Yes, and there was no need for torturing himself as well! — MoK

True.

Instead it's all snakes and apples. :grin:
— frank
What do you mean? — MoK

In the Garden of Eden, there was a snake and a couple of fruit trees.

Correct. God, for example, could remove the tree from the scene. All problems solved! — MoK

He could have had a tea party in the Garden. Instead it's all snakes and apples. :grin:

I was taught that it wasn't so much rules beyond his control so much as the sin-nature makes us incompatible with his pure divinity. — MrLiminal

That view fits well with the Neoplatonic vision that says reality is a grand round trip out of heaven, down into materiality, and then back again, ending in reunification with God. The ground of your being is God, so it's like you're a part of God that has amnesia.

Many early Christians were Neoplatonists who adopted the Christian narrative, consciously using it as a myth. They didn't take any part of it literally. Over time, Christianity settled into dogma, retaining the outlines of earlier mysticism. How literally are we supposed to take the narrative? I don't think there is one answer to that.

Not necessarily, if a person is a good person and serves his fellow man. He does not require redeeming. Isn’t Christ the fisher of men, seeking out the virtuous ones*. — Punshhh

I don't think that's how Original Sin works. Catholics believe humans are born cursed. That's why they baptize infants. The death of Jesus offers a way to be redeemed from the curse.

Yeah, the argument is that humans were permanently tainted by the fall, which required the sacrifice of Jesus to make humans redeemable. The logic is that humanity fell through the actions of Adam and Eve and accepting Jesus is the way to use free will to get around our inherent sinful nature. — MrLiminal

Right, so the narrative is that Jesus redeems us from the curse of Adam. Without that redemption, we're condemned.

I don't think it's usually assumed that God is contending here with rules beyond His control. Being omniscient, He would have to have known Adam would sin. And being omnipotent, he could change things if we wanted to.

The idea is that there is a mysterious grand purpose in all of this. To some extent, that's coming from the Neoplatonic roots of Christianity.

I would argue (at least some) Christians believe God would prefer no one go to hell, and the sacrifice of Jesus was the alleged evidence of that. — MrLiminal

:up:

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall to the ground except your Father knows.

30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. — Matthew 10:29

It wasn't taught like you're describing; it was sold as the sacrifice of Jesus almost acting as a sort of loophole God used in order to save humanity from its own imperfections. — MrLiminal

How did they explain the source of human imperfection? It's often framed in the scriptures as the outcome of events in the Garden of Eden. Is that what you got out of it?

Ok. Have a good day.

Goodness. You've read things into my post that weren't my intention at all.

I meant the OP as a question about the nature of myths. Maybe I should have picked on the OT instead?

Anyway, we're pretty far from a "forum" of trust and charity at this point. I invite you to step back into that domain.

God, however, is immutable and impassible. He does not have feelings as we know them.

That makes condemnation to Hell a little more horrifying. God has no feelings about it one way or the other.


We're always happy to call the hospital chaplain to tell grieving families that God doesn't really give a shit. :grin:

:grin:

Thanks everybody for your answers!

Oh, perhaps Tim's engine will spin by itself. It's how it makes contact with the world that might make the difference.

I don;t see it gaining much traction for you and I. — Banno

Best leave it here, then, huh?

Tim can't articulate your criticism in his terms, it seems. — Banno

I'm not holding my breath. I don't think there are any teeth on the cogs.

“God became man and freely offered Himself to save us from sin and eternal separation from Him.” — Count Timothy von Icarus

God became man and allowed Himself to be tortured to death. Do you agree with this? Taking baby steps here.

Yet this is not how Christians have traditionally understood sin (i.e., in the traditional Orthodox and Catholic Churches). I will allow that there are some forms of Protestant theology that hew a bit closer to this (although I imagine they might have qualms with this description as well). There are also many forms of Protestant theology that don't. — Count Timothy von Icarus

A Catholic accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, which says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. A Catholic also accepts the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice, as outlined in John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

Put the two together, and we have God sacrificing Himself, to Himself, to save us from Himself. If there's a part of this you deny, you're enjoying the good luck of living in a world where the Protestants long ago took charge and provided religious freedom so that you don't have to worry about being burned at the stake for heresy. :wink:

This:
...yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person.
— frank
may be as helpful as Summa Theologica. — Banno

:up:

I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God. — Bob Ross

I didn't ask if you believe Jesus was the Son of God. I asked if you think Jesus is God. Catholics do believe that. In fact, most Christians do.

