Jesus Christ Heals You

[BooyaCS]

Let me know if you figure it out. I try to use the force to get the TV remote to come to me. It hasn't worked yet.

I tend to use a very thin fishing line and with a little snap of the wrist it "flies" through the air. Your friends then think you can use magic.

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

Look I grew up Catholic and I still like to believe in a God, or at least that there is something else besides a black void when I die. But anyways I'm not the most religious person.

Could someone more educated than myself explain WHY Jesus had to die to save us from our sins? Couldn't God the all powerful creator of the universe just done it without "sacrificing" his son. And I put sacrifice in quotes because it's not really a sacrifice when you know you're the son of God and you get to come back a few days later.

I won't deny that Jesus SUFFERED. But sacrificed? He let himself get killed so our sins would be forgiven by his father, with whom the Catholic Church says they are one in the same. Regardless of whether they are or are not the same being, it's not really a sacrifice when you have that guaranteed respawn like in Call of Duty. And I still don't see WHY he had to do it, unless God created some pretty arbitrary rules that he has no ability to change, but as an all powerful being he should be able to do as he wishes.

 

[DJTJ]

@The Oi

Was going to edit this in, but, it turned into it's own post so...

When I say that I'm Catholic, I mean that I have enculturated the beliefs and practices of the Catholic tradition, that I am baptized and confirmed as a Catholic, and I'm generally in communion or in other words what I would call "grace" or "harmony" with the Church itself. I occasionally will practice the sacraments of confession, penance and reconciliation; I do pray when attending church or - to be perfectly honest - in times where I have been completely distraught; I attend Mass on religious holidays; and I occasionally participate in the religious rituals of my Catholic tradition.

So.. why the fuck would I do this if I also describe myself as being near that of a weak agnostic? Or as my colleagues would ask, "how can you be a scientist/logician/etc and also believe in God?" (I don't consider myself any of those things, but within academia that's the tract that I was on; I didn't get my PhD so - I don't use the -ist terms that come with it).

So as someone who studied to become a physicist, particularly the study of astrophysics and cosmology; how can I also be "in communion" with the Church?

Well.. for starters; I don't know that there is or isn't a God. So I don't "believe" in a God insomuch as I don't disbelieve there is one either. I simply do not know; and I assert that anyone who claims they do know is very likely either lying or is delusional. And that cuts both ways.

Now with respect to prayer, for me, as a somewhat weak agnostic; is more about introspection, meditation, and personal reflection rather than seeking a two-way conversation with an anthropomorphic deity.

So if you ask me when I pray do I think I'm talking to an old dude in the sky, my answer is no. But if you ask me does prayer help me psychologically, to both focus my thoughts and to simultaneously defocus others (or all of them); then the answer is yes, absolutely. In fact, I know of no other way to do this nor have I come across any other form of personal behavioral exercise that could replace meditation within my life experience.

With respect to confession; I think it is therapeutic. It is no different for me to speak to a priest about my sins than it would be for me to also speak to a psychiatrist about a potentially unethical act that I may have done in the past that is bothering me or hindering me from finding a feeling of stability in my own ethical self and ego.

Penance and reconciliation, ethically speaking, is merely the act of self-actualizing the ethical ramifications of sin, or unethical behavior, by bringing about a purification by ritual meditation, sacrifice, and commitment. There is a mathematical order to this that is genuinely remarkable, in that the individual is motivated to seek an ethical balance between past sin, present ethical state (between right and wrong), and future action.

That is to say, the sinner is compelled to not only meditate, or to pray, but to find within himself the driving force behind the behavior. Beyond that, to then to both consciously and unconsciously (through ritual repetitive chanting, prayer over long periods of time) attempt to address his own personal failings within his own ethical framework. Ultimately, a sacrifice of time, and often labor, is made to improve both the self and the outside world; or, in other words, to reconcile and bring balance back to the disturbed ethical state which came about as a result of individual, personal, unethical decisions.

Now, this can obviously go wrong if one substitutes what one believes to be the Church's ethics with one's own ethics without reconciling the two first (this happens quite a bit). But if a person is whole in their ethical understanding of right and wrong (which does not come by default), then they themselves can and should be able to identify 'sin,' at least in my view, and in a healthy and harmless way.

