Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the strangest concepts in the Bible is the fact that mankind is rewarded for killing the son of God. But what would have been the consequences if the message of Jesus became widely accepted during his lifetime and instead of crucifying him in a brutal manner the general public as well as those in power at the time all became followers of Jesus? Since the Bible says that it was the death of Jesus that gave mankind a second chance at eternal life because they acted like barbarians and murdered him does that also mean that if they responded in a positive manner to his message that everyone would be going to hell? Yes, it's a strange question but the idea of rewarding mankind for murder is even stranger.
I've pondered this as well. I've also wondered why some Christians get so upset that Romans and Jews tortured Jesus and hung him on a cross to slowly die, when this very indecent is the cornerstone of their religion. I would think they would be delighted when they read about it. Granted, alarmingly similar stories of other messiahs parallel that of Jesus, and no one seems to be outraged by any of those stories.
No, the crucifixion and resurrection is a story of transcendence, that human life isn't just physical but spiritual. Taking it only as a narrative of murder leads to massive misunderstandings, the ugliest of which is anti-Semitism.
No, the crucifixion and resurrection is a story of transcendence, that human life isn't just physical but spiritual.
I suppose if you look at it from the perspective of Jesus sacrificing himself I could understand your point of view. I'm thinking about it in terms of human behavior. Consider the fact that the Bible says that Adam and Eve merely ate some forbidden fruit which doesn't sound all that horrible and yet it is supposed to have caused the downfall of mankind. Then when all of the human beings except for Noah and family were drowned I can't imagine that their behavior couldn't have been anything even approaching the severity of killing God's only son. So why is it that mankind is rewarded for this act and of course I'm also asking what would have been the consequences if they hadn't have committed this act of murder?
I suppose if you look at it from the perspective of Jesus sacrificing himself I could understand your point of view. I'm thinking about it in terms of human behavior. Consider the fact that the Bible says that Adam and Eve merely ate some forbidden fruit which doesn't sound all that horrible and yet it is supposed to have caused the downfall of mankind. Then when all of the human beings except for Noah and family were drowned I can't imagine that their behavior couldn't have been anything even approaching the severity of killing God's only son. So why is it that mankind is rewarded for this act and of course I'm also asking what would have been the consequences if they hadn't have committed this act of murder?
I can't offer an alternative since this story conveys its own meaning. That's sort of like, well, what if there wasn't a whale in Moby Dick? My whole approach is...It's all stories. Even the instructions on a seed packet is a story--a story of watching the weather and soil conditions and properly planting your seeds for the intended result. Furthermore, there's an implicit story of an industry that packages and sells these products telling you there are pleasures and rewards in acquiring them, and pursuing the activity of planting.
I'm conveying the following not to convince you of its truth but to offer some of what I feel is its value. The Mahabharata, for example, is chock full of violence and warfare, yet there are devotional principles involved in the epic, like dharma and purpose. So it is with the Bible, if you wish to regard it as a parable of human interaction with the universe. You cite Adam and Eve and the apple, which to me is only meant to convey a warning not to pursue false knowledge to define humankind's relationship to the universe, further distancing us from our relationship with God. Remember too that in the story of Noah's Ark, God in the end entered into a convenant with humankind not to visit another flood upon us, recognizing the possibility of renewal. Finally, remember the crucifixion is part of the New Testament, a new relationship with God that offers everyone grace, available to all people. I think to read things narrowly and strictly in terms of punishment and reward is to be as willful in arguing against the Bible as many are willful and hateful arguing for it, by the same vexed token and terms.
It's hard to put the rational behind the "original sin" together with the rational behind the story of Jesus's death. Because when you do, you see that Jesus saves us from God, who was going to torture us forever for eating bad fruit. And yet, while God could think of a way to create a Hell, and to send us all to hell, he can't think of a way to keep us from going there that didn't involve killing his only son. (One would think that it would have been easier to just never have sent us to hell to begin with.)
The response to this is, "God must have done that, so we can have free will". Yet, it can be seen by Adam and Eve that hell is the punishment for eating the bad fruit. If God had been interested in freewill, he wouldn't have started Adam out in paradise. Free will would be choosing God without a gun pointed at our head.
If man kind were like that he would never have come. It was god way of showing mankind how much he loved them. That he agve his only begotten son.He was sen for this prupose;so that you and I may be forgiven our sins.
If man kind were like that he would never have come. It was god way of showing mankind how much he loved them. That he agve his only begotten son.He was sen for this prupose;so that you and I may be forgiven our sins.
He could have just forgiven us for our sins without requiring us to kill his son.
It's not clear to me why God would accept the killing of his son to be adequate restitution for our sins. Seems like that should have just made him angrier.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