You didn't just read it, frank, you ignored it — Bob Ross

It looked to me like you weren't considering the way the Trinity plays into the problem. You wouldn't answer me when I asked you if you think Jesus is God. So from my perspective, it's you who is being reticent. I just exited the discussion when you wouldn't answer me.

I agree. My point is that you can't take the responsibility for Jesus' death off of God without denying the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice. You can't resolve the conundrum that God is supposed to have sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself, without denying the Trinity.

I think the best answer to this would be what a Southern Baptist seminary student told me after realizing that I was really trying to understand how he could believe in hell. He paused, cupped his hands together, and said, "Christianity is about loving another person."

Baptist seminary students read the New Testament in Greek. They don't fool around. But this one student was willing to just push all of that to the side to say what religion meant to him. It's in people like that that Christianity is still a living religion. In other words, the answer to the OP: yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person.

Saying that Pilate was somehow forced to crucify an innocent man because, — Count Timothy von Icarus

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

There is a long list of scriptures that clearly say that Jesus' death was God's plan.

I wonder if the whole global system is just on auto-pilot with no one really "running" any of it.

The Trump administration recently passed a bill that effectively takes from the poor and gives to the rich. There's no mention of some policy or principle. Why are we doing that? Because that's what we do.

I've been looking lately at what the weather will be like in 2100. Even that soon some areas that are presently occupied will be too hot for human viability. I think that will become the driver of policy eventually.

frank is incapable of responding to my argument for some reason and insists that God meaninglessly sacrificed himself to himself out of wrath. It's just a shame they are unwilling to have a productive conversation. — Bob Ross

I read your post. It just didn't make any sense to me.

That was the best post ever. :heart:

But we can see that conventions do not determine the meaning of an utterance. — Banno

:up:

I'll take it. It occurred to me that I just assumed Davidson meant that projecting intention on the speaker was part of radical interpretation. The words intend, mean, and understand are mixed together in my mind.

Because we're neurotic apes and just part-time rational? Evidently, the elasticity/plasticity of our mental/cognitive lives establishes in such a way that we may be taught, believe, or defend (tooth and nail) false dogmas and fictional stories. Incoherence and incorrigibility make irrational bedfellows in our heads. — jorndoe

I'll buy that. The brain comes with an off-switch. We may flip that switch when we want to. This would contradict Nietzsche's view that religious beliefs hold the key to understanding culture. Official doctrine may be completely opaque. Private, personal beliefs are a different matter.

How is that relevant to our discussion? Do you see how your depiction of Christianity was a straw man? That's all I was attempting to argue here. — Bob Ross

Thanks for taking the time. :up:

Part of the reason is that they have been taught that belief is of greater import that consistency. — Banno

Maybe they're right? Social stability is a life-and-death issue. Having a logical story isn't (unless it is.)
..

Extended empirical observation of Jenny's behaviour within the community in which she participates. Watching her pet the cat, buy cat food, chastise someone for not chasing the cat off the mat. A Bayesian analysis of behavioural patterns, perhaps, although we don't usually need to go so far in order to recognise patterns in the behaviour of others.

The interpreter assumes that Jenny and the others in her community have much the same beliefs as the interpreter - that there are cats, bowls, mats, and so on to talk about. — Banno

I went a few steps down the rabbit hole of determining what role Davidson meant attribution of intentions to play in radical interpretation. I think the answer is that he left it unclear what evidence suffices for interpretation. This lack of clarity echoes his overall view of intention. He apparently travelled through a reductionist phase, eventually landing in acceptance of intentions due to the problem of thwarted efforts.

An example would be, say Pedro has decided to climb Mt Everest. Along the way, he got lost, ran out of O2 and died. A reductionist view would say we should conclude that Pedro intended to get lost and die. That's absurd, though. We all know he intended to make it to the top. He held that intention, but just didn't quite make it. Intentions do not reduce to actions.

So what would the older Davidson, the one who decided that we can't be reductionist about intentions, say about how they figure in radical interpretations? I don't know.

Ok. Isn't that spacetime in which all things are? The Holy Spirit is defined as one in whom all things are. — MoK

The Holy Spirit is the same thing as the World Soul. It's from Platonic and Stoic philosophy. Probably closer to being what we would call natural law than spacetime.

Shouldn't Jesus and the Holy Spirit have different definitions? — MoK

They're different persons. They're the same God.

