maybe he didn’t sacrifice so much as we thought

  • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
    18·
    6 days ago

    The whole thing is just very strange once you actually start to think about it. So “sins” (btw what even is this concept, some sort of supernatural criminal legal system? who decides what is a “sin” and why does this authority have jurisdiction over me when i don’t even get a vote? what if i just decide to go all “sovereign citizen” instead?) can be wiped clean with (pseudo-)human sacrifice, and not only does it indiscriminately apply to all past “sins” but somehow all future ones?

    Doesn’t make much sense to me, but what do i know, i’m no expert in taking fantasy literature way too seriously theologian.

    Also, I never asked Jesus to do that for me, that’s kind of presumptuous of him to just assume i’d want that. It’s like someone saying “well i just did this thing for you completely unprompted that you never asked for nor wanted, but because it’s such a “nice”, selfless thing i did, you now owe me eternal gratitude”. Sounds a bit narcissistic tbh, sounds like incel behavior. It’s like, nah dog, you getting your ass crucified, that’s on you, don’t try and make it my problem.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      14·
      6 days ago

      Funniest theological implication of it is that christians do have to sin in order for his sacrifice to not be meaningless. But they did caught out this bug at some point but the patch have even less sense, being the concept of original sin. It’s also pretty cruel while the other interpretation would make Jesus somewhat cool guy for a deity, who allow people some sin as a treat.

      • Arlaerion@lemmy.ml
        5·
        6 days ago

        And – if I understood that correctly – that prophets may have made errors ant a final prophet which is sent directly from heaven (instead of chosen from men) will correct them. So plotholes in the written text are accepted as a misunderstanding between the words of god and the human prophet who reads and interprets them.

        • Anarcho-Bolshevik@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          8·
          6 days ago

          See, there is an easy way out of all of this, but the Almighty does not usually take the easy way out, it seems.

          It is kind of like how some players come up with these personal ‘victory conditions’ to make video games more challenging. My character in Fallout 2 could have worn some armor at least once, but I decided against it.

    • DisabledAceSocialist@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      31·
      5 days ago

      Considering god created a hellhole of a world for us and Jesus came down here willingly to be tortured, he’s clearly a sadomasochist who enjoyed it. When he got back to heaven he probably wanked himself blind.

      Also I think all the obsession god has with no sex outside of marriage - that’s effectively edging. God likes to abstain for as long as possible to make his orgasm stronger - he is literally an edgelord.

    • lazynoobletEnglish
      4·
      6 days ago

      Also are we sure he knew he would be resurrected? Been a long time since Bible studies.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        7·
        6 days ago

        He’s part of the godhead. That’s why he knew he had to be crucified - God didn’t tell him, they’re the same entity. When he went to pray in the garden he was really just talking about his problems to himself. I do the same thing with myself all the time.

        Although it’s funny to think that God had no idea what would happen: it was basically a game breaking glitch and he used it for an infinite money salvation cheat.

      • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
        1·
        4 days ago

        Yes. When Christ died he traveled to hell and raises all he souls trapped there. Implying he had a plan before dying.

  • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
    3·
    6 days ago

    The thing that gets me about the religious stuff I was taught (catholic stuff) is like the whole thing with “original sin.” I’m supposed to be tied up in responsibility for a decision that some ancestor made millennia ago. Holding children responsible for the sins of their parents is some real ethnic-cleansing-justifying mindset. Not to mention, the whole story of the “sin” in the first place; in the most charitable interpretation I can think of, they were purposefully tempted and fell to temptation and God was like, yeah, that’s it, you’re done. And then it took a long time and Jesus getting himself tortured to death in order for God to reconsider his stonewalling of humanity. But Jesus is also a part of God, according to catholicism, IIRC; the whole three persons in one thing. So in a way, it seems the catholic God is like those people who can’t empathize with suffering until similar happens to them, then they finally get it. Though considering this is what I was taught in the western empire and considering (in my understanding) catholicism’s historical ties to such levers of power at least in more recent history, I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise if God comes out looking like a sort of Scrooge character who is out of touch with the suffering he is causing and can be moved to charity (not even reform, much less overthrow) only if he suffers first.

  • Anarcho-Bolshevik@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    3·
    6 days ago

    It probably feels like a cop-out, but one could hypothetically respond by saying that the temporary loss of the son sufficed in the Almighty’s eyes. He could have drowned everybody on Earth, much like in the book of Genesis, but in His mercy He toned down the penalty to one temporary sacrifice, which has impressed millions. He could have made a sacrifice of a more permanent nature (as a few Christians believe), but that would have complicated His benevolence.

    Not a perfect explanation by any means, but I am no Christian, so I am not the best source to consult on this. My own view of the matter is more complicated…