So, I think you get where I'm going with this....

For me as a rational individual, the Church does not need to be rejected as an institution outright simply because it purports the existence of demons and cherubs waging some metaphysical conflict on my behalf. There is something to be found within these thousands of year old traditons that, I think, is difficult to replace. That is not to suggest that religion is required for morality or ethics; that's nonsense, in fact, the reverse is true. But that is to say that religion does serve a purpose within life, in that, it allows me a vehicle to explore the spiritual and metaphysical without reinventing the wheel myself.

In that, yes, I find the culture, traditions, structure, ritual and generalized belief system of the Church to be quite useful.

Hope this makes sense.

I have never been able to articulate how I feel about organized religion until this very moment.

God damnit, Gouri, ya nailed it.

 

[The Oi]

Look I grew up Catholic and I still like to believe in a God, or at least that there is something else besides a black void when I die. But anyways I'm not the most religious person.

Could someone more educated than myself explain WHY Jesus had to die to save us from our sins? Couldn't God the all powerful creator of the universe just done it without "sacrificing" his son. And I put sacrifice in quotes because it's not really a sacrifice when you know you're the son of God and you get to come back a few days later.

I won't deny that Jesus SUFFERED. But sacrificed? He let himself get killed so our sins would be forgiven by his father, with whom the Catholic Church says they are one in the same. Regardless of whether they are or are not the same being, it's not really a sacrifice when you have that guaranteed respawn like in Call of Duty. And I still don't see WHY he had to do it, unless God created some pretty arbitrary rules that he has no ability to change, but as an all powerful being he should be able to do as he wishes.

Have you SEEN the movie???

They kicked the SHIT out of that sonofabitch.

I mean...if we're going to suspend disbelief here for a second and accept these stories, I think it's safe to call that shit a sacrifice of sorts.

God created some pretty arbitrary rules

Ya think?

The OT is filled with some of the most arbitrary sets of rules of any religion.

Maybe THE most arbitrary? Can anyone more educated on the other major religions confirm if there are more wacked out laws than the ones in the OT?

Qur'an has some aggressive ones, no doubt. But I wouldn't call them arbitrary.

 

[gourimoko]

Look I grew up Catholic and I still like to believe in a God, or at least that there is something else besides a black void when I die. But anyways I'm not the most religious person.

Could someone more educated than myself explain WHY Jesus had to die to save us from our sins? Couldn't God the all powerful creator of the universe just done it without "sacrificing" his son. And I put sacrifice in quotes because it's not really a sacrifice when you know you're the son of God and you get to come back a few days later.

I won't deny that Jesus SUFFERED. But sacrificed? He let himself get killed so our sins would be forgiven by his father, with whom the Catholic Church says they are one in the same. Regardless of whether they are or are not the same being, it's not really a sacrifice when you have that guaranteed respawn like in Call of Duty. And I still don't see WHY he had to do it, unless God created some pretty arbitrary rules that he has no ability to change, but as an all powerful being he should be able to do as he wishes.

The idea I think you're missing is the idea of atonement. That is, a person must resolve an ethical or sinful state that has been created due to unethical actions. In Catholicism, this is generally done through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation; but the concept is fairly universal throughout religion, ethics, and many moral systems.

For example; if a person commits murder, how should society correct this imbalance? We punish the unethical behavior. We encourage atonement, and we (historically) execute the prisoner to bring about some degree of balance to the ethical state of society. This punishment in itself is not necessarily personal atonement, but, it is an attempt to ethically reconcile the unethical act, or sin, with the larger society. Some individuals are in fact driven to suicide by personal guilt, believing they can no longer live with themselves and that killing themselves may somehow right previous wrongs as best as possible. While this belief is incompatible with Christian moral philosophy, it is found throughout East Asian religious and spiritual practices.

So the idea of reconciling, atoning and balancing of past unethical acts needs to be understood first... Simply from an ethical/moral standpoint - outside, necessarily, that of religion per se.

