Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does this make sense?

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,750 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    That's why I mentioned atheism is not a religion. It would not be a big issue to confess a belief in a god. Many do it to get children into the nearest school. It's not something difficult to trade.

    Likewise some madman demands a belief in the Easter Bunny or he'll do something crazy. Well, isn't that a lovely Easter Bunny over there in the corner.

    So, the omnipotent Jesus either committed suicide (Well, who could blame him - live another 10-20 years in an iron age hell hole or put up with some short term pain and go to paradise) or he's not omnipotent and had to do it for some airy fairy unbreakable self imposed sin clause.


  • Options
    #33
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Saipanne wrote: »
    OK, thanks for all the replies. Let me use an analogous situation.

    A lady is tied to train tracks by an evil villain with a train approaching fast, like an old timey film. She remembers the genie she met all those years ago, who granted her one wish, at any time. She could wish for the train to stop, or her bonds to untie, or to magically appear at home.

    But she chooses to not use her wish and simply lays there to die. The train runs right over her.


    Is this suicide?

    Theologically your analogy is inaccurate. Consider a member of the French Resistance being tortured by the Gestapo. He too has the power of a magic wish: if he gives up the names of his group he will live. He has a decision. If he refuses to use the magic wish is it suicide? Is it suicide compared to your analogy? He is sacrificing his life for others. He isn't killing himself, simply refusing to use the magic wish.

    In short, the RCC has had two thousand years to get its act together around questions like this. They have their answers off. Which is why you need to step back and actually look at God the son sacrificing himself to God the father etc etc.


  • Options
    #34
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,243 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    That's why I mentioned atheism is not a religion. It would not be a big issue to confess a belief in a god.
    I'm not seeing the connection here. Atheism is not a religion, therefore atheists have no problem lying about religion? That doesn't follow. Atheism is not a science either; do atheists have no problem lying about science?
    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    Many do it to get children into the nearest school. It's not something difficult to trade.
    Perhaps for some of them it wasn't difficult to trade. For others it may have been; they may greatly resent having been forced to do something they found extremely distasteful. And still others will have refused to do it; for them it was too difficult a trade.
    Avatar MIA wrote: »
    So, the omnipotent Jesus either committed suicide (Well, who could blame him - live another 10-20 years in an iron age hell hole or put up with some short term pain and go to paradise) or he's not omnipotent and had to do it for some airy fairy unbreakable self imposed sin clause.
    You do like your oversimplified binaries, don't you? I've already pointed out that Jesus' dilemma about whether to die has nothing to do with supernatural powers. He didn't need to be omniscient to know that in certain events he would be killed, and he didn't need to be omnipotent to avoid those events. If the question is "did Jesus commit suicide?", the answer doesn's seem to be to depend at all on whether he was divine or not.

    It comes down to this: if somebody can avoid being killed, but doesn't, because he thinks there is something he has to do that is more important than not being killed, is that suicide? In my book, and I think in the book of most English-speakers, no. In your book, evidently, yes.


  • Options
    #35
    Avatar MIA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,750 ✭✭✭Avatar MIA


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I'm not seeing the connection here. Atheism is not a religion, therefore atheists have no problem lying about religion? That doesn't follow. Atheism is not a science either; do atheists have no problem lying about science?


    Perhaps for some of them it wasn't difficult to trade. For others it may have been; they may greatly resent having been forced to do something they found extremely distasteful. And still others will have refused to do it; for them it was too difficult a trade.


    You do like your oversimplified binaries, don't you? I've already pointed out that Jesus' dilemma about whether to die has nothing to do with supernatural powers. He didn't need to be omniscient to know that in certain events he would be killed, and he didn't need to be omnipotent to avoid those events. If the question is "did Jesus commit suicide?", the answer doesn's seem to be to depend at all on whether he was divine or not.

    It comes down to this: if somebody can avoid being killed, but doesn't, because he thinks there is something he has to do that is more important than not being killed, is that suicide? In my book, and I think in the book of most English-speakers, no. In your book, evidently, yes.


