If God is all powerful, couldn’t he just do that without all the bloody, painful, torture part???
That’s what I wondered about.
Comment on That's a good question
Gonzako@lemmy.world 1 month agoit’s to honor the sacrifice he made to abscond humanity of their sins.
LordCrom@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Gonzako@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The Cristian god prolly just enjoys a good drama
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
he could have just, you know, forgiven them. Like he preached. If I kill myself over a grudge I hold towards you, that just makes me an idiot. And, If I go around preaching forgiveness to everyone else, a hypocrite
barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Yeah, that doesn’t make sense either. How does dying by torture “absolve” (the word you were reaching for) humankind from their “sins,” and what sins are they talking about anyway? Sins are only religious rules, and if religion is a just a human construct, then they aren’t valid anyway.
I’ve never seen a religious message of any kind that made logical sense.
Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s a sacrifice of a perfect (never sinned) life for born and unborn innumerable sinner lives. The sin here is a categorical definition of not being perfect in god’s eyes.
Basically if you were perfect in god’s eyes, every decision, and action, conscious or not, would follow God’s will. Being a sinner just means that, again, in the eyes of God, your every action
Here is the logic behind it
An imperfect being life, untold quintillions of them, cannot ever weight the same vs a perfect one in god’s eyes.
The original templates for Human beings, made perfect, willingly sinned , and therefore, made sinners of anyone born of them
The crux of this issue is very deep, but basically, God’s whole sovereignty over his creation were being put to test by an opposing force (Satan) which basically tricked humans to create a situation that enabled the questioning of God legal framework for the then existing humanity and proposing that humans could, in actual fact, self govern and make perfect decisions with their lives without God’s intervention.
The very nature of the questioning line implies that had God cleaned the slate clean, deleting everything as a bad game of Sims, his very nature would have been made obsolete. So this was a non choice in god’s eyes
It also implied that, without sufficient time, imperfect beings would never be able to self organize to discover a way to self govern without God’s intervention.
The third implication was that it was unfair for God to punish innumerable unborn generations for the mistake made by their originating template.
A plan was made by God himself to solve this, the bible calls this a prophecy, in which a perfect life was to be the sacrifice for the born and unborn innumerable sinners which were thrown into that situation (understandable, how can an unborn person have done anything to be a sinner) without being directly responsible for it.
Jesus life, born under the protection of god’s shadow, being born. perfect (again never sinned) more than matches against the weight of any number of imperfect lives.
That’s why the bible calls his sacrifice a “once and for all” kind of deal. It basically applies against 99.99% of anything a human can do consciously or not to sin.
Unasked
Undeserved
Unlimited forgiveness.
I can explain more but that’s basically the gist of it
barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Yeah, that is absolutely crazy. Literally every word of it is fabricated by humans trying to figure out some way of justifying the control of others. Not one single concept is backed by any factual evidence. It’s all just a fairy tale, or mythology.
Even if you believe that this is all the work of “God,” how can any human claim to know what God actually thinks or wants? The entire concept of religion was created by humans who claim to know what God wants from us, and anyone who says that is automatically a conman.
Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I can only say that once I started studying physics, QM seemed crazy too. I won’t even go into the astrophysics patchwork that is the ∆CDM models, that’s bonkers. Even the CMBR looks like it’s assuming a lot of things to me, and lately it’s been taking a beating with new findings.
There is bunch of things people say or do that are crazy or astonishing for you without context. Id suggest you to try not dismissing those things with a thought if you really want to understand them.
The claim of no factual evidence begs the question of what is factual evidence for the reader. Also self explanatory within the context of the book we are discussing.
As for the question of knowing what God thinks or wants, it’s self explanatory, given that we are dealing in a discussion within the context of a book that, presumably, tries to explain that to readers.
Beyond the advice, you are obviously allowed to think anything about anyone.
Gonzako@lemmy.world 1 month ago
IDK and idc. I went to a nun school and I wasn’t convinced either but that’s what I was told it meant