Why the crucifixion?

[thegospelkiss]

Here's why the crucifixion was necessary:

Jesus' primary message was the Kingdom of God, in other words God's sovereignty. If God is sovereign, there can be no free will and no such distinction as good and evil. God, after all, created everything and declared it good.

By "eating from" the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, Man came to believe he could, and had, violated God's will (sin). From there unity fell away (good) and was replaced throughout the earth by conflict (good vs. evil). Man now judged himself and others as either good or bad, taking credit for the good and laying blame for the bad. Division ruled, and all manner of 'evils' were perpetrated in the name of fighting 'evil' and trying to appease an 'angry' God. Religions were, of course, the primary conduits of this thinking but, naturally, political leaders found it helpful to promote it in order to divide and conquer. Abraham was a turning point.

Jesus was a man uninfected by the idea of Sin. He condemned no one as 'evil', but he was surrounded by those who did. He lived in the Kingdom of God and never took credit for anything, always giving the 'glory' (credit) to God. These two contrary views of God were intended to clash and come to a head in his life; that was the purpose of his coming. He willingly submitted to crucifixion to demonstrate to the world and to history that his understanding of God was the truth, and was not the one lying and plotting and killing and blaspheming. It was instead the world's understanding - the one still at the root of virtually all of today's religions, modern Christianity included - that was the persecutor. He was a sacrifice for our 'sins' in the sense that because we believed we were sinners in God's eyes something had to show this to be false. Only by preferring to die for what he believed rather than to kill for it could this be accomplished, highlighting the stark difference between the two competing belief systems. And it was world-changing. For the first time since Adam there was an alternative to the world-view that had dominated history.

 

[Levite]

Here's why the crucifixion was necessary:

Jesus' primary message was the Kingdom of God, in other words God's sovereignty. If God is sovereign, there can be no free will and no such distinction as good and evil. God, after all, created everything and declared it good.

By "eating from" the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, Man came to believe he could, and had, violated God's will (sin). From there unity fell away (good) and was replaced throughout the earth by conflict (good vs. evil). Man now judged himself and others as either good or bad, taking credit for the good and laying blame for the bad. Division ruled, and all manner of 'evils' were perpetrated in the name of fighting 'evil' and trying to appease an 'angry' God. Religions were, of course, the primary conduits of this thinking but, naturally, political leaders found it helpful to promote it in order to divide and conquer. Abraham was a turning point.

Jesus was a man uninfected by the idea of Sin. He condemned no one as 'evil', but he was surrounded by those who did. He lived in the Kingdom of God and never took credit for anything, always giving the 'glory' (credit) to God. These two contrary views of God were intended to clash and come to a head in his life; that was the purpose of his coming. He willingly submitted to crucifixion to demonstrate to the world and to history that his understanding of God was the truth, and was not the one lying and plotting and killing and blaspheming. It was instead the world's understanding - the one still at the root of virtually all of today's religions, modern Christianity included - that was the persecutor. He was a sacrifice for our 'sins' in the sense that because we believed we were sinners in God's eyes something had to show this to be false. Only by preferring to die for what he believed rather than to kill for it could this be accomplished, highlighting the stark difference between the two competing belief systems. And it was world-changing. For the first time since Adam there was an alternative to the world-view that had dominated history.

OK, that's a pretty concise summation of basic Christian theology. What's the point?

 

[sojourner]

The crucifixion was "necessary" because Jesus refused to shut up and go away. he kept ticking off the Jewish religious authorities, making a mockery of their "authority." Since Rome didn't want to deal with religious/political trouble, they agreed to kill Jesus at the behest of the Sanhedrin.

any theological "necessities" are superfluous but nice, as they provide comfortable mythic reasons for Jesus' powerlessness before human authority.

 

[thegospelkiss]

OK, that's a pretty concise summation of basic Christian theology. What's the point?

I'd like to think that was true, but in my experience it's far from generally accepted in the Christian community. In fact, I also posted it on another site and got quite negative responses, implying I'm a heretic. My point is, I suppose, that I'd like to see this become the general understanding of Christian theology -but right now it's not.

If you doubt what I'm saying just keep an eye on any other posts that come along from Christians. They're unlikely to be as accepting as yours.

