Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is. It's not the emphasis you choose to put on it, but it's a reasonable description of the story.

How can Adam be punished for wrongdoing when he was made with no capacity for understanding of wrongdoing?

And yet the societies that have moved away from Christianity and other religions are the ones where the suffering is demonstrably the least.

Why is a blood sacrifice necessary for (unwarranted) forgiveness?

Three day sacrifice... that was definitely a sacrifice sufficient to fundamentally alter the psycho-spiritual destiny of humanity for all eternity... oh, wait, no, that's a particularly bad Bacardi Breezer bender.

Was there medical intervention? Was there some sort of first-aid applied? What process was used to reconstruct the broken down neurons which started to degrade with lack of oxygen? Or was this just some divine handwaving... the Resurrection is depicted as one of God/Jesus' miracles, that sort of definitionally makes it magic.

O.

I think your belief that suffering has been eliminated from those countries which move from christianity relates to physical suffering but not the hurt and debasement of wrong doing. I move that lots of those countries are the cause of suffering in other countries. We are all about to suffer from climate change.

Adam was in harmony with God and ''walked with him''. He was instructed not to do something and chose to do it anyway. So your thesis of ignorance is incorrect.

Jesus laying down his life at the hands of men was a result of the natural ultimate conclusive act of Goddodging. That he died and experienced alienation and self alienation is a consequence of the self hurt and debasement of wrong doing of others which he took upon himself.

[jeremyp]

I'm saying there was an act of mediation. Christ on the cross. I have just taken your sins on?

An act of mediation in which God mediates between you and himself. That doesn't make any sense.

Incarnation makes more sense namely God as sufferer on account of absorbing the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation.

Why do you think that makes any sense at all? Why would one temporary crucifixion equal "the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation". Why does there need to be any suffering to absolve human sins.

Jesus exchanges his life for the believer's according to  St Athenasius and I think there's a lot to that..

All of them? The lives of just the Christian believers alive today are about two billion. Why does there need to be an exchange at all?

[Stranger]

I think it is an error to believe wrong doing doesn't hurt or debase the perpetrator hence Jesus death.

Obvious non sequitur.   

[Stranger]

No, It means we are blighted by the actions of our ancestors.

Which is unjust.

Christ has overturned that alienation anyway and the way to God is open should you so choose.

Apparently only if we choose to accept, without the slightest hint of evidence or reasoning, insane nonsense that makes god an unjust, bizarrely sadomasochistic monster.

We suffer in this life as a consequence of former generations. That is cause and effect.

And unjust.

[Stranger]

Christ has overturned the ''work of Adam'', which is separation from God without hope.

Except it obviously hasn't, otherwise we'd have exactly the same clarity, evidence, and choice that Adam had. No matter how you interpret it, in the story, Adam wasn't short on evidence for god, wasn't burdened with the wrong-doing of ancestors, and wasn't asked to accept absurd nonsense.

Oh, okay, the not eating the one fruit was a bit nonsensical but compared with what Christianity asks us to accept today, it's positivity sane.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except it obviously hasn't, otherwise we'd have exactly the same clarity, evidence, and choice that Adam had. No matter how you interpret it, in the story, Adam wasn't short on evidence for god, wasn't burdened with the wrong-doing of ancestors, and wasn't asked to accept absurd nonsense.

Oh, okay, the not eating the one fruit was a bit nonsensical but compared with what Christianity asks us to accept today, it's positivity sane.

Unfortunately, what you do has consequences for those who come after that is just cause and effect. Christ has undone the work of Adam and there is now no necessary or involuntary irreversable alienation from God, only one's own resistance to God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An act of mediation in which God mediates between you and himself. That doesn't make any sense.
Why do you think that makes any sense at all? Why would one temporary crucifixion equal "the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation". Why does there need to be any suffering to absolve human sins.

Because human sins cause suffering to the perpetrator. The crucifixion is a mediatory act.
All of them? The lives of just the Christian believers alive today are about two billion. Why does there need to be an exchange at all?

Yes Jesus sacrifice is good for all. The way to God is now open

[Stranger]

Unfortunately, what you do has consequences for those who come after that is just cause and effect.

And you think your god is too puny to make a more just world?

Christ has undone the work of Adam and there is now no necessary or involuntary irreversable alienation from God, only one's own resistance to God.

Obviously wrong, partly for the reasons I explained and you've just ignored but also because there is bugger all reason to think any of this insane and bizarre nonsense is real, many people through history will never even of heard of it, and the cultural influences that have already been discussed.