So with that understanding, in Christian belief; Jesus Christ dies for the Sins of Man (capital M, because it's all sins of all of mankind) to grant them a path to eternal salvation. He essentially is the way to transcending sin; therefore, his sacrifice in death is the laying of that path. This is somewhat similar to the role Siddhartha Gautama plays in Buddhism in that a path to transcendence and salvation is laid for the future of humanity.

The Buddha transcends, leaving the mortal coil, and then ultimately returns. Christ transcends through natural death, leaving the mortal coil, is resurrected alive and into heaven, and will eventually return.

Hope this makes some sense as to what role Christ's death and sacrifice plays in the whole thing..

Lastly, Christ did not have to die... It's important to note that Man killed him by choice. Again, if sins are not by choice then they are not sins.

But Christ's death serves as the final and ultimate atonement of the perfect Man, who is God, who dies as a result of the sin of the whole world. His death is the ultimate atonement for sin; thus, to be baptized in his name, or to take the Eucharist, and thus recognizing this sacrifice, is considered sufficient to cleanse a person of their sins.

This is why the sacrifice is considered real and not some act, because, we as humans have free will. We could have chosen to adopt Christ's teachings and become essentially perfect, again, according to Christianity - but we chose instead to crucify him.

Whether or not you're a Christian, a believer, whatever (even me as a quasi-agnostic); Jesus' message was worthwhile and in a big way. The same could be said of the Buddha's message of absolute love and compassion for all living beings.

What's sad is that Christians today literally are nothing like Christ's teachings.... Nothing.... It's really quite disgusting to see what Christianity has become in God's name.

 

[The Oi]

The idea I think you're missing is the idea of atonement. That is, a person must resolve an ethical or sinful state that has been created due to unethical actions. In Catholicism, this is generally done through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation; but the concept is fairly universal throughout religion, ethics, and many moral systems.

For example; if a person commits murder, how should society correct this imbalance? We punish the unethical behavior. We encourage atonement, and we (historically) execute the prisoner to bring about some degree of balance to the ethical state of society. This punishment in itself is not necessarily personal atonement, but, it is an attempt to ethically reconcile the unethical act, or sin, with the larger society. Some individuals are in fact driven to suicide by personal guilt, believing they can no longer live with themselves and that killing themselves may somehow right previous wrongs as best as possible. While this belief is incompatible with Christian moral philosophy, it is found throughout East Asian religious and spiritual practices.

So the idea of reconciling, atoning and balancing of past unethical acts needs to be understood first... Simply from an ethical/moral standpoint - outside, necessarily, that of religion per se.

So with that understanding, in Christian belief; Jesus Christ dies for the Sins of Man (capital M, because it's all sins of all of mankind) to grant them a path to eternal salvation. He essentially is the way to transcending sin; therefore, his sacrifice in death is the laying of that path. This is somewhat similar to the role Siddhartha Gautama plays in Buddhism in that a path to transcendence and salvation is laid for the future of humanity.

The Buddha transcends, leaving the mortal coil, and then ultimately returns. Christ transcends through natural death, leaving the mortal coil, is resurrected alive and into heaven, and will eventually return.

Hope this makes some sense as to what role Christ's death and sacrifice plays in the whole thing..

Lastly, Christ did not have to die... It's important to note that Man killed him by choice. Again, if sins are not by choice then they are not sins.

But Christ's death serves as the final and ultimate atonement of the perfect Man, who is God, who dies as a result of the sin of the whole world. His death is the ultimate atonement for sin; thus, to be baptized in his name, or to take the Eucharist, and thus recognizing this sacrifice, is considered sufficient to cleanse a person of their sins.

This is why the sacrifice is considered real and not some act, because, we as humans have free will. We could have chosen to adopt Christ's teachings and become essentially perfect, again, according to Christianity - but we chose instead to crucify him.

Whether or not you're a Christian, a believer, whatever (even me as a quasi-agnostic); Jesus' message was worthwhile and in a big way. The same could be said of the Buddha's message of absolute love and compassion for all living beings.