 

[thegospelkiss]

The crucifixion was "necessary" because Jesus refused to shut up and go away. he kept ticking off the Jewish religious authorities, making a mockery of their "authority." Since Rome didn't want to deal with religious/political trouble, they agreed to kill Jesus at the behest of the Sanhedrin.

any theological "necessities" are superfluous but nice, as they provide comfortable mythic reasons for Jesus' powerlessness before human authority.

And what did they believe?

 

[sojourner]

And what did they believe?

They believed Jesus was a blasphemer and a heretic. And since theirs was the religion of which Jesus was a member, and they made the rules, then, strictly speaking, they were "right."

That being said, a strictly historical explanation does not cut the spiritual mustard. The crucifixion had to have some kind of mythic significance ascribed to it, in order for a senseless act of terrorism to make sense to the community. I disagree with your take, but it seems to be just as theologically valid as any other, and as a Xian, you're entitled to it, IMO.

 

[bain-druie]

By "eating from" the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, Man came to believe he could, and had, violated God's will (sin). From there unity fell away (good) and was replaced throughout the earth by conflict (good vs. evil). Man now judged himself and others as either good or bad, taking credit for the good and laying blame for the bad. Division ruled, and all manner of 'evils' were perpetrated in the name of fighting 'evil' and trying to appease an 'angry' God. Religions were, of course, the primary conduits of this thinking but, naturally, political leaders found it helpful to promote it in order to divide and conquer. Abraham was a turning point.

Jesus was a man uninfected by the idea of Sin. He condemned no one as 'evil', but he was surrounded by those who did. He lived in the Kingdom of God and never took credit for anything, always giving the 'glory' (credit) to God. These two contrary views of God were intended to clash and come to a head in his life; that was the purpose of his coming. He willingly submitted to crucifixion to demonstrate to the world and to history that his understanding of God was the truth, and was not the one lying and plotting and killing and blaspheming. It was instead the world's understanding - the one still at the root of virtually all of today's religions, modern Christianity included - that was the persecutor. He was a sacrifice for our 'sins' in the sense that because we believed we were sinners in God's eyes something had to show this to be false. Only by preferring to die for what he believed rather than to kill for it could this be accomplished, highlighting the stark difference between the two competing belief systems. And it was world-changing. For the first time since Adam there was an alternative to the world-view that had dominated history.

That was interesting, but were I asked whether I agree, I'd have to say :no: First of all, if you're going by traditional biblical Christianity, the biblical account would indicate the only reason Adam and Eve had a perception of 'sin' after eating from the Knowledge Tree was that God specifically commanded them not to, and therefore they were disobeying.

It appears to me (forgive me if I'm wrong) that this is an attempt to exonerate the Christian god from being morally responsible for the introduction of sin to humankind; but it doesn't make sense in a biblical context. You'd also have to be a committed Determinist to agree with the first paragraph of your post, which a lot of Christians aren't.

As for one man's crucifixion being world-changing, that depends what you view as your world. My ancestors and I see the crucifixion of Yeshua (as told in the NT) as pretty much irrelevant; it's sad, because crucifixion is a horrible way to die, but it has nothing to do with us or our worldview. None of the rest of us knew or cared until Christianity invaded everyone else and said 'WE'RE HERE TO SAVE YOU!!! CONVERT OR DIE!!!' :areyoucra

 

[Skwim]

Here's why the crucifixion was necessary:

Jesus' primary message was the Kingdom of God, in other words God's sovereignty. If God is sovereign, there can be no free will and no such distinction as good and evil. God, after all, created everything and declared it good.

By "eating from" the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, Man came to believe he could, and had, violated God's will (sin).

But why would god give A&E such a thing? After all, as an omniscient being surely he knew what was going to happen and what he would be doing as a consequence. Why not simply create A&S in the same state they found themselves after eating the apple instead of going through all the theatrics?

From there unity fell away (good) and was replaced throughout the earth by conflict (good vs. evil). Man now judged himself and others as either good or bad, taking credit for the good and laying blame for the bad.

Well the good only lasted a day or two, so I suspect that "man" has always judged himself and others as either good or bad, which, when you think of it is only logical in as much as this is what we've always been.