[Stranger]

Because human sins cause suffering to the perpetrator. The crucifixion is a mediatory act.

Repetition will not make this any less insane.

[jeremyp]

Yes Jesus sacrifice is good for all. The way to God is now open

It doesn't make any sense. Why does the way to God require him to sacrifice himself (temporarily)?

Why did God need to mediate between himself and humans?

Why would God suffering in any way alleviate the suffering of humans? If you have one person suffering, making a second person suffer doesn't cancel out the first person's suffering, it merely doubles the amount of suffering.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't make any sense. Why does the way to God require him to sacrifice himself (temporarily)?

Why did God need to mediate between himself and humans?

Why would God suffering in any way alleviate the suffering of humans? If you have one person suffering, making a second person suffer doesn't cancel out the first person's suffering, it merely doubles the amount of suffering.

Jesus at the crucifixion takes on the effects of sin on the perpetrator.

[jeremyp]

Jesus at the crucifixion takes on the effects of sin on the perpetrator.

Please answer the questions I raised.

And add this one to your list:

Why does Jesus at the crucifixion take on the effects of sin?

Is there some higher power to whom God is beholden who has made all these stupid rules?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't make any sense. Why does the way to God require him to sacrifice himself (temporarily)?

Why did God need to mediate between himself and humans?

Why would God suffering in any way alleviate the suffering of humans? If you have one person suffering, making a second person suffer doesn't cancel out the first person's suffering, it merely doubles the amount of suffering.

If somebody does you wrong you either seek restitution which demands an appropriate sacrifice from the other person or you bear the effects of others wrong doing totally yourself (forgiveness)
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please answer the questions I raised.

And add this one to your list:

Why does Jesus at the crucifixion take on the effects of sin?

God the son is the mediator between God the father and man. No one gets to the father except through me. It seems to me that mediation through a mediator was the nearest analogy. If you think you have a better one feel free. What it does mean is that without the incarnation and death of Jesus there would be no way through to God.

God the Father suffering because of sin would have no identification with the human predicament. Jesus is God's way of identifying with humanity and suffering a death alienated from God the father.

[jeremyp]

If somebody does you wrong you either seek restitution which demands an appropriate sacrifice from the other person or you bear the effects of others wrong doing totally yourself (forgiveness)

How does God having himself nailed to a cross advance either of those two objectives?

[jeremyp]

God the son is the mediator between God the father and man.

So Jesus isn't God then, just a god. No problem. We just need to stop calling Christianity a monotheistic religion.

No one gets to the father except through me.

So you can't have a personal relationship with God, only Jesus. OK, that's reasonable.

God the Father suffering because of sin would have no identification with the human predicament. Jesus is God's way of identifying with humanity and suffering a death alienated from God the father.

I'm still not sure how Jesus being crucified helps in any way.

[Stranger]

Jesus at the crucifixion takes on the effects of sin on the perpetrator.

Which is still unjust and insane, and, what's more, it obviously didn't even work, as you are still going on about us suffering the effects of the 'sins' of previous generations.

If somebody does you wrong you either seek restitution which demands an appropriate sacrifice from the other person or you bear the effects of others wrong doing totally yourself (forgiveness)

Why would that have to involve god torturing itself to death? As Jeremy said, who is making these stupid rules apply to god, if not god itself?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does God having himself nailed to a cross advance either of those two objectives?

If God is alienated from himself then that can only be due to human sin. Jesus was regarded as sinless otherwise people wouldn't have recognised him as divine. We derive from Jesus' abandonment on the cross as expressed in the saying ''My God , My God why have you forsaken me?'' That Jesus has allowed himself fully to be identified with sinful humanity since human sin is what alienates.

In terms of us making restitution, we can't because we don't know the true impact of any wrong doing and we don't IMHO know where to start on the project. Hence needing the work of Jesus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is still unjust and insane, and, what's more, it obviously didn't even work, as you are still going on about us suffering the effects of the 'sins' of previous generations.

Why would that have to involve god torturing itself to death? As Jeremy said, who is making these stupid rules apply to god, if not god itself?

It's about re establishing the relationship with God. God doesn't torture himself to death , man does. What a bizarre statement.

Without Jesus taking on sin and it's effects on the self i.e. alienation alienation without hope would be our lot. The way is open to God.

You haven't understood that we also are spoiling things for humanities future.

A marvellous example is given by Philip Larkin who starts a poem ''They fuck you up your mum and Dad, they do not mean to but they do''.