What's sad is that Christians today literally are nothing like Christ's teachings.... Nothing.... It's really quite disgusting to see what Christianity has become in God's name.

Oh. That too.

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

Thanks for the informative answer as always @gourimoko

I just want to emphasize that I really don't have a problem with religious people. If it's something that makes you happy and if it helps you be a better person, then who am I to complain about it?

I am grateful for my Christian upbringing because I did take to heart a lot of what Jesus said, but boy am I glad to be out of organized religion at the same time. I haven't been to church in a few years. Sometimes there's a hint of me missing it, but I've seen the descent into madness so many people I used to call friends have taken with their faith and politics that I just don't feel comfortable around such rhetoric and unbelievable hypocrisy.

 

[Sebastian]

Look I grew up Catholic and I still like to believe in a God, or at least that there is something else besides a black void when I die. But anyways I'm not the most religious person.

Could someone more educated than myself explain WHY Jesus had to die to save us from our sins? Couldn't God the all powerful creator of the universe just done it without "sacrificing" his son. And I put sacrifice in quotes because it's not really a sacrifice when you know you're the son of God and you get to come back a few days later.

I won't deny that Jesus SUFFERED. But sacrificed? He let himself get killed so our sins would be forgiven by his father, with whom the Catholic Church says they are one in the same. Regardless of whether they are or are not the same being, it's not really a sacrifice when you have that guaranteed respawn like in Call of Duty. And I still don't see WHY he had to do it, unless God created some pretty arbitrary rules that he has no ability to change, but as an all powerful being he should be able to do as he wishes.

Because Constantine said so, but only after a vote.

Who is going to argue with the Emperor? He had his eldest son killed for the merest whiff of conspiracy. Imagine what he'd do to people who poo pooed his new State religion.

 

[ewizacft]

If God's going to do what he's going to do, then prayer is an irrelevant, unnecessary activity. He doesn't need your urging or assistance.

Let me try to make it a little clearer with an example. Let us say that I am God. Since I am God, I make the rules. I have a will and I have given you a will. I really want to hug you(Craylus), but I will only hug you if you ask me to do so. I will not hug you if you do not ask me to do so. I do not want to violate your free will that I have given you.

 

[ewizacft]

Many events in the Bible, such as the creation narrative, the flood, much Old Testament history and the Gospel accounts are not backed up by science or archaeology and much of the history is not even internally consistent. They were also written long after the events they claim to describe are are in the main just 'stories'.

There is a better starting place.

Also Paul's writings make no reference to a historical figure named Jesus. The Romans were the first to write about him in history and that was with Josephus and Tacitus and those accounts are sketchy as they may have been altered by Christian scribes as well. The first hand accounts do not exist.

Yes down here Jesus is the better starting place. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are writing. What exactly do you mean that Paul's writings make no reference to a historical Jesus?

 

[BooyaCS]

There is a better starting place.



Yes down here Jesus is the better starting place. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are writing. What exactly do you mean that Paul's writings make no reference to a historical Jesus?

Paul does mention Jesus several times. The thing is he doesn't give a historical account of Jesus of Nazareth but more of the allegory of Jesus as Christ. He tells the stories he has heard throughout the years but there have been no major references to the person. And yes I know Paul mentions Jesus 218 times by name and even says he is the son of man but he doesn't seem to elaborate on that much. See if he was preaching to far away towns before the Gospels then you would think that he would need to fill in some background story in some of his letters to the Gentiles. He doesn't which can either mean he didn't travel far and Jesus' story was known in those parts, or he was reciting what he had heard and not something that was a first hand account but more of a story, the purpose of which changes as it passes through the oral tradition.

 

[ewizacft]

Paul does mention Jesus several times. The thing is he doesn't give a historical account of Jesus of Nazareth but more of the allegory of Jesus as Christ. He tells the stories he has heard throughout the years but there have been no major references to the person.

Luke gives the historical account of Paul meeting Jesus in the book of Acts.

This is 1 Corinthians 15:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

I think this is a major reference to the person. He said he and more than 500 others saw Christ risen from the dead. This does not sound like allegory to me.

