Jesus' sufferings.

[john]

If the purpose of Jesus was to suffer for our sins did he get away too lightly?

Apparently aged about 30 and having been fit till then, he “suffered” for a few hours only before returning to paradise. Should he not instead have lived to be 90, dying incontinent and totally reliant on the care of others due to dementia, Should he not have suffered decades of excruciating and crippling pain due to disease, Should he not have experienced the loss of his own children taken early by wars or crime, Should he not have had to support his middle aged wife as she died slowly in excruciating pain from some sort of cancer, Should he not have experienced poverty so great that he could neither feed nor house his family properly.

Would this not have helped God to truly understand what it is to live as a human? Would that understanding have led him to act more compassionately?

[ad_orientem]

It's not so much the manner of his death but what he did afterwards. He defeated death so that we too might defeat it. He freed us from the bondage of sin and its consequence, death. Likewise for those who died before him, for he descended into Hades and preached to the souls there, binding the devil and opening the way to heaven.

[Shaker]

It's not so much the manner of his death but what he did afterwards ...

... it has been alleged 

[floo]

It's not so much the manner of his death but what he did afterwards. He defeated death so that we too might defeat it. He freed us from the bondage of sin and its consequence, death. Likewise for those who died before him too, for he descended into Hades and preached to the souls there, binding the devil and opening the way to heaven.

There is no evidence to substantiate any of that fanciful assertion.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

There is no evidence to substantiate any of that fanciful assertion.

And what would you consider as evidence? Or is this another example of you claiming X is false therefore there is no evidence for X, whilst masquerading as I do not see any evidence to support X therefore no reason to accept X

[floo]

And what would you consider as evidence? Or is this another example of you claiming X is false therefore there is no evidence for X, whilst masquerading as I do not see any evidence to support X therefore no reason to accept X

If something isn't credible like Jesus popping up from the grave three days after he died, it isn't likely to have happened. Surely if he had done so he would be around today for all to see him in the flesh? Disappearing up to heaven a little while later was most convenient, wasn't it?

[Shaker]

And what would you consider as evidence?

Something better than the ancient and obscure accounts of pre-scientific peoples and their two millennia-long retinue of the credulous, for starters.

[BeRational]

And what would you consider as evidence? Or is this another example of you claiming X is false therefore there is no evidence for X, whilst masquerading as I do not see any evidence to support X therefore no reason to accept X

Jesus around today that we could shoot in the head, and watch him come back to life.

It would not prove he was god, but it would be very impressive.

Other than that, I have done every miracle that he has, only 10 times over.

You will of course have to take my word for it, just like you do for Jesus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

And what would you consider as evidence?

Probably the same thing you would consider to be evidence for narratives from faith traditions in which you do not believe.

And that's your problem - if you think "stories in a book" to be evidence for your faith beliefs, then you must allow the same courtesy to stories in other books for different faiths. On the other hand, if you think stories in a book is not sufficient to constitute evidence, then you must provide more than that for your faith too. It's up to you really.

[SusanDoris]

Sword,

Probably the same thing you would consider to be evidence for narratives from faith traditions in which you do not believe.

And that's your problem - if you think "stories in a book" to be evidence for your faith beliefs, then you must allow the same courtesy to stories in other books for different faiths. On the other hand, if you think stories in a book is not sufficient to constitute evidence, then you must provide more than that for your faith too. It's up to you really.

Such a post as this deserves a courteous and considered reply. I do hope Sword responds.

[Shaker]

Such a post as this deserves a courteous and considered reply. I do hope Sword responds.

Plenty of posts here do, but they rarely get one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the purpose of Jesus was to suffer for our sins did he get away too lightly?

Apparently aged about 30 and having been fit till then, he “suffered” for a few hours only before returning to paradise. Should he not instead have lived to be 90, dying incontinent and totally reliant on the care of others due to dementia, Should he not have suffered decades of excruciating and crippling pain due to disease, Should he not have experienced the loss of his own children taken early by wars or crime, Should he not have had to support his middle aged wife as she died slowly in excruciating pain from some sort of cancer, Should he not have experienced poverty so great that he could neither feed nor house his family properly.