    I'm not getting your logic at all, but it's Sunday, Peace Out :)


  • Options
    #36
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,131 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Atheism is not a religion, therefore atheists have no problem lying about religion?

    What's the issue lying about religion? Every religionista does it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    moc moc a moc
    Registered Users Posts: 1,299 ✭✭✭moc moc a moc


    Awful lot of Jesus and God talk going on here for a supposed "Atheist" forum


  • Options
    #38
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I never claimed that I could show that anything happened. I tried to answer the question that Saipanne asked.

    If you want to open a thread devoted to the question that apparently interests you more ("Did Jesus really die?") you don't need my permission.

    Nor did I, or would, seek it. I did not choose your words, you did. I am just pointing out what tosh those words are. "the reality of what happened" and "the fact that it happened" and "something that did happen". Bull. There is no reason of any sort on offer, least of all from you, to suggest any such thing did happen. No point getting uppity just because I call a spade a spade and you throw out words you can not stand behind.


  • Options
    #39
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    moc moc a moc wrote: »
    Awful lot of Jesus and God talk going on here for a supposed "Atheist" forum

    Define atheism?


  • Options
    #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    It's an old question in theology and the answer is no. He accepted in faith that his death was the will of his father and by his obedience unto death he became the perfect sacrifice to god the father, so perfect that his obedience freed all those souls trapped in purgatory and opened up the prospect of salvation for all humanity into the future even freeing them from the sin of Adam and giving them the possibility of freedom from their own personal sinfulness.

    .

    So God is angry at people and essentially Jesus dies to apologise for humanity and the Big G says fair enough and lets everyone in?

    (They must have taught me this stuff at some stage, but it really is a blank for me)


  • Options
    #41
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Nodin wrote: »
    So God is angry at people and essentially Jesus dies to apologise for humanity and the Big G says fair enough and lets everyone in?

    (They must have taught me this stuff at some stage, but it really is a blank for me)

    Lucky you. I can't forget. Memory is indeed a sad privilege: St Augustine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Lucky you. I can't forget. Memory is indeed a sad privilege: St Augustine.



    Is that essentially it though (post 40)?


  • Options
    #43
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,229 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Nodin wrote: »
    Is that essentially it though (post 40)?

    Not much point asking that in here, better go over to Christianity and ask.


  • Options
    #44
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    looksee wrote: »
    Not much point asking that in here, better go over to Christianity and ask.

    No no and no. Some of us have reverted to being atheist agnostic or non religious because we know sh*t about sh*t. :D


  • Options
    #45
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Nodin wrote: »
    Is that essentially it though (post 40)?

    It's a simple summary of it yes.


  • Options
    #46
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,229 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    No no and no. Some of us have reverted to being atheist agnostic or non religious because we know sh*t about sh*t. :D

    Wut? :confused:


  • Options
    #47
    haveringchick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭haveringchick


    moc moc a moc wrote: »
    Awful lot of Jesus and God talk going on here for a supposed "Atheist" forum

    Tonight 9 out of 13 threads on page 1 of the forum for people who say there is no God are about .....(drum roll...) God!!
    Always gives me a giggle when I'm browsing !
    No offence intended scientifically minded ones.


  • Options
    #48
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    haveringchick wrote: »
    Tonight 9 out of 13 threads on page 1 of the forum for people who say there is no God are about .....(drum roll...) God!!
    Always gives me a giggle when I'm browsing !
    No offence intended scientifically minded ones.

    They're not actually about "God": they're about how ridiculous belief in "God" is.
    But never mind. I enjoy a giggle too.


  • Options
    #49
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    looksee wrote: »
    Wut? :confused:

    Asking a question about religion in here has a good chance of getting a good answer because some of us are gamekeepers turned poacher. Geddit?