And yes I know Paul mentions Jesus 218 times by name and even says he is the son of man but he doesn't seem to elaborate on that much.

I can not think of one place Paul calls Jesus, "Son of Man". Where does he say this?

See if he was preaching to far away towns before the Gospels then you would think that he would need to fill in some background story in some of his letters to the Gentiles. He doesn't which can either mean he didn't travel far and Jesus' story was known in those parts, or he was reciting what he had heard and not something that was a first hand account but more of a story, the purpose of which changes as it passes through the oral tradition.

So when does communicating information from one person to another transform from factual into a story? How do you know, how and when, this happened as you have stated?

 

[BooyaCS]

Luke gives the historical account of Paul meeting Jesus in the book of Acts.

This is 1 Corinthians 15:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

I think this is a major reference to the person. He said he and more than 500 others saw Christ risen from the dead. This does not sound like allegory to me.

I can not think of one place Paul calls Jesus, "Son of Man". Where does he say this?

So when does communicating information from one person to another transform from factual into a story? How do you know, how and when, this happened as you have stated?

All of Paul's writings were many years after the death of Jesus. Also that 1 paragraph sums up all paul has to say about Jesus. There is no historical reference points to any of the stories about his birth/ministry etc it is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and raised on the third day.

Not one reference to anything else. Also I was mistaken on the Son of man account as I had that confused with other Epistles.

Also in the oral tradition stories can, and often do change, it addition it has been known that some historians of the day had their works altered by the early christian church (Josephus was one example of this).

For example the Story of James was possibly altered to James brother of Jesus

...and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had

This passage doesn't fit with the writing style of Josephus. It is hard to imagine him changing his writing style in the middle of the paragraph as well. Also the Greek word for Christ, Christos, only appears in the Greek translation and not the Arameic. However that translation happened 100 plus years after the Death of Josephus and it is supposed changed before the First Ecumenical council at Nicea. Also the accounts in the Jewish war differ from this account yet it is penned by the same person. That is why the authenticity of this history is in question.

All I am saying is if that happened to a Jewish Historian born in 37 AD (4 years after the death of Jesus) could it have happened to the works of Paul and to the later works of the Gospels?

Also why is Josephus and Paul the only real writings we have on Jesus pre-60s AD? I would expect the Egyptians, or even the Romans to have pagan historical accounts of the person. In addition some of the timelines don't add up correctly. When they say Jesus was born during Herod. Was that Herod the great? He (Herod) died in 4 BC, What about his successor Herod Antipas I? I thought he went by his more Roman Name Antipas.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I've got a fitting story from this weekend. I went to my brother-in-law's wedding in DC this past weekend. My 5 year old son, who is gutting through the complications of his autism diagnosis, was the ring bearer and wore a three piece suit with a coral bow tie. There were about ten kids from my wife's side of the family. The bride's side had only two girls. Their parents are very strict Christians who live in the Bay Area, my wife and I get along fairly well with them. However, they are hyper-Christian. Home school Christian.

So at the reception, there's a bouncy house and trampoline for the kids. My son joined in with the older cousins on the trampoline, still wearing his three piece suit, singing: "I am Je-sus. I am Je-sus." as he bounced.

I don't know why he decided to chant that he was the Son of God. He is quirky and struggles with day to day interactions, but he also knows how to win over other kids with inappropriate jokes. He might also have felt immense power as he bounced, flying through the air. He might also be the second coming and we didn't realize it yet. The oldest cousin - an 11 year old Jewish girl from New York, said, "This kid is hilarious!" and started jumping up and down with her sister, chanting "I am Je-sus. I am Je-sus." Then the cousins from Tennessee joined in, suddenly we had about eight kids bouncing on a trampoline claiming to be The Messiah. I was three beers in, so I just stood by and laughed.

Then I saw the bride's family... clutching their two girls... horrified.

Please pray for their sense of humor.

 

[gourimoko]

So at the reception, there's a bouncy house and trampoline for the kids. My son joined in with the older cousins on the trampoline, still wearing his three piece suit, singing: "I am Je-sus. I am Je-sus." as he bounced.

!!