*************
M*W: I certainly don't know all the saviors of the world, so my main focus for asking this question is based on the dying demigod savior of christianity Jesus. Why was death required of Jesus in order to save the world? This seems counter-productive to me. If Jesus weren't required to die and rise and leave the world, he could have stuck around and done some good like feeding the poor, healing the sick, and turning more water into wine for the homeless. Why did Jesus have to die at all?

DISCLAIMER: For the purpose of this question, let's assume