Are you fully and completely equating Jesus and God and saying God sacrificed himself? Maybe I'm not following what you're saying. — Hanover

The Trinity is mysterious. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not like portions of one pie. Each one is the whole pie in terms of Godhood, power, and authority. Each one is fully God. This doctrine is borrowed from Neoplatonism. I think the problem sketched by the OP is coming from the fact that Christianity is the fusion of several distinct cultural outlooks. In this one area, it's more of a collision than a fusion. The idea of the Covenant (debt), divine retribution (the Penal substitution theory), and mystical Neoplatonism give us a myth that is inexplicable.

The Second Council of Constantinople of 553, also known as the 5th Ecumenical Council, captures it well:

“If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have one nature (phusis, natura) or substance (ousia, substantia), that they have one power (dunamis, virtus) and one authority (exousian, potestas), that there is a consubstantial (homoousios, consubstantialis) Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three hypostases (hupostaseis, subsistentiae) or persons (prosopa, personae): let him be anathema. For there is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit, in whom all things are.“13 — here

Interesting, thanks! This is how Calvinists view it:

The penal substitution theory teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty due, according to God the Father's wrath for humanity's sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin. — Wikipedia

The reason they give for the fact that very few humans were actually saved from God's wrath is that you have to identify with Jesus in order to be saved. That identification allows you to partake of Jesus' punishment and thereby, be freed of original sin.

The issue regarding the fact that Jesus didn't stay dead is dealt with by saying his resurrection is about "renewal and restoration of righteousness."

The idea of vicarious atonement flows from Judaism. Isaiah 53:4–6, 10, 11 refers to the "suffering servant":

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities." — Wikipedia

So this is the concept of a scapegoat. Scapegoating doesn't mean much intellectually, but at a deeper level, it fills a need. But Christianity turns this on its head by emphasizing that the scapegoat was innocent, and then going through his execution blow by blow: the crown of thorns, the nails in the hands and feet, the spear through the abdomen, the final scream before asking God, "Why have you forsaken me?"

This isn't how scapegoating is supposed to work. Do we still do scapegoating?

2 Corinthians 5:21—"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (RSV)

All in all, I think I would accept the Penal substitution theory except for the part where God gives himself for the redemption of mankind. That was supposed to be God on the cross. God is the one who was demanding punishment for original sin (which was basically a matter of eating fruit from a particular tree.)

There is no third party. It's just God and humanity. Next: criticisms.

:up:

Yes. For example, in this case, you could take the money from a volunteer who is wealthy enough to pay the debt for this person and thereby absolve them of their debt when they don't deserve i

Do you believe that Jesus is God?

can understand your cinicism coming from a country where religion is such a dividing line. I’m in a country where religion is barely mentioned, plays almost no role in life. Most people are atheist, or just ambivalent and you wouldn’t know the difference between them unless you specifically asked. — Punshhh

I'm not cynical. :grin: I just put in the op in energetic terms.

But with a kernel of truth underlying it. This was about the moral and ethical struggles involved in the birth of civilisation. — Punshhh

I'm interested in the idea of underlying truth, especially when attempts to express that truth result in a convoluted story.

Rome was the cradle of Christianity and it was dying, not emerging. The old Roman religion still existed, but it had become dry and hollow, much as you describe your country's religious climate.

Jenny says "the cat is on the mat"

Jenny often uses "the cat" to talk about Jack — Banno

As you will recall, Davidson focuses on a situation where you don't know the language Jenny is speaking. You don't recognize any of the words. All you get is behavior and the assumption that she believes the same things you do.

So how did you gather that Jenny uses "the cat" to talk about Jack? What behavior did you observe that caused you to conclude this?

We can indeed use a presumption that the speaker's beliefs are much the same as our own in order to interpret their utterances — Banno

How would that work? Could you give an example?

intent is a necessary component in Davidson's triangulation theory.
— Hanover
It explicitly isn't.

We can attribute an intent to someone only after we have understood what they are saying. Understanding their utterances is prior to attributing an intent. Understanding their utterances is not dependent on attributing an intent. — Banno

Charity is basically about attributing intent to the speaker.

If we assume that the speaker’s beliefs, at least in the simplest and most basic cases, are largely in agreement with our own, and so, by our account, are largely true, then we can use our own beliefs about the world as a guide to the speaker’s beliefs. — SEP

We're looking for the speaker's beliefs in order to understand the speaker's intentions.

God sent His Son out of love so that He can be both just and merciful. God is not wrathful: I don’t know why the OT describes Him that way, but the NT makes it clear He is not. — Bob Ross

What would you say the sacrifice of Jesus was meant to accomplish?

Why do you have such hostility for Christianity? — Bob Ross

If Christianity was just the core message of Jesus, I would say I love Christianity. The doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice just doesn't make any sense.

:up: The world is a weird place.