Division ruled, and all manner of 'evils' were perpetrated in the name of fighting 'evil' and trying to appease an 'angry' God.

In the Abrahamic religions anyway.

Religions were, of course, the primary conduits of this thinking but, naturally, political leaders found it helpful to promote it in order to divide and conquer.

I don't know. Religion had a pretty unifying effect on the Egyptians, and their religion lasted for 3,000 years. And Hinduism, is over 5,000 years old.

Jesus was a man uninfected by the idea of Sin.

As god I would certainly hope so.

He condemned no one as 'evil', but he was surrounded by those who did.

"When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah."
Luke 11:29 (English Standard Version)
​

He lived in the Kingdom of God and never took credit for anything, always giving the 'glory' (credit) to God.
These two contrary views of God were intended to clash and come to a head in his life; that was the purpose of his coming.

I always thought the reason was . . .

". . . "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent."
Luke 4:43
​

He willingly submitted to crucifixion to demonstrate to the world and to history that his understanding of God was the truth, and was not the one lying and plotting and killing and blaspheming.

I thought it was to atone for our sins. NO??

It was instead the world's understanding - the one still at the root of virtually all of today's religions, modern Christianity included - that was the persecutor.

I doubt many people other than the Jews had such an understanding. The rest of the world being ignorant of the whole thing.

He was a sacrifice for our 'sins' in the sense that because we believed we were sinners in God's eyes something had to show this to be false. Only by preferring to die for what he believed rather than to kill for it could this be accomplished, highlighting the stark difference between the two competing belief systems. And it was world-changing. For the first time since Adam there was an alternative to the world-view that had dominated history.

Again, I seriously doubt that sin was much of any kind of world view or dominated world history. But I'm open to instruction.

 

[thegospelkiss]

First of all, if you're going by traditional biblical Christianity, the biblical account would indicate the only reason Adam and Eve had a perception of 'sin' after eating from the Knowledge Tree was that God specifically commanded them not to, and therefore they were disobeying.

Clearly I'm not going by the traditional understanding of biblical Christianity (although, see the first post above). At least, not any mainstream Christianity that I'm familiar with. Also, it was the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, not the tree of knowledge (or knowledge tree). And while most people interpret what God told A&E about the tree of the KOGAE as a command, it need not be interpreted that way. I would argue that people read that into it to suit the dominant theology.

As for one man's crucifixion being world-changing, that depends what you view as your world. My ancestors and I see the crucifixion of Yeshua (as told in the NT) as pretty much irrelevant; it's sad, because crucifixion is a horrible way to die, but it has nothing to do with us or our worldview. None of the rest of us knew or cared until Christianity invaded everyone else and said 'WE'RE HERE TO SAVE YOU!!! CONVERT OR DIE!!!' :areyoucra

I would respond by saying that after Jesus a small number of people went out into the world and slowly changed the hearts and minds of growing numbers. While the total number at any one time has undoubtedly been a small minority, I believe it has had a profound effect on the world, the majority of 'Christians' notwithstanding.

 

[thegospelkiss]

But why would god give A&E such a thing? After all, as an omniscient being surely he knew what was going to happen and what he would be doing as a consequence. Why not simply create A&S in the same state they found themselves after eating the apple instead of going through all the theatrics?

Possibly to show the initial state of unity, and that the division was not an original ideal state.

I don't know. Religion had a pretty unifying effect on the Egyptians, and their religion lasted for 3,000 years. And Hinduism, is over 5,000 years old.

But both of those nations are hardly models of Man's or God's ideals, unity notwithstanding. What I have described has not to my knowledge ever been tried on a large scale.

"When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah."
Luke 11:29 (English Standard Version)

'Evil' in this passage is PONEROS in greek, meaning 'troublesome', not evil. Evil per se would be KAKOS, which Jesus did not call them.

I always thought the reason was . . .

". . . "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent."
Luke 4:43​

See the first paragraph of my original post.

I thought it was to atone for our sins. NO??

