Adapted from here.

My argument begins with Jesus' definite statements about the faith of a little child:

Matt. 18:3-4: Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 21:16: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise

Obviously, little children do not know all the facts about the faith but intuitive convictions about right and wrong/true and false are, I believe, in-born in some cases. I believe this is what Jesus meant. That is the basis of my argument.

Adapted from this thread (different from the above post because I started a new thread as DevaLight suggested).

The only people I have yet seen address the question are people who are either outside Christianity or on their way out. However, Christian theology is evolving and changing as we speak.



I did not understand God to be the bully, nor do I think anyone in my church did, either. I have never heard or come across that concept in any of my reading or seeking. It does not fit the God as householder parables at all. But if the householder/king/judge is a capricious tyrant it does fit. And we do have one parable by Jesus that uses this likeness. However, most of the time we're supposed to see God as loving, merciful, and just--not exactly the description of a bully. So it would seem there was something else the matter that literally separated humans from God, something that was beyond God's ability to fix outside the death of Jesus. This is what I intuitively knew as a child. It is the logic I brought to the situation as an adult with no text but the Bible and no education beyond Grade 8.

I credited God to be at least as intelligent, moral, and logical as I was. I was taught that his thoughts and ways were so much higher than mine as the heavens are higher than the earth. I trusted this to be the case. This meant that he was all of the things I was PLUS much more. In other words, he was definitely not a bully, and that I was correct in my conclusion that prior to Jesus' death humans were literally separated from God by something God was incapable of fixing outside of Jesus' death. There was no other logical or moral explanation for Jesus' death.

QUESTION: What was this thing that Jesus' death fixed? And how did his death fix it?

I think this needs to be part of the story and that anyone who is obligated to profess belief in the salvific value of Jesus' death has a right to know it. If God were all-knowing, he would have come up with something more universally meaningful than ancient Jewish sacrifical symbology; he would have come up with something so magnificently meaningful that it would amaze the most brilliant brain today in the twenty-first century with his wisdom, insight, and foresight. As it is, any self-respecting person must choke back sanitized sensibilities and acept revolting sights and smells and concepts simply to save their soul??? This is beyond stupid.



Oh yes, I definitely accepted the idea of an unseen spiritual realm where invisible things were happening. Well, that was one of the things I questioned about but I understood the concept perfectly. Very early in my life I had to learn to differentiate between the visions in my head and the concrete external world. When I was about fourteen this internal world once more was exceptionally vivid to me. A few more times in my life it intruded vividly into my waking consciousness. It's real alright and I believe it is where religion comes from, but by now I believe it begins and ends in the human psyche. However, it's vague enough for humans to believe it's external, and perhaps most people do not experience it as vividly as I do. Thus, it may be that all they have to go on is the word of authority. I think that might make it all the more scary.

None of this answers my question, though, unless we accept that it is evidence that god as an external universal being does not exist.

I read the entire post and what you talk about is precisely what I meant when I said Christian theology is changing and evolving as we speak. I know about this perspective. In fact, it is what came to me before I heard or read about it from any human. It came to me after I committed myself to my own happiness at whatever the cost might be.

Evantually, I learned about Abraham H. Maslow's self-actualized person and hierarchy of needs (you can read about it here though I learned about it in a course), and several years later I read Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology and The Courage to Be, and Maslow's Psychology of Being. All of this pretty much supported what I already knew and what you are saying in your post. Still later I read about Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), a German theologian who "spoke to my soul."

However, when put to the empirical test, there are major theological implications. While these theologies, philosophies, and psychologies describe the inner condition of the human psyche with considerable accuracy as I experience it, I think I acquired this condition without any help from any divinity. I think it came out of my own psyche just like muscle development and physical growth comes out of our own bodies. So far as I can make out, the Christian theologians I read (mentioned above) adjusted their theologies with the conscious attempt to keep God in the picture in order to keep their jobs and religions.

I am not sure which came first--job or religion. I have challenged my own thesis supervisor with this very same thing and he says it's more than keeping his job. But he is hardly in a position to say or believe otherwise and I know that in cases of self-preservation the conscious mind sometimes blocks dangerous information from the mind in times of danger. He seemed totally sincere when he said it's more than keeping his job. As stated, he is hardly in a position to say (or think) otherwise.

I'll go through your post and comment as I go.



Amanda, these ideas did not originate with Jesus and one does not have to be a Christian to live like this. I don't know what you mean by salvation but my guess is you mean a feeling of calm and peace inside of oneself. I understand you equate heaven with compassion. Some of the most compassionate, self-sacrificing, but well-balanced people I know are not religious people but atheists and agnostics. Jesus has nothing to do with it. So we still don't have any answer as to how Jesus' death brings salvation.