  • Options
    #50
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If they REALLY wanted to sell a useful story about a Christ character then a story worth the telling would have been one where this Christ was OFFERED the eternal life of bliss and dominion... but to the horror of the daddy figure.... and in an act of actual REAL sacrifice.... at the last minute Christ turns away and accepted the true death..
    You mean like Christ opher Hitchens?
    He rejected religion, died, and never came back.


  • Options
    #51
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Saipanne wrote: »
    I came up with this off the top of my head. Nonsense?


    Jesus was free of sin.

    Suicide is a sin.

    Jesus is God.

    God is omnipotent.

    Jesus was crucified and died.

    Jesus had the power to not die.

    Jesus chose to die.

    Jesus commuted suicide.

    Jesus was not free of sin.


    Probably nonsense. :-)

    Jesus was executed for telling the truth because people don't like the truth. Being executed for standing by your principles and beliefs, as were most of the apostles, and as many Christians still are today in other parts of the world, is not "committing suicide".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Any time you want to establish the "fact that it happened" I am all ears. No one that I have ever encountered has done so. Least of all you.

    Are you referring to the existence and crucifixion of Christ ?

    There is near universal consensus among professional historians that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and they reject the Christ myth theory.

    There may be widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus, but two events that are subject to almost universal agreement among serious professionals are that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, and he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.


  • Options
    #53
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    Jesus was executed for telling the truth because people don't like the truth. Being executed for standing by your principles and beliefs, as were most of the apostles, and as many Christians still are today in other parts of the world, is not "committing suicide".

    But he chose his fate. He chose to be executed.


  • Options
    #54
    La Fenetre
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭La Fenetre


    Saipanne wrote: »
    But he chose his fate. He chose to be executed.

    No he chose to stand by the truth, and they chose to execute him for it.


  • Options
    #55
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Theologically your analogy is inaccurate. Consider a member of the French Resistance being tortured by the Gestapo. He too has the power of a magic wish: if he gives up the names of his group he will live. He has a decision. If he refuses to use the magic wish is it suicide? Is it suicide compared to your analogy? He is sacrificing his life for others.
    That's different. The resistance guy is primarily refusing to give away his comrades. His own death is a consequence of this choice, but if he could save both himself and his comrades he would obviously prefer that.

    In the train tracks example, the person refuses to save themselves. For no good reason. So they have knowingly allowed their own death, which is tantamount to suicide.

    In the crucifixion, there are 2 suggested reasons why it wasn't suicide;
    A) if the death was only a trick, and he bounced back after 3 days. Not real suicide then.
    B) if the crucifixion of JC in itself saved an infinite number of souls through the sacrifice. Totally illogical, but suspending disbelief for a moment, in this situation it might be a good trade-off if true. But then it would be "suicide by cop" though "with the best of intentions".


  • Options
    #56
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,243 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    That's different. The resistance guy is primarily refusing to give away his comrades. His own death is a consequence of this choice, but if he could save both himself and his comrades he would obviously prefer that.

    In the train tracks example, the person refuses to save themselves. For no good reason. So they have knowingly allowed their own death, which is tantamount to suicide.
    Ah. But, actually, in Saipanne's story we're not told why the train-track lady doesn't cash in her one-free-wish chip, are we? We can't say that she did it for "no good reason" when we don't know what her reason was.

    But let's assume (a) that she had a reason for her choice, and (b) that her reason wouldn't seem good to us (though it obviously seemed good to her).

    Contrast the heroic resistance fighter. She (a) has a reason, and (b) her reason does seem good to us.

    If we say that track-lady has committed suicide but heroic resistance fighter has not, what we're really saying is that what we're saying is that whether an avoidable death is "suicide" doesn't depend on the beliefs or values of the person dying; it depends on my beliefs and values. Basically, if I would accept death in these circumstances, then it's not suicide, but if I wouldn't, then it is.