The concept of atonement for sins implies the legitimacy of sin. This could hold if you define sin as a violation of God's law, and not God's will. But I maintain that it has been God's will for Man to be unable to keep God's law as a way of demonstrating Man's utter dependence on God for everything; he can do nothing of himself (on his own). But most equate God's law and God's will as equivalent. I'm not denying the legitimacy of this interpretation provided it is always maintained at the forefront of our minds that our violations of God's law are themselves God's will.

I doubt many people other than the Jews had such an understanding. The rest of the world being ignorant of the whole thing.

The Zoroastrians had an entire theology based on good vs. evil etc. In fact, if I'm not mistaken that was the dominant religion of Babylon when the Jews were taken into captivity. It seems Judaism may very well have been infected by it and ultimately Christianity. Most of the world's religions perhaps.

Again, I seriously doubt that sin was much of any kind of world view or dominated world history. But I'm open to instruction.

It may not be called 'sin' in every belief system, but there seems little doubt that the whole good vs. evil thing has been prevalent for at least several thousand of years.​

 

[Skwim]

Possibly to show the initial state of unity, and that the division was not an original ideal state.

It's still a lot of trouble for something that can just be stated. "Your sin and wickedness can be overcome by doing what I say, which is . . . . . . . . . . . .

But both of those nations are hardly models of Man's or God's ideals, unity notwithstanding. What I have described has not to my knowledge ever been tried on a large scale.

But that was never part of your claim. Your unqualified statement was,

"Religions were, of course, the primary conduits of this thinking but, naturally, political leaders found it helpful to promote it in order to divide and conquer."
​

'Evil' in this passage is PONEROS in greek, meaning 'troublesome', not evil. Evil per se would be KAKOS, which Jesus did not call them.

According to Strong's Concordance ponēros means:

b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad
​

Other Bibles using "Evil" in Luke 11:29

Holman Christian Standard (CSB)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Bible in Basic English (BBE)
English Standard Version (ESV)
GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Good News Translation (GNT)
Hebrew Names Version (HNV)
King James Version (KJV)
Lexham English Bible (LEB)
New Century Version (NCV)
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
New King James Version (NKJV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
New Revised Standard (NRS)
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The Webster Bible (WBT)
Third Millennium Bible (TMB)
World English Bible (WEB)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

​

Which is the vast majority of the Bibles listed. So, considering there concurrence I think "evil" is the appropriate translation. None listed "troublesome" as an alternative.

See the first paragraph of my original post.

As you say, that was his "message," but his message is not the same as his purpose.

The concept of atonement for sins implies the legitimacy of sin. This could hold if you define sin as a violation of God's law, and not God's will. But I maintain that it has been God's will for Man to be unable to keep God's law as a way of demonstrating Man's utter dependence on God for everything; he can do nothing of himself (on his own). But most equate God's law and God's will as equivalent. I'm not denying the legitimacy of this interpretation provided it is always maintained at the forefront of our minds that our violations of God's law are themselves God's will.

Obviously then god has been quite satisfied that his plan has worked out as he willed: humans have been blessed with pain, misery, distress, anxiety, suffering, torment, agony and death. And he expects us to worship and adore him.

The Zoroastrians had an entire theology based on good vs. evil etc. In fact, if I'm not mistaken that was the dominant religion of Babylon when the Jews were taken into captivity. It seems Judaism may very well have been infected by it and ultimately Christianity. Most of the world's religions perhaps.

A few local religions is a far shot from "the world's understanding."

It may not be called 'sin' in every belief system, but there seems little doubt that the whole good vs. evil thing has been prevalent for at least several thousand of years.

Not sure what you mean by "good vs. evil thing ," but the sin you speak of "in God's [the god of Abraham] eyes" is specific to the Abrahamic religions, and hardly a world view or dominated world history.

 

[thegospelkiss]

It's still a lot of trouble for something that can just be stated. "Your sin and wickedness can be overcome by doing what I say, which is . . . . . . . . . . . .

