Jesus on the Cross: The Immorality of Vicarious Redemption

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Fortunately we have you to let us know what is right and what is wrong.

No there are books you should read which will do that.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

I was using the term more generally but you can act the typical protestant or non-confromist snob regarding the term if you wish.

Go and talk to your pastor, preacher, elder, vicar, rector, whatever.

Oh, you meant the infamous small "c" catholic.......

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

No there are books you should read which will do that.

We apparently need you to tell us which ones.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

We apparently need you to tell us which ones.

No you don't and there's no need to be an ass, I don't want to have some flame war with you.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

No you don't and there's no need to be an ass, I don't want to have some flame war with you.

Calling someone an ass isn't the way to prove it.

 

[craig_uk]

We apparently need you to tell us which ones.

If all books in the bible were held equal there would presumably be no disagreement between the various Christian churches and sects. It is the fact that they are given different weights that gives rise to the plurality of views amongst Christian theologians.

One very obvious and easily verified example is that Roman Catholics do not share the same ten commandments as protestants. Go check that out - don't take my word for it.

hilaire is not in a position to tell you which writings are more important that is down to you to determine or for your teachers in this matter to advise you.

 

[craig_uk]

I must agree with Hitchens that any religion that has at its core a human sacrifice isn't particularly nice.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

It was to praise and honor and worship the God(s) when you ritually sacrificed an animal, infant or a virgin in his name.

In cannibalistic cultures, you would then eat the sacrificed infant or virgin.


Remnants of this madness remain in the symbolic taking of the Holy Eucharist.


"Take you and eat, this is my Body." And taking the chalice He gave thanks and gave it to them saying, "Drink you all of this. For this is my Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)


In place of an infant or virgin, Christ now becomes the sacrifice, bleeding on the Cross. The faithful are then invited to "drink Blood" and "eat Flesh", a symbolic cannibalism.

 

[Calboner]

It was to praise and honor and worship the God(s) when you ritually sacrificed an animal, infant or a virgin in his name.

In cannibalistic cultures, you would then eat the sacrificed infant or virgin.

"Baybeh -- the other other white meat! Baybeh -- it's what's for dinner!"

Remnants of this madness remain in the symbolic taking of the Holy Eucharist.


"Take you and eat, this is my Body." And taking the chalice He gave thanks and gave it to them saying, "Drink you all of this. For this is my Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)


In place of an infant or virgin, Christ now becomes the sacrifice, bleeding on the Cross. The faithful are then invited to "drink Blood" and "eat Flesh", a symbolic cannibalism.

I have never been able to form the least notion of how a practice based on such a revolting idea could have caught on -- least of all how it could have caught on among Jews, who by this time already had dietary laws forbidding the consumption of blood, let alone human flesh and blood.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

"Baybeh -- the other other white meat! Baybeh -- it's what's for dinner!"


I have never been able to form the least notion of how a practice based on such a revolting idea could have caught on -- least of all how it could have caught on among Jews, who by this time already had dietary laws forbidding the consumption of blood, let alone human flesh and blood.

Well interestingly that particular aspect of Christian sacramental theolgy and praxis probably didn't catch on until gentiles began to be converted in large numbers, it may have been one of the controversies which is believed to have taken place at a very early date between the Church of Jerusalem and some of the other Churches of the east, the Church of Jerusalem at that time being somewhat more Mosaic in character than the rest.

 

[Astrate]

I must agree with Hitchens that any religion that has at its core a human sacrifice isn't particularly nice.

Ah yeah but it wasn't really a human sacrifice, not really. Apart from choosing to have it done to him, he rose again pretty quick in a happy ending. And his suffering, well you're meant to believe he was a man and suffered fully, but also the Son of God, so deep down you kind of think, "he can take it".

What is horrible is that the religion subsequently made martyrdom, i.e. dying in agony for one's belief, no, dying in agony for stating one's belief, an ultimate virtue. Now that is immoral doctrine, particularly as it was clearly designed to further the religion. Callous. But it is nothing to do with the original teachings of Jesus.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Ah yeah but it wasn't really a human sacrifice, not really. Apart from choosing to have it done to him, he rose again pretty quick in a happy ending. And his suffering, well you're meant to believe he was a man and suffered fully, but also the Son of God, so deep down you kind of think, "he can take it".

What is horrible is that the religion subsequently made martyrdom, i.e. dying in agony for one's belief, no, dying in agony for stating one's belief, an ultimate virtue. Now that is immoral doctrine, particularly as it was clearly designed to further the religion. Callous. But it is nothing to do with the original teachings of Jesus.

Right so the grotesque biblical tale of Jesus's horrific death on the cross as an atonement for the sins of mankind has nothing to do with the cult of martyrdom I suppose

 

[Astrate]

It’s funny how Hitchings rails against God’s forgiveness, calling it immoral, because he figures it allows perpetrators to get away scot-free, and therefore there is no deterrence.
But forgiveness is as important as punishment in human relationships in shaping behaviour in groups, if (importantly) it follows contrition. It would be counterproductive if the same dynamic was not also presented by God, particularly as an example to behaviour between people.

In fact real human relationships consistently beat the degree of stability produced by "tit-for-tat" policy predicted by game theory because of the addition of trust, unconditional altruism and forgiveness.

 

[Astrate]

Right so the grotesque biblical tale of Jesus's horrific death on the cross as an atonement for the sins of mankind has nothing to do with the cult of martyrdom I suppose

Well of course it has, but only by deliberate inference.

