Does this make sense?

Saipanne

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. :-)

silverharp

he certainly did a "death by cop" routine , not sure christians will see it that way :pac:

colossus-x

Don't tell the wider turkey community or they'll be even more pissed off.

Peregrinus

In general, not stopping someone else from killing you, or not acting to avoid your own death, is not "suicide".

You can quibble about that, of course. But when you say . . .

"Suicide is a sin"

and . . .

"Jesus committed suicide"

you may be using "suicide" to refer to two different things, and that would be a flaw in your logic. I think the claim that "suicide is a sin" has to be understood as "[what Christians class as] suicide is a sin", because how else are you going to maintain that it's a sin, except by reference to Christian claims about sin? But obviously Jesus' death is not one that Christians would class as a suicide. So you're using the same term for two different concepts there.

Nodin

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. :-)

He died "for our sins", thus it was an act of self sacrifice on his part rather than suicide, presumably. Personally I never understood (nor do I now) why he had to die on the cross or what that had to with "our sins". 'He died so we can be born again' - again, no clue why that had to be, given an omnipotent god.

GLaDOS

Probably not as big a deal to let yourself die when you know you'll be back after a few days bed rest.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nodin wrote: »

He died "for our sins"

The OP would probably do well to focus on that rather than the suicide by cop angle. After all we are told this person "died" for our sins, but in the next breath we are told he is living an eternal life of bliss and dominion with his daddy.

That does not sound like "died" to me, nor does it sound like a "sacrifice" which we have been peddled it as being. To me it sounds like a trading up. Endure a life of insignificant (in relation to eternity) length involving some relatively mild torture near the end, and gain a life of eternal bliss and dominion. There are millions on this planet today who would take that trade in a heart beat.

I find it an insult to anyone who has actually given their life for a person, a place, or an ideal to have to hear this story being sold as a "sacrifice". I find it an insult to any parent who actually did suffer the horror of outliving their own child to have them told this god "gave his only son" to us. Yet said god has him sitting at his right hand "alive" and well.

It reminds me of the song "Common People" by Pulp. Where the girl tries to live like the common people to understand what it is like to be one of them. But as the song says, she fails because she can always ring her daddy to take her home when things get bad.... and option the ACTUAL common people do not have.

"Smoke some fags and play some pool, pretend you never went to school.
But still you'll never get it right
'cos when you're laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall
If you call your Dad he could stop it all."

Like the girl in the song this "god" is a tourist. A pretender. It will never know what it is like to REALLY lose a child, because it must only snap a finger and set things to rights again. What a limited know nothing god this is, that has to attempt to become human and understand loss, but fail, in order to attempt to understand what it might REALLY feel like to be a parent who loses a child. Even the most basic human horrors are beyond its comprehension or experience.

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.

THAT would be a story worth telling and THEN this "god" would understand true loss, true sacrifice, and the true experience of a parent.... which as Christopher Hitchens described it..... feels from day 1 like your heart has suddenly started running around in someone else's body.

Avatar MIA

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Probably not as big a deal to let yourself die when you know you'll be back aftet a few days bed rest.

He went to Hell and Back for you, you ingrate.

Cherry Blossom

Avatar MIA wrote: »

He went to Hell and Back for you, you ingrate.

I went to Hell and Back last year, got soaked, covered in mud and all my muscles ached for days!

Brindor

If Jesus is Omnipotent, it is Fair to consider that He must've known everything that was to happen to him, from Bethlehem to the Cross.
So when Big Bad Judas comes along, betrays him, then he probably knew too he was gonna be Crucifixed on the Cross.
He could have stopped it, certainly, but the Madman himself actually went on the Cross on his own terms.

To me, it seems less like a Suicide, but more like a Man who knew his own time was up, and was simply waiting for Death to show up.
Perhaps Jesus could be compared to those dying of Cancer, or anything really, who know they will soon succumb to their diseases, but that wouldn't really be considered a Suicide would it ?

Perhaps I'm just thinking too heavily into it.

Peregrinus

It's essentially a semantic argument. Do we call this particular series of events "suicide" or not?