But that was never part of your claim. Your unqualified statement was,

"Religions were, of course, the primary conduits of this thinking but, naturally, political leaders found it helpful to promote it in order to divide and conquer."
​

According to Strong's Concordance ponēros means:

b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad
​

Other Bibles using "Evil" in Luke 11:29

Holman Christian Standard (CSB)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Bible in Basic English (BBE)
English Standard Version (ESV)
GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Good News Translation (GNT)
Hebrew Names Version (HNV)
King James Version (KJV)
Lexham English Bible (LEB)
New Century Version (NCV)
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
New King James Version (NKJV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
New Revised Standard (NRS)
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The Webster Bible (WBT)
Third Millennium Bible (TMB)
World English Bible (WEB)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

​

Which is the vast majority of the Bibles listed. So, considering there concurrence I think "evil" is the appropriate translation. None listed "troublesome" as an alternative.

As you say, that was his "message," but his message is not the same as his purpose.

Obviously then god has been quite satisfied that his plan has worked out as he willed: humans have been blessed with pain, misery, distress, anxiety, suffering, torment, agony and death. And he expects us to worship and adore him. Yeah, right.

A few local religions is a far shot from "the world's understanding."

Not sure what you mean by "good vs. evil thing ," but the sin you speak of "in God's [the god of Abraham] eyes" is specific to the Abrahamic religions, and hardly a world view or dominated world history.

Clearly your intention is to dismiss under all circumstances anything I might say in response, so I don't see the value in responding point by point. We disagree, and will in all likelihood continue to disagree. My intention was to put these thoughts out there. They obviously aren't meant for you. Others may get something of value out of them. But thanks for contributing.

 

[fallingblood]

Here's why the crucifixion was necessary:

Just to begin, I don't think the crucifixion was necessary in the first place. I think the fact that there are many religions that don't accept the crucifixion would suggest it is not necessary. And since it appears that the earliest followers of Jesus saw the crucifixion and resurrection very differently, the modern idea is not necessary.

Jesus' primary message was the Kingdom of God, in other words God's sovereignty. If God is sovereign, there can be no free will and no such distinction as good and evil. God, after all, created everything and declared it good.

That was not what the Kingdom of God was. To understand the Kingdom of God, one has to place it in a historical context. When one does that, we see that the Kingdom of God is in fact a physical kingdom. One that is suppose to replace the current ruling kingdom (in that time it meant Rome.

By "eating from" the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, Man came to believe he could, and had, violated God's will (sin). From there unity fell away (good) and was replaced throughout the earth by conflict (good vs. evil). Man now judged himself and others as either good or bad, taking credit for the good and laying blame for the bad. Division ruled, and all manner of 'evils' were perpetrated in the name of fighting 'evil' and trying to appease an 'angry' God. Religions were, of course, the primary conduits of this thinking but, naturally, political leaders found it helpful to promote it in order to divide and conquer. Abraham was a turning point.

The creation story was a metaphor. It is not meant to be taken literally.

If we take the idea that God created humans, then one has to accept that God created man fully knowing that they would sin, and know how to judge others. That is something that began from the beginning.

As for Abraham being a turning point, how? The same things that persisted before Abraham did so even after Abraham.

Jesus was a man uninfected by the idea of Sin. He condemned no one as 'evil', but he was surrounded by those who did. He lived in the Kingdom of God and never took credit for anything, always giving the 'glory' (credit) to God. These two contrary views of God were intended to clash and come to a head in his life; that was the purpose of his coming. He willingly submitted to crucifixion to demonstrate to the world and to history that his understanding of God was the truth, and was not the one lying and plotting and killing and blaspheming. It was instead the world's understanding - the one still at the root of virtually all of today's religions, modern Christianity included - that was the persecutor. He was a sacrifice for our 'sins' in the sense that because we believed we were sinners in God's eyes something had to show this to be false. Only by preferring to die for what he believed rather than to kill for it could this be accomplished, highlighting the stark difference between the two competing belief systems. And it was world-changing. For the first time since Adam there was an alternative to the world-view that had dominated history.

Jesus was sinful. He dishonored his mother for one. So he was "infected" by sin.

As for an alternative? There were many before Jesus. There were many different religions, with various ideas. Even in Judaism itself, there were various ideas.

 

[Skwim]

Clearly your intention is to dismiss under all circumstances anything I might say in response, so I don't see the value in responding point by point. We disagree, and will in all likelihood continue to disagree. My intention was to put these thoughts out there. They obviously aren't meant for you. Others may get something of value out of them. But thanks for contributing.

