"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever

[Royal Heart]

Your first three are one and the same tradition, and the point stands. The notion of self sacrifice is pretty common to just about every culture I can name, it's not arcane, it's not mysterious, and doesn't need religious clothes to understand in the first place.

Interestingly, it's actually instinctive behavior for primates. We're a social species and so our survival instincts rely primarily in doing what's best for the group (what defines a group, however, differs from species to species; and groups do war in order to secure resources). I agree, it's not arcane, mysterious or religious. It's biological. :3

Anyway the original quote wasn't about God loving us all so much he sacrificed his son, it was about him loving us so much that he offed Christ so people who believed in him could go to heaven. Those of us who appreciate his love in the abstract, without believing would be hell bound anyway if it's true.

What you wrote here would be much more palatable than what most Christians seem to be selling. The idea that God loved us so much that he offered his son so that whoever believed in him could go to heaven is a cool story. It's way better than the one I've always heard growing up, and on these internets, the one that says: "God sacrificed his only son so that those who believed in him wouldn't have to go to hell."

I get that to a lot of people, there may be little difference. To jerks like me, there's a huge difference between these two. The first one is, like, "Wow, that's a really nice thing for the Big Man upstairs to do." The second one is all, "But ... if he's all-powerful, then why doesn't he just un-make hell so he doesn't have to sacrifice anyone?" Granted, I would apply the second reaction to even the first story, but I'm less inclined to because of the way it's framed.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Scripture on the other hand is not intended as fiction, it claims authority, and as such, the question of veracity is incredibly germane in evaluating the things it says. Just like the veracity of anatomy textbooks is very important, while the stories of Shakespeare, require no such scrutiny.

Meh, sez you. I very much think a great deal of the world's scriptures are *exactly* intended to be literature, and not science textbooks.

You may read the book of Job as an authoritative essay on the causes of suffering. I think that's wildly missing the point.

 

[TX-Beau]

I said fiction and authority, you said literature, which can be fiction or non fiction and still be literature; and scripture is very much intended to be a textbook. A textbook for how you live your life, what you may do and may not do, claiming the authority of an all powerful omniscient god, who created you and everything else.

You and I may not believe it, but that is exactly what it claims to be, and that is exactly how the religious treat it.

 

[TX-Beau]

I get that to a lot of people, there may be little difference. To jerks like me, there's a huge difference between these two. The first one is, like, "Wow, that's a really nice thing for the Big Man upstairs to do." The second one is all, "But ... if he's all-powerful, then why doesn't he just un-make hell so he doesn't have to sacrifice anyone?" Granted, I would apply the second reaction to even the first story, but I'm less inclined to because of the way it's framed.

I see your point. It's the difference between getting a gift, and escaping a punishment.

Both are nice, but they're not the same.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The meaning of something is sometimes different depending on if it actually happened or it did not. It can be enjoyed, examined, interpreted, applied, etc. either way, but the end result can depend on whether or not it actually happened.

If your imaginative faculty is strong, whether or not something happened may be irrelevant.

 

[Royal Heart]

I see your point. It's the difference between getting a gift, and escaping a punishment.

Both are nice, but they're not the same.

Bingo!

 

[WillMc88]

If your imaginative faculty is strong, whether or not something happened may be irrelevant.

And it may not be, like in the case of this scripture.

 

[WillMc88]

I said fiction and authority, you said literature, which can be fiction or non fiction and still be literature; and scripture is very much intended to be a textbook. A textbook for how you live your life, what you may do and may not do, claiming the authority of an all powerful omniscient god, who created you and everything else.

You and I may not believe it, but that is exactly what it claims to be, and that is exactly how the religious treat it.

Exactly!

 

[Royal Heart]

And it may not be, like in the case of this scripture.

I don't know what I think about that. I mean, I know that to the brain, what you experience and what you imagine are sometimes indistinguishable to how it reacts. You can think about a situation that would really get you angry and feel your heart race, your temperature increase, and actually feel angry - and yet the entire situation is taking place inside your head; or you can be in a real situation that is making you angry, and have the same physiological responses.

Whether or not something happened in real life, or in someone's imagination can get pretty blurry. Especially if drugs, old age, or general idiocy are involved.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I said fiction and authority, you said literature, which can be fiction or non fiction and still be literature; and scripture is very much intended to be a textbook. A textbook for how you live your life, what you may do and may not do, claiming the authority of an all powerful omniscient god, who created you and everything else.

You and I may not believe it, but that is exactly what it claims to be, and that is exactly how the religious treat it.

You know, I would say the same thing about the division of literature into fiction and non-fiction that I've been saying about the division of religious expressions into true and false: that when engaging the subject the division is beside the point. First, you ought consider the matter.

That all scripture is intended to be read as textbook is patently reductive. That all religion claims the authority of an all powerful omniscient creator god is also.

 

[WillMc88]

I don't know what I think about that. I mean, I know that to the brain, what you experience and what you imagine are sometimes indistinguishable to how it reacts. You can think about a situation that would really get you angry and feel your heart race, your temperature increase, and actually feel angry - and yet the entire situation is taking place inside your head; or you can be in a real situation that is making you angry, and have the same physiological responses.

Whether or not something happened in real life, or in someone's imagination can get pretty blurry. Especially if drugs, old age, or general idiocy are involved.

Sure; however, my initial point was that it would make a difference whether or not the person believed it actually happened. Insert that word into my post.

 

[Royal Heart]

That all scripture is intended to be read as textbook is patently reductive. That all religion claims the authority of an all powerful omniscient creator god is also.

We are in agreement as we know these things to not only be reductive, but demonstrably untrue.