But semantic argyments are basically pointless. It ultimately doesn't matter whether we call it suicide or not; what term we use for it doesn't alter the reality of what happened, or change whatever significance belongs to the fact that it happened.

It matters, though, to the formal validity of the OP's argument, which is what he is asking about. I think the word "suicide" in line 2 of his argument means something different from the same word as used in line 8. And, if that's correct, then it does undermine the validity of his arguyment. Which was the question asked.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

or change whatever significance belongs to the fact that it happened.

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.

Peregrinus

Try to keep up, Noz. What I said was "what term we use for it doesn't alter the reality of what happened, or change whatever significance belongs to the fact that it happened". "What happened" is, by definition, something that did happen. For the purposes of the formal logic of Saipanne's argument, which is what he's asking about, it doesn't matter what the something is. The validity or otherwise of Saipanne's argument doesn't depend at all on Jesus actually having died.

You could challenge he factuality of any of the eight statements that Saipanne makes. Why pick just on the statement that Jesus died? Challenge them all! Go ahead! Knock yourself out! But be aware that it has nothing to do with the question Saipanne asks, or the answers that anyone has offered him.

nozzferrahhtoo

Try to keep up Pere. You are throwing lofty phrases around like "the reality of what happened" and "the fact that it happened" but I suspected it was all empty hot air nonsense as usual.

"something that did happen" eh? Yeah.... right. I knew you could not step up to the plate and show any such thing. Just wanted to make sure everyone else knows this too.

Peregrinus

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.

I find it interesting that you don't challenge the premises behind Saipanne's question, but when I accept those premises for the purposes of answering the question, you challenge me for doing so. What gives?

Fleawuss

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.

Now take a minute to realize all of that is nonsense and look at the suicide question: he didn't nail himself to the cross and he didn't stab himself in the side with a spear.

Saipanne

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?

Peregrinus

No, it isn't. It's murder by the evil villain.

silverharp

Fleawuss wrote: »

Now take a minute to realize all of that is nonsense and look at the suicide question: he didn't nail himself to the cross and he didn't stab himself in the side with a spear.

you could argue that it turns everyone into tropes if the lead character knows exactly how things are to pan out. the alternative is that if everyone had free will what would have happened if they didnt bother with him and Jesus died an old man.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

you could argue that it turns everyone into tropes if the lead character knows exactly how things are to pan out. the alternative is that if everyone had free will what would have happened if they didnt bother with him and Jesus died an old man.

False dichotomy there. The fact that I can predict how you will act in any situation doesn't, in itself, mean that you aren't free to act how you will, or that how you do act won't be the result of your free choice. So "Jesus knew that they would kill him" doesn't mean that "they were compelled to kill him, and had no choice in the matter".

Obviously, the whole notion that Jesus is both God and man is one that calls out for interrogation. What does it mean? How could that possibly work? In the context of this thread the assumption is that, if Jesus is God, he must have known what would happen because, hey, omniscience. But, actually, you didn't need to be God to know that Jesus was going to be killed. If you take the gospel accounts to be factual (Down, Nozz! Down!) it's fairly clear that everybody knew that Jesus was going to be killed.

Similarly with regard to omnipotence. If Jesus was God, he could choose not to be killed. But even if Jesus wasn't God, he could have chosen not to be killed by, e.g., not preaching as he did, not making a scene in the Temple, or simply not returning to Jerusalem at just the time he did when, as everyone pointed out to him, returing to Jerusalem Could Only End One Way. Avoiding death wouldn't have required omnipotence.

If you embark on a course of action that you know will lead to your death, is that suicide? I'd say not necessarily, no. Thomas More could have averted his death by swearing an oath to accept the supremacy of the crown over the church. He was executed for refusing to do this, as he knew he would be, but I don't think we can meaningfully class this as suicide. If an atheist were to be executed for refusing to acknowledge God, would we class that as a suicide?

In general, if someone embraces death in order to bear witness to what they consider to be an important truth, or to avoid some compromise which is morally unconscionable to them, we don't see that as a suicide.

Simlarly, regardless of whether Jesus' foreknowledge of his death was supernatural or just glaringly obvious, or whether he would have required supernatural or just ordinary steps to avoid death, I don't think his foreknowledge and acceptance turns his death into suicide. He died because he wasn't willing to do what powerful figures wanted him to do. Not the same thing at all.