You're the one here who asked and answered your own question, so what's left to discuss other than the assertions you made in your answer? And this is what I did. Several of the things you said didn't add up and I called you on them, which you countered with more claims that didn't add up. If you want to preach to the choir, "My intention was to put these thoughts out there. They obviously aren't meant for you," fine, but after this I suggest you post in a Christian only forum so you won't be bothered by questions but only elicit "Amen brother"s. It isn't my fault that your answers are problematic or exaggerations that don't sell well. Maybe you should look at the troublesome areas I point out as an opportunity to fix your proclamation rather than dismiss them as valueless intrusions into your theology.

 

[thegospelkiss]

You're the one here who asked and answered your own question, so what's left to discuss other than the assertions you made in your answer? And this is what I did. Several of the things you said didn't add up and I called you on them, which you countered with more claims that didn't add up. If you want to preach to the choir, "My intention was to put these thoughts out there. They obviously aren't meant for you," fine, but after this I suggest you post in a Christian only forum so you won't be bothered by questions but only elicit "Amen brother"s. It isn't my fault that your answers are problematic or exaggerations that don't sell well. Maybe you should look at the troublesome areas I point out as an opportunity to fix your proclamation rather than dismiss them as valueless intrusions into your theology.

I'm constantly learning. Today, for example, I learned that PONEROS is not the same as KAKOS - or rather, was reminded. Concerning our earlier posts you might also learn something by studying the difference between them if you're actually interested in understanding what I'm trying to say. If not, then don't bother. Your suggestions are duly noted. I don't charge for anything I write, so I'm not really selling anything. And though I don't expect this to mean anything to you or have any practical effect, the tone and attitude of your responses communicate more than perhaps you are aware, making you more transparent than might expect.

 

[Skwim]

I'm constantly learning. Today, for example, I learned that PONEROS is not the same as KAKOS - or rather, was reminded.

And the "evil" is the most often used translation for it in Luke 11:29.

Concerning our earlier posts you might also learn something by studying the difference between them if you're actually interested in understanding what I'm trying to say. If not, then don't bother.

The differences between our earlier posts?? You mean between your posts and mine? To me the differences are quite obvious.

Your suggestions are duly noted.

I don't charge for anything I write, so I'm not really selling anything.

It was a metaphor:

met·a·phor (mt-fôr, -fr)
n.
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage"
​

And though I don't expect this to mean anything to you or have any practical effect, the tone and attitude of your responses communicate more than perhaps you are aware, making you more transparent than might expect.

Wow, You mean I come across like a doubting Thomas who expects people mean what they say? And someone who won't necessarily take what people say at face value? You're absolutely right. There's far too much sloppy thinking going around (Not you. Yours was fairly tight) and expected to be convincing. So while many believers here post to convince the non-believers, I in turn try to show them the error in their thinking. Both laudable goals, don't ya think?

 

[thegospelkiss]

And the "evil" is the most often used translation for it in Luke 11:29.


The differences between our earlier posts?? You mean between your posts and mine? To me the differences are quite obvious.

It was a metaphor:

met·a·phor (mt-fôr, -fr)
n.
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage"
​

Wow, You mean I come across like a doubting Thomas who expects people mean what they say? And someone who won't necessarily take what people say at face value? You're absolutely right. There's far too much sloppy thinking going around (Not you. Yours was fairly tight) and expected to be convincing. So while many believers here post to convince the non-believers, I in turn try to show them the error in their thinking. Both laudable goals, don't ya think?

The difference between PONEROS and KAKOS.

 

[bain-druie]

Clearly I'm not going by the traditional understanding of biblical Christianity.

Clearly, it is *not* clear, since I am not the only one who was not certain whether or not YOU were clear on that. But since you are, very well - carry on!

Also, it was the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, not the tree of knowledge (or knowledge tree).

I KNOW that. However, I am not as adept as you are at using appropriate abbreviations! I just shortened it the first way it popped into my head to shorten it. And yes, I admit I should have just acronymed it, so it's my own fault.

And while most people interpret what God told A&E about the tree of the KOGAE as a command, it need not be interpreted that way. I would argue that people read that into it to suit the dominant theology.

OK - fair enough. And how would you argue that? I'm curious.