 

[Astrate]

What is horrible is that the religion subsequently made martyrdom, i.e. dying in agony for one's belief, no, dying in agony for stating one's belief, an ultimate virtue.

Interestingly, Muslims can remain virtuous by lying to hide their faith through a notion called Taqiyya. I ahven't figured out why that has worked for them as a spreading religion, but circumstances were different

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

If all books in the bible were held equal there would presumably be no disagreement between the various Christian churches and sects. It is the fact that they are given different weights that gives rise to the plurality of views amongst Christian theologians.

Not necessarily. There are books and chapters and verses that different denominations agree are in the Bible and are important, but they disagree on what they mean.

One very obvious and easily verified example is that Roman Catholics do not share the same ten commandments as protestants. Go check that out - don't take my word for it.

Don't need to. I've been aware of that for many years.

hilaire is not in a position to tell you which writings are more important that is down to you to determine or for your teachers in this matter to advise you.

Um......actually I was being facetious. It was a rhetorical device to indicate that I do not believe there is a "ranking."

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

It’s funny how Hitchings rails against God’s forgiveness, calling it immoral, because he figures it allows perpetrators to get away scot-free, and therefore there is no deterrence.
But forgiveness is as important as punishment in human relationships in shaping behaviour in groups, if (importantly) it follows contrition. It would be counterproductive if the same dynamic was not also presented by God, particularly as an example to behaviour between people.

In fact real human relationships consistently beat the degree of stability produced by "tit-for-tat" policy predicted by game theory because of the addition of trust, unconditional altruism and forgiveness.

Agreed. If there's no forgiveness there's no incentive to be better than you already are. Case in point: someone serves their time in jail and is released. If they can't get a job, they will return to mugging or bank robbery or whatever to earn a living.

If someone does give them a second chance, they might turn themselves around.

If they haven't "paid their debt to society" as the old saying goes, they should still be in jail. However, once they have served their sentence, it is over. They need to be re-integrated into society or we all suffer. Without that second chance, there is little incentive to improve.

Back to the theological case -- no one is getting away "scot-free" if repentance comes before forgiveness. Repentance is a lot more than saying I'm sorry. It's also stopping the behavior and making amends to those you've harmed. I don't see that as scot free.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

strate writes:

It’s funny how Hitchings rails against God’s forgiveness, calling it immoral... forgiveness is as important as punishment in human relationships...


Big Dallas responds:

Agreed. If there's no forgiveness there's no incentive to be better than you already are.

--------------------

Christopher Hitchens, I'm sure, has no issue with human forgiveness or "second chances".

The problem comes when you take a nomadic middle-eastern preacher (Jesus) who lived over 2,000 years ago, and you create a magical, supernatural story to augment his natural biography.

Jesus was a mammal who lived and died. The mother had sex with the father to conceive him. There was no Virgin Birth or any other outlandish supernaturalisms going on. All the sorcery and faith healings and fulfillment of prophesy and walking on water and magical resurrection that make Jesus divine and fantastic were added in after the fact --- after the mammal named Jesus died.


Hitchens is not saying that forgiveness or redemption are bad. Hitchens is saying that looking to an imaginary, made-up Divine Jesus Myth (or Zeus or Yahweh or Pandora or Bacchus or Shiva or Allah, etc) for forgiveness and for redemption is folly.

 

[Calboner]

Well interestingly that particular aspect of Christian sacramental theolgy and praxis probably didn't catch on until gentiles began to be converted in large numbers, it may have been one of the controversies which is believed to have taken place at a very early date between the Church of Jerusalem and some of the other Churches of the east, the Church of Jerusalem at that time being somewhat more Mosaic in character than the rest.

I suspected as much. Proceedings of a planning committee of early Christians:

Shmuel: Our proselytizing efforts among our fellow Jews are just not working. And anyway, there are so few of us, and we're scattered all over the place -- it's clear that there's not much future for our cult among Jews. The future is clearly with the goyim. We've made some progress in bringing them in, but it's been sporadic. We really need a hook to bring them in.

Yitzkhak: Well, I've organized some focus groups, and there have been some consistent results. There was one thing that kept coming up -- one thing that the participants seemed to be really keen on.

Shmuel: Yes? And what was that?

Yitzkhak: Well, it was . . . sacrifice.

Natan: They want to have animal sacrifices? No can do. The Romans destroyed the Temple, and they won't let us build another.

Shmuel: Really, Natan, why assume centralization? We can set up some kind of local --

Yitzkhak: (Interrupting.) No, not animal sacrifice. They liked . . . um . . . human sacrifice.

Shmuel and Natan: (Horrified.) Human sacrifice?

Yitzkhak: Yes, sacrificing an innocent victim, and then . . . um . . . eating his flesh. And drinking his blood.

Natan: Christ almighty!

Shmuel: Fucking hell! Well that's out of the question.

Natan: Those goyim! What do you expect!

Yirmiyahu: (Diffidently speaking for the first time.) Well, what if we give them . . . bread to eat and wine to drink and we tell them . . . that the bread is the body of our savior and the wine is his blood?

Natan: Yirmiyahu, you fucking cretin! Who the hell is going to believe a load of horse shit like that? That makes no fucking sense whatever!

Shmuel: Now, now, wait a minute. Let's just think about this. . . .
​