Saipanne

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's murder by the evil villain.

I disagree. The buildup is almost irrelevant here, she clearly chose to die. I would call that suicide.

Peregrinus

Well, the example I gave a minute ago. If an atheist chooses to be burned at the stake rather than make a profession of religious faith, is that suicide?

Avatar MIA

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the example I gave a minute ago. If an atheist chooses to be burned at the stake rather than make a profession of religious faith, is that suicide?

Of course it is, an atheist would have no problem professing whatever particular faith you wished confessed. Oden the all powerful, Allah the greatest whatever, just put that match down.

If he didn't it could be considered a desire to die.

Peregrinus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Of course it is, an atheist would have no problem professing whatever particular faith you wished confessed . . .

Any atheists on the board want to dispute this?

captbarnacles

Oddly that choice would be referred to as 'suicidal' but i don't think it is suicide.

Avatar MIA

Peregrinus wrote: »

Any atheists on the board want to dispute this?

Do they answer this with or without flames licking at their privates?

Peregrinus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Do they answer this with or without flames licking at their privates?

If you'll only do something if put to it by having flames licking at your privates, then I don't think we can say it's something you will do "with no problem". You obviously have a huge problem doing it if you'll only to it to avoid being burned alive.

And if your problem is a little bit huger, and you won't do it even to be burned alive, then that's not suicide.

Avatar MIA

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you'll only do something if put to it by having flames licking at your privates, then I don't think we can say it's something you will do "with no problem". You obviously have a huge problem doing it if you'll only to it to avoid being burned alive.

And if your problem is a little bit huger, and you won't do it even to be burned alive, then that's not suicide.

There's a massive gulf between sitting across the pub and saying I think you should confess your belief in Buddah (and you'll be told politely to PFO) and surrounded by flammable material and being asked to confess a belief in the One True God (Trade Mark Pending) where you will be told anything you want to hear as long as you suppress your pyromania.

Remember, atheism is NOT a religion.

Peregrinus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

There's a massive gulf between sitting across the pub and saying I think you should confess your belief in Buddah (and you'll be told politely to PFO) and surrounded by flammable material and being asked to confess a belief in the One True God (Trade Mark Pending) where you will be told anything you want to hear as long as you suppress your pyromania.

Yes, of course there is. And, just to be clear, I'm not passing any judgment about people who would say whatever was demanded in order to be unhooked from the stake before they set a torch to it.

I'm just saying that people who choose not to say whatever is demanded are not "committing suicide". If I threaten you with death in order to get you to do something that you don't want to do, and you refuse to do it, and I kill you, that's not suicide as commonly understood. It's murder.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Remember, atheism is NOT a religion.

Indeed not. Are you saying this just because, or does it have some connection to your argument?

Avatar MIA

Peregrinus wrote: »

If I threaten you with death in order to get you to do something that you don't want to do, and you refuse to do it, and I kill you, that's not suicide as commonly understood. It's murder.

Depends on what you ask me to do.

If you ask me to tell you where the Nuclear launch codes are and I refuse, I'm a martyr.

If you ask me to suck my finger and wiggle it in my own ear then it's a different story. Similar for an atheist to confess to a belief in a god to save themselves from death.

Peregrinus

It's not the same. The finger business is probably something to which you have no principled objection, and which you might well do voluntarily, when in drink, if you thought it might raise a giggle. Whereas, while I can't speak for you, for many atheists making
a profession of religious faith is something to which they would have a strong principled objection and which they would only do, if at all, under the direst compulsion. And those who wouldn't do it even under the direst compulsion are not "committing suicide", in the sense in which most people use that word most of the time.

Remember, the question here is not whether some person, such as yourself, could call such behaviour "suicide". The question arises in the context of Siapanne's argument in the OP, one premise of which is "suicide is a sin". He's appealing there to a Christian teaching to the effect that suicide is sinful. So the question comes down to this; is accepting martyrdom a "suicide" of the kind that Christians consider sinful? And the answer is, emphatically, no.