Religion does fall at that threshold where thinks appear to us and "things" do not.So what is it about sin that has a religious dimension worth preserving? Secular sin, of course, starts the inquiry, being rather in our face.

Jklint
Posts: 1315
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Jklint » November 21st, 2018, 6:21 pm

Eduk wrote:
November 21st, 2018, 12:51 pm
How I would like to define sin is take everything that secularists and religious both consider a sin.
Sorry, but that's too many sins at one time that even a host of Jesus's couldn't make up for. :shock:

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1942
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Belindi » November 22nd, 2018, 7:26 pm

The Jesus of history whoever he was did not die for our sins. The Christ of faith did die for our sins. One way by which the allegory may be used today is as a myth about a life totally given to serve the good. I daresay that other ancient stories may be reinterpreted for modern use.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7694
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Did Jesus really need to die for our sins?

Post by Greta » November 22nd, 2018, 9:45 pm

Belindi wrote:
November 22nd, 2018, 7:26 pm
The Jesus of history whoever he was did not die for our sins. The Christ of faith did die for our sins. One way by which the allegory may be used today is as a myth about a life totally given to serve the good. I daresay that other ancient stories may be reinterpreted for modern use.
Clear thinking.

The sacrifice of oneself for the common good in itself is worth checking rather than accepting as good. After all, that would have been motivation for kamikaze pilots and modern suicide bombers. Given the kinds of destructive and amoral policies currently in play, especially regarding climate change denial, one may wonder whether the common good is superior to the individual good, or simply one more vested interest.

Certainly it's easy for survival-loving people to cheer on martyr "suckers" who willingly sacrifice themselves for the wellbeing of the many. I'm sure the recipients of such largesse (the sacrifice of an entire life) would provide many posthumous compliments towards the martyr/victim for their suicidal efforts. One has the impression that suicide bombers and the like valued their lives less than most anyway, so that their deaths were in part a suicide and thus subjectively less of a sacrifice than if performed by those who love life.

In many cases, topping oneself for one's tribe is so approved of that many make the ultimate sacrifice, knowing that it will bring money to their families. The message here to the martyr is that they are worthless alive but valuable as a dead political pawn; all they are thought to be good for is cannon fodder. The arrangement reminds me of spiders and how they sacrifice their lives for their offspring, usually with the mother (who's already eaten the father) being eaten by her hungry hatched spiderlings.

I'm not much keen on, or convinced by, any of this need to sacrifice other than a smart hedonist's sacrifice of today's pleasures for tomorrow's greater ones.

Post Reply