Would this not have helped God to truly understand what it is to live as a human? Would that understanding have led him to act more compassionately?

We do not know what suffering for the sins of the world entails.
You are mistaking taking on the sins of the world with taking on the suffering of the world.

People are poor through there own fecklessness or because conditions impose it but I don't think we can equate it with sin.

[Shaker]

We do not know what suffering for the sins of the world entails.

That's because it's an absurd, in fact incoherent concept

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's because it's an absurd, in fact incoherent concept

In the hands of a moral irrealist yes.
Any moral irrealist pronouncing on moral matters probably does so from their own self interest and the minimising of others. That is what we know as sin or as a psychologist would put it..Narcissism.

Any good that comes from them has a different providence.

[Shaker]

In the hands of a moral irrealist yes.
Any moral irrealist pronouncing on moral matters probably does so from their own self interest and the minimising of others. That is what we know as sin

Silly sausages do, yes.

[Rhiannon]

In the hands of a moral irrealist yes.
Any moral irrealist pronouncing on moral matters probably does so from their own self interest and the minimising of others. That is what we know as sin or as a psychologist would put it..Narcissism.

Any good that comes from them has a different providence.

Don't bandy around words you don't understand. Just don't. It's offensive.

[Rhiannon]

To the OP, I've always found it discomforting that many Christian martyrs suffered far more horrifying deaths than Jesus did.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Don't bandy around words you don't understand. Just don't. It's offensive.

But if he didn't do that, all he'd have left would be the connectives – the "thes", "ands" etc. It's an odd mix by the way of words he clearly doesn't understand ("providence" instead of "provenance" for example), and of words he has to re-define so as to attack people for supposedly subscribing to his personal meaning ("methodological naturalism" etc).

Oddly too, when he's called out on his lying he actually seems to relish it. Oh well - that's trolling for you I guess.   

[ProfessorDavey]

And what would you consider as evidence? Or is this another example of you claiming X is false therefore there is no evidence for X, whilst masquerading as I do not see any evidence to support X therefore no reason to accept X

Quite the reverse - I think it is AO who is working on the basis that X is true therefore there is evidence for X

And of course the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence to substantiate that claim - in this case AO - he has made a whole bunch of claims in his post and therefore he needs to back up those claims with sufficient evidence. If he doesn't (and he hasn't) then to suggest his opinion are completely unsubstantiated is perfectly correct.

[ad_orientem]

Quite the reverse - I think it is AO who is working on the basis that X is true therefore there is evidence for X

And of course the onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence to substantiate that claim - in this case AO - he has made a whole bunch of claims in his post and therefore he needs to back up those claims with sufficient evidence. If he doesn't (and he hasn't) then to suggest his opinion are completely unsubstantiated is perfectly correct.

But then that wasn't the purpose of this thread, at least on the evidence of the opening post. As for me, I have little or no appetite for such discussions. I'd rather discuss what we believe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

But then that wasn't the purpose of this thread, at least on the evidence of the opening post. As for me, I have little or no appetite for such discussions. I'd rather discuss what we believe.

Clearly: "Because it says so in some books my faith tells me are "holy"" seems to be the beginning and end of the epistemology for you. Why then not confine your musings about the stories in those books to the faith sharing area?

[ad_orientem]

Why then not confine your musings about the stories in those books to the faith sharing area?

Because it's brown bread.

[Rhiannon]

In which case you have to expect challenge and debate.

[Nearly Sane]

Because it's brown bread.

Self fulfilling prophecy.

[ad_orientem]

In which case you have to expect challenge and debate.

The OP didn't ask for proof of anything. Again, I'm not interested in discussions about proof. Some of us see proof where others don't. It's really as simple as that. Neither do I see any reason why every thread should descend into a discussion about proof. It's not a prerequisite to being able to discuss what we believe.