I would respond by saying that after Jesus a small number of people went out into the world and slowly changed the hearts and minds of growing numbers. While the total number at any one time has undoubtedly been a small minority, I believe it has had a profound effect on the world, the majority of 'Christians' notwithstanding.

Not entirely sure of your intention with this; I, personally, would say that you presume too much by saying the followers of Jesus 'changed the hearts and minds' of growing numbers. The real key to the wholesale success of christianity was the marriage of the church with the state in Constantinian Rome, followed by multiple marriages of church and state to follow, Catholic *and* Protestant. Before that, it was just another religio illicita under Roman law.

That it has had a profound effect on the world is, unfortunately, true historically. Historically, also, it has had a detrimental effect in spite of the relative minority of good people within Christendom who lived truly admirable, heroic lives (George Mueller, for example). I would argue that Christianity has been, overall as an institution, very bad for every living species on earth: human, other-animal, and vegetable.

 

[thegospelkiss]

OK - fair enough. And how would you argue that? I'm curious.

By saying that Adam was told not to eat and what would happen the day he did. Not IF he did, but on the day he did. That can easily be read to mean it was going to happen and God knew. Not to mention that if God is God, He would not only have known Adam would eat, but He must also have intended it. If not, He could have created a different Adam, or no Adam. I believe the bible bears this out.

Not entirely sure of your intention with this; I, personally, would say that you presume too much by saying the followers of Jesus 'changed the hearts and minds' of growing numbers. The real key to the wholesale success of christianity was the marriage of the church with the state in Constantinian Rome, followed by multiple marriages of church and state to follow, Catholic *and* Protestant. Before that, it was just another religio illicita under Roman law.
That it has had a profound effect on the world is, unfortunately, true historically. Historically, also, it has had a detrimental effect in spite of the relative minority of good people within Christendom who lived truly admirable, heroic lives (George Mueller, for example). I would argue that Christianity has been, overall as an institution, very bad for every living species on earth: human, other-animal, and vegetable.

Essentially you are judging Christianity for the sins of Christendom. Most 'Christians' throughout history have been so in name only. Actual Christians - people who believed as Christ believed and followed in his footsteps, so to speak - have been a very small minority - but, I believe, an influential one in advancing the world's view of human dignity, freedom, forgiveness and compassion. Only now within the past few hundred years has this begun to be seen. I can offer no 'proof' for what I'm saying, only my perspective.

 

[bain-druie]

By saying that Adam was told not to eat and what would happen the day he did. Not IF he did, but on the day he did. That can easily be read to mean it was going to happen and God knew. Not to mention that if God is God, He would not only have known Adam would eat, but He must also have intended it. If not, He could have created a different Adam, or no Adam. I believe the bible bears this out.

OK - haven't heard that exact construct before. But aren't you hinging an awful lot on semantics? What of the original Hebrew?

Essentially you are judging Christianity for the sins of Christendom. Most 'Christians' throughout history have been so in name only. Actual Christians - people who believed as Christ believed and followed in his footsteps, so to speak - have been a very small minority - but, I believe, an influential one in advancing the world's view of human dignity, freedom, forgiveness and compassion. Only now within the past few hundred years has this begun to be seen. I can offer no 'proof' for what I'm saying, only my perspective.

True that I judge Christendom for its sins, and I accept as I stated earlier that there is a minority of Christians throughout its history who have been valuable contributors to life on earth; but I wouldn't say I judge Christianity for them *essentially*.

I have a moral revulsion to the entire idea of Substitutionary Atonement; it is the very opposite of divine justice according to my moral code. The rest of the Calvinist TULIP is even worse. Catholicism, bah. History - 'nuf said. Protestant Reformation? Everywhere it went, social injustice followed quickly.

I am also morally appalled by a very large proportion of what I find in the Bible, both testaments. I can dig out good bits when I try, but then I hope I'm never hungry enough to dig for my dinner from the local landfill, if you see what I mean. (No offense, just how I feel.)

I'm not saying my moral code is the Moral Code of the Universe and should be Universally Adhered To, Lest All Dissenters Be Judged, etc. (that would be against my moral code ); but I am saying I cannot morally, intellectually, or on any other level stomach many of the core doctrines within mainstream Christianity.