If you mean that it works as allegory for overcoming in spite of great odds, I still have problems with it. 1. Jesus's death was not one bit more terrible than that of any other person who was crucified; in fact it was far less terrible because he died within hours of being crucified while most people languished for days. 2. Jesus is but one of many who reportedly resurrected. A few others I know of who have been said to have resurrected are Apolonias of Tyana and the Cynic philosopher Peregrinus. For scholarly info on this, see The Pagan Origins of Jesus Christ, by Jesus Seminar Fellow Robert M. Price.

ONLINE BOOKS on Apollonius of Tyana:

Apollonius of Tyana: The Philosopher Explorer and Social Reformer of the First Century AD, by G.R.S. Mead, 1901 edition.

This book tells about the man, the world he lived in, i.e. the Rulers of the Empire, what he believed, and the books he wrote and sermons he preached. It also describes what kind of "wonder-worker" he was. I don't see right away where it says that he resurrected from the dead. Maybe he didn't but I thought he is said to have done so.

The Life of Apollonius/b]

FROM THE WEBSITE: In the Life of Apollonius, the Athenian author Philostratus, a sophist who lived from c.170 to c.247, tells the story of Apollonius of Tyana, a charismatic teacher and miracle worker from the first century CE who belonged to the school of Pythagoras.

[b]STORY OF PEREGRINUS

Passing (and Resurrection) of Peregrinus (a brief passage from the website)

35. Soon the Olympic games were ended, the most splendid Olympics that I have seen, though it was then the fourth time that I had been a spectator. As it was not easy to secure a carriage, since many were leaving at the same time, I lingered on against my will, and Peregrinus kept making postponements, but at last had announced a night on which he would stage his cremation; so, as one of my friends had invited me to go along, I arose at midnight and took the road to Harpina, where the pyre was. This is quite twenty furlongs from Olympia as one goes past the hippodrome towards the east. As soon as we arrived, we found a pyre built in a pit about six feet deep. It was composed mostly of torchwood, and the interstices filled with brush, that it might take fire quickly. When the moon was rising—for she too had to witness this glorious deed—he came forward, dressed in his usual fashion, and with him the leaders of the Cynics, in particular, the gentleman from Patras, with a torch—no bad understudy. Proteus too was bearing a torch. Men, approaching from this side and that, kindled the fire into a very great flame, since it came from torchwood and brush. Peregrinus—and give me your close attention now!—laying aside the wallet, the cloak, and that notable Heracles-club, stood there in a shirt that was downright filthy. Then he requested incense to throw on the fire, when someone had proffered it, he threw it on, and gazing towards the south—even the south, too, had to do with the show33—he said, "Spirits of my mother and my father, receive me with favour." With that he leaped into the fire, he was not visible, however, but was encompassed by the flames, which had risen to a great height.

37. Once more I see you laughing, Cronius, my urbane friend, at the denoument of the play. For my own part, when he called upon the guardian spirits of his mother, I did not criticise him very strongly, but when he invoked those of his father as well, I recalled the tales that had been told about his murder, and I could not control my laughter. The Cynics stood about the pyre, not weeping, to be sure, but silently evincing a certain amount of grief as they gazed into the fire, until my gorge rose at them, and I said, "Let us go away, you simpletons. It is not an agreeable spectacle to look at an old man who has been roasted, getting our nostrils filled with a villanous reek. Or are you waiting for a painter to come and picture you as the companions of Socrates in prison are portrayed beside him?" They were indignant and reviled me, and several even took to their sticks. Then, when I threatened to gather up a few of them and throw them into the fire, so that they might follow their master, they checked themselves and kept the peace.

38. As I returned, I was thinking busily, my friend, reflecting what a strange thing love of glory isl how this passion alone is unescapeable even by those who are considered wholly admirable, let alone that man who in other respects had led a life that was insane and reckless, and not undeserving of the fire. Then I encountered many people coming out to see the show themselves, for they expected to find him still alive. You see, on the day before it had been given out that he would greet the rising sun, as in fact they say the Brahmans do, before mountin the pyre. Well, I turned back most of them by saying the deed had been done already, those to whom it was not in itself highly desirable to see the actual spot, anyhow, and gather up some relic of the fire. In that business I assure you, my friend, I had no end of trouble, telling the story to all while they asked questions and sought exact information. Whenever I noticed a man of taste, I would tell him the facts without embellishment, as I have to you, but for the benefit of the dullards, agog to listen, I would thicken the plot a bit on my own account, saying that when the pyre was kindled and Proteus flung himself bodily in, a great earthquake first took place, accompanied by a bellowing of the ground, and then a vulture, flying up out of the midst of the flames, went off to Heaven,34 saying, in human speech, with a loud voice:

“I am through with the earth; to Olympus I fare.”