I agree we are probably never free from the effects of previous sin ....until we finally get to heaven.

[Stranger]

If God is alienated from himself then that can only be due to human sin.

Without Jesus taking on sin and it's effects on the self i.e. alienation alienation without hope would be our lot.

Still as mad as a bucket full of spiders. Again, who makes these insane rules, if not god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still as mad as a bucket full of spiders. Again, who makes these insane rules, if not god?

This is getting a bit ''What I would do if I was God''. I don't think a consequence free universe is one where anything at all would happen and if you think of it, isn't that what your kind of proposing?

[Stranger]

This is getting a bit ''What I would do if I was God''. I don't think a consequence free universe is one where anything at all would happen and if you think of it, isn't that what your kind of proposing?

Of course not. I'm talking about your description of god amounting to it being a psychopathic sadomasochist that has made up a totally unjust and insane set of rules that seem contrived so that it 'has to' torture itself to death (even though humans did it, was god's plan) in order to 'put right' (although it doesn't actually even do that) an unjust mess it created in the first place.

[ProfessorDavey]

Christ has overturned the ''work of Adam'', which is separation from God without hope.

Firstly, of course the whole story of Adam, garden of eden etc is just a myth.

But even if we accept that Adam did something wrong, why on earth should I, and everyone else be held accountable for his errors. I fully accept that I should be held accountable for my own errors, but the notion that I am responsible/accountable for someone else's errors merely because they might be my great, great, great ... great grandfather is morally indefensible.

[jeremyp]

If God is alienated from himself

You should reread this and contemplate what it actually means. It's really quite a bizarre statement.

then that can only be due to human sin. Jesus was regarded as sinless otherwise people wouldn't have recognised him as divine.

What's the rule that says you have to be sinless to be divine?

In terms of us making restitution, we can't because we don't know the true impact of any wrong doing and we don't IMHO know where to start on the project. Hence needing the work of Jesus.

Hang on. Jesus endured only a couple of days of being dead. How can that be restitution for all of human sin? Even if he had stayed dead, it would only have been the equivalent of one fifth of Jack the Ripper's murders. One measly three day crucifixion is nowhere near enough to pay restitution for all of humanity's crimes.

On the other hand, if it's about forgiveness, there was no reason at all for Jesus to be crucified. God could just say "I forgive you" and it would be done.

[Outrider]

I think your belief that suffering has been eliminated from those countries which move from christianity relates to physical suffering but not the hurt and debasement of wrong doing.

By every measurable metric suffering is consistently lower in nations with lower levels of religiosity. You can make any claims you want about hypothetical, undemonstrable, psycho-metaphysical 'sin' levels that you want to, but until you can demonstrate they're any more real than your claims of the god you use them to try to justify I'll stick with the DEMONSTRABLE REALITY of the correlation between better standards of living and lower religiosity.

I move that lots of those countries are the cause of suffering in other countries.

And you can show the widespread suffering in the world that arises from, say, Scandinavia, how? The consistent inability of people to decipher IKEA instructions? Nokia phones? Lapland's apparent stranglehold on Santa?

We are all about to suffer from climate change.

Yes, we are. And when we do those countries with developed technology and higher levels of formal education - which also correlate with lower religiosity, though perhaps not as strongly - will still be better off than the countries that cling to religion as some sort of comfort blanket when they see they aren't those happier, safer places.

Adam was in harmony with God and ''walked with him''.

No, he wasn't. He's an entirely mythic creation, regardless of whether the 'god' of the story is real, Adam was not.

He was instructed not to do something and chose to do it anyway. So your thesis of ignorance is incorrect.

He was, supposedly, made ignorant of good and evil, and was punished for doing evil... he picked from a tempting tree put in front of a being given curiosity and no understanding of wrongdoing... he was put near a tree that meant 'certain death', yet a being that could create the entirety of reality couldn't understand how to build a bloody fence?

Jesus laying down his life at the hands of men was a result of the natural ultimate conclusive act of Goddodging. That he died and experienced alienation and self alienation is a consequence of the self hurt and debasement of wrong doing of others which he took upon himself.

God created this reality, knowing what would happen - any 'sacrifice' in there is meaningless, because God chose that reality when he founded it, if you accept the tale - time is entire, it all exists, it's our sense of it that is limited. If god created everything, that includes time, and if god is outside of time then he can see - and foresee - it all. Ergo, if Adam 'sinned', it's because God chose to create that reality; Jesus 'sacrifice' was part of the plan.

O.