    This is very subjective, and has the result that somebody's death may be suicide from my point of view (I wouldn't have done that) but not from yours (you would). That may be a defensible concept of suicide, but it's not the concept of suicide that the Saipanne invokes with the premise that "suicide is a sin". If the term "sin" has any meaning at all (Down, Nozz! Down!) it must claim either an objective meaning (somebody's acceptance of death was a sin regardless of what you or I may think about it) or a meaning that is subjective to the actor (somebody's acceptance of death was a sin because it conflicted with their beliefs and values).


  • Options
    #57
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    La Fenetre wrote: »
    There is near universal consensus among professional historians that Jesus of Nazareth existed

    "near universal consensus" sounds a bit argumentum ad populum to me. I would be more interested in the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to think these things actually happened..... rather than just appeals to consensus. Especially given that such consensus is being challenged more and more in recently years, with a hell of a lot of it being called into question.

    I just think that if someone throws around phrases like "the fact that it happened" they might want to ensure they are capable of backing up what they claim. As we can see here, the user in questions.... well.... cant.

    But as a thought experiment, to discuss the moral and ethical implications of death by cop in the name of an ideal..... it is certainly useful.


  • Options
    #58
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,243 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    "near universal consensus" sounds a bit argumentum ad populum to me. I would be more interested in the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to think these things actually happened..... rather than just appeals to consensus. Especially given that such consensus is being challenged more and more in recently years, with a hell of a lot of it being called into question.
    If anything, the balance of mainstream academic opinion has hardened in favour of historicity over the years. There was a much stronger challenge to the fundamental historicity of the Jesus story in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries than there is today. Wikipedia is a limited cite, but it has an article on the historicity of Jesus which gives an overview of this.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I just think that if someone throws around phrases like "the fact that it happened" they might want to ensure they are capable of backing up what they claim. As we can see here, the user in questions.... well.... cant.
    The regulars on A&A are not as stupid as you think, Nozz. When Saipanne asked a question in terms which presumed the historicity of Jesus's death and I answered the question in the same terms, I doubt that any of them though that either Saipanne or I were personally guaranteeing the historicity of the accounts of Jesus's death.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But as a thought experiment, to discuss the moral and ethical implications of death by cop in the name of an ideal..... it is certainly useful.
    Well, I'm glad you can see that, Nozz. I was worried there for a while.


  • Options
    #59
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yea wikipedia is a bad cite. I try never to cite it myself and usually only use it to look at the "further references" at the end.

    Nor has anything I said assumed stupidity on behalf of any user, so I would thank you not to assign positions to me I do not hold just because you like to be snide in your posts. All I did was call you out on a claim which appears not to be, and continues not to be, backed up. If at any point you do want to back it up, I am all ears. Otherwise my point has been made and stands and no real need to make it again.... though I am happy to if requested.


  • Options
    #60
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    recedite wrote: »
    That's different. The resistance guy is primarily refusing to give away his comrades. His own death is a consequence of this choice, but if he could save both himself and his comrades he would obviously prefer that.

    In the train tracks example, the person refuses to save themselves. For no good reason. So they have knowingly allowed their own death, which is tantamount to suicide.

    In the crucifixion, there are 2 suggested reasons why it wasn't suicide;
    A) if the death was only a trick, and he bounced back after 3 days. Not real suicide then.
    B) if the crucifixion of JC in itself saved an infinite number of souls through the sacrifice. Totally illogical, but suspending disbelief for a moment, in this situation it might be a good trade-off if true. But then it would be "suicide by cop" though "with the best of intentions".

    Well you see you have agreed with the point: see the underlined. It's not suicide by cop because its not seeking to provoke someone to kill you because you don't want to do it yourself. It's accepting your death because you believe it will have enormously beneficial consequences and it is "the will of your heavenly father". Etc Etc.

    Now all of that is pure bunkum but that's how the christian faith has defended against the charge for centuries. If memory serves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,243 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yea wikipedia is a bad cite. I try never to cite it myself and usually only use it to look at the "further references" at the end.
    It may be a weak cite, but it is infinitely stronger than the one you have produced!


Advertisement