Sure; however, my initial point was that it would make a difference whether or not the person believed it actually happened. Insert that word into my post.

Ah! Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Whether or not something happened in real life, or in someone's imagination can get pretty blurry. Especially if drugs, old age, or general idiocy are involved.

Yeah no shit huh, I met a couple old fuckers who imagined the wildest things.

 

[Royal Heart]

Yeah no shit huh, I met a couple old fuckers who imagined the wildest things.

I'll have you know I'm only 28, thank you.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I'll have you know I'm only 28, thank you.

err...our JUB savant!

 

[mbamike]

believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" - John 3:16

how about, "For God liked a small part of the world, kind of, so he allowed the only son he has to suffer briefly, so that a very small part of humanity could escape the eternal suffering of hell which God created".

Makes more sense.

John 3:17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

"The world" and "whosoever" includes everyone.

 

[Kulindahr]

New International Version: and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all

English Standard Version: if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them

King James Bible: if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them

Across multiple versions this part still seems to say the same thing: True Christians can guzzle deadly toilet bowl cleaner and survive. Even if it was added later, then why is it still in there? If it isn't true, then shouldn't it be removed? As long as it's in there, it's still considered part of the Bible and, therefore, it's still a Christian belief.

It's a rather special grammatical construction in the Greek. A full rendition of the sort of conditional clause used would be, "If they happen to drink any deadly substance -- which they shouldn't -- it shall not hurt them." So it wouldn't apply to doing it on purpose.

Your last two questions are worth a response I won't inflict on this forum -- nor do I have the time to do justice to it (I have something to do in about two hours, and wouldn't want to stop in the middle).

What does that even mean?

LOL That was my first thought!

 

[Kulindahr]

That's just a paraphrase of the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Basically Jesus was saying, "Stop trying to get revenge under the guise of justice, show people a better way to live, help them understand how it feels to be treated with courtesy and respect. Then they will know how to treat others in such a manner."

Actually Jesus was aiming it at making a change in your own heart, not at you making any in others.

“Father?”
“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” [Link]​

And the insight is what? That belief in fictitious Gods causes one to sacrifice one's children?

There's absolutely no punch to that story, or point, if God, Abraham, Isaac and the sheep never existed. The only way you get to insight is to evaluate that with the assumption that it actually happened.

If it's false, one might as well ponder the insight of woodcutters, wolves, delicious grandmothers, and people who allow little girls to wander alone in the forest.

TX, are you seriously that shallow? You see no "punch" to that story, if it were fiction? There's "punch" to books as varied as Dune, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Contact, Moby Dick, and Hunt for Red October, all fiction -- and you don't see the punch in the story of Abraham and his son?

Wow.

 

[Kulindahr]

In all three illustrations, the sons were rescued and went forward to accomplish great things – though the Christian son suffered death prior to his recovery.

The quote in the opening post of this thread speaks in terms of the paternal figure and his love for the only son. Most people easily comprehend the magnitude of that bond in the illustration. For the guy in charge to regard the success of the world as a matter of greater importance than protecting his own son is quite remarkable.

It is perhaps pertinent to note, in Buddhism the Bodhisattva ideal is self-sacrifice.

A point noted firmly by a priest I knew who claimed he could be Buddhist and Catholic at the same time.

I'd actually take this one step further. Harry Potter is fiction, written as fiction for the entertainment of people. While it's certainly possible to consider the tao of Dumbledore, J.K. Rowling made no such claims.

Scripture on the other hand is not intended as fiction, it claims authority, and as such, the question of veracity is incredibly germane in evaluating the things it says. Just like the veracity of anatomy textbooks is very important, while the stories of Shakespeare, require no such scrutiny.

You can certainly read scripture as fiction if you want, but that is not it's purpose, and that makes it fundamentally different.

Now that's a good point. Even so, there are those who don't demand objective truth of their religious stories.

What you wrote here would be much more palatable than what most Christians seem to be selling. The idea that God loved us so much that he offered his son so that whoever believed in him could go to heaven is a cool story. It's way better than the one I've always heard growing up, and on these internets, the one that says: "God sacrificed his only son so that those who believed in him wouldn't have to go to hell."

I get that to a lot of people, there may be little difference. To jerks like me, there's a huge difference between these two. The first one is, like, "Wow, that's a really nice thing for the Big Man upstairs to do." The second one is all, "But ... if he's all-powerful, then why doesn't he just un-make hell so he doesn't have to sacrifice anyone?" Granted, I would apply the second reaction to even the first story, but I'm less inclined to because of the way it's framed.

I think there's an entire difference portrayed in the attitude on the part of God in the two versions: in the one, He's got something awesome and He's determined to share it; in the other, there's this horrible place we're all headed to, and He wants to avoid seeing anyone go there. The one is definitely a positive act, the other... maybe He just doesn't want to be annoyed by the idea of anyone going through all that agony, but otherwise couldn't care less about us all.

There was a preacher at our church when I was little who made the story seem the second way. He made God seem, to a little boy, anyway, like some Dad who does things for His kids so He wouldn't have top be bothered with or by them as He went around doing Important Things.

 

[Kulindahr]

I said fiction and authority, you said literature, which can be fiction or non fiction and still be literature; and scripture is very much intended to be a textbook. A textbook for how you live your life, what you may do and may not do, claiming the authority of an all powerful omniscient god, who created you and everything else.

You and I may not believe it, but that is exactly what it claims to be, and that is exactly how the religious treat it.

Plainly you don't get what the Bible is about.

That's no big gopof, though -- neither do most self-proclaimed Christians.