They were wonder-struck and blessed themselves with a shudder, and asked me whether the vulture sped eastwards or westwards; I made them whatever reply occurred to me.

40. On my return to the festival, I came upon a grey-haired man whose face, I assure you, inspired confidence in addition to his beard and his general air of consequence, telling all about Proteus, and how, since his cremation, he had beheld him in white raiment a little while ago, and had just now left him walking about cheerfully in the Portico of the Seven Voices,35 wearing a garland of wild olive. Then on top of it all, he put the vulture, swearing that he himself had seen it flying up out of the pyre, when I myself had just previously let it fly to ridicule fools and dullards.

FOOTNOTES

33. Part of the Hindu element was the idea that the souls after death were conducted to the South, the region of the Manes See Atharvaveda 18, 3, 13; 4, 40, 2.

34. At the death of Plato and of Augustus it was an eagle; in the case of Polycarp, a dove.

35. This was a portico on the east side of the Altis which had a sevenfold echo (Pausan., V, 21, 17; Pliny, XXXVI, 100).

[align=center]***********[/align]

Several points:

1. Lucian of Somasota is the author and writes the account as though to a friend Cronius. The Cynic Peregrinus cremated himself as some kind of pronouncement of faith or philosophy, I think, but in the end called on superstitious religious belief. The reference about turning to the South is about Hindu beliefs, according to the footnote. The appeal to the spirits of both his parents had significant superstitious/religious meaning for the Greco-Roman aristocrat, too, it seems, though I don't fully follow. Lucian highlights all of this. I don't know too much about Cynic philosophy but I would guess some of these ritual may have undermined the symbol of cremation. At the same time, we need to keep in mind that Lucian is telling a good story.

2. Verse 37 is not that important to this post. It is mainly background info. Lucian draws parallels between Peregrinus's death and that of Socrates.

3. The part I bolded in Verse 38 has been especially helpful for me in understanding how and why accounts are embellished. Note the kind of things he added for embellishment. Then look at Verse 40 and see the kind of story the old man told Lucian about Peregrinus's resurrection. It's not exaggeration like we exaggerate things these days when we want to make an impression. Lucian intentionally added supernatural elements because he knew people would believe it.

What is the reason people would believe it? A bit ago Hans and I got into a conversation about such things when talking about his childhood memories of Sweden. The following post is from that convo:



Thus, we see that the line between fact and fantasy is very thin and not always easily discernible. Also, the two realities have co-existed for thousands of years, i.e. back in Lucian's day some people believed in the supernatural and some did not. The same is true today. Also, some people differentiate between religion and superstition. Yet one person's religion is another persons' superstition.

Originally written for What Jesus Death Means To This Atheist At Easter. For the sake of argument, the OP assumed the Bible stories were correct.

If we're going to accept everything as the Bible says, which I did for most of my life, then it's more complicated than Jesus just dying as a sacrifice. Here's how my logic used to go:

Premise 1: Jesus died so we can go to heaven when we die. That's what my mother said.

QUESTION: How does that work?

1. Jesus' body is physical.
2. Human souls are spiritual; only the spiritual part of the human survives death; I knew this because the body was in the coffin but they said the person was in heaven.
3. Heaven is spiritual.
4. God is spiritual and so is the resurrected and ascended Jesus.

Premise 2: God is so pure and holy that no sin can exist with him; hence Jesus had to die to make it possible for humans to go to heaven when they die.

QUESTION: Why couldn't God just forgive?

1. I, as a mere mortal, can forgive people who have very seriously hurt me but refuse to acknowledge having done anything wrong; this being the case, I am sure an almighty God could forgive, too, if that were all there were to the matter.
2. Since God cannot "just forgive," there must be more to the matter; there must be some literal obstacle in the universe that had to be overcome in order for souls to get to heaven.
3. This obstacle could only be removed by one who had passed from the human form through death and entered hell to disable Satan.
4. Only a person whose life was totally without sin could possibly overcome Satan; hence the death of Jesus.

[align=center]****************************[/align]

I didn't know it at the time, but that theology actually follows some ancient Gnostic ideas fairly closely. I developed it in my own head out of desperation for some way to hold onto Christianity. Leaving my community was not an option at the time, but neither could I continue with my overt disbelief. I NEEDED AN ANSWER.

That is what came to me over the course of a few days. I assumed at the time that it was from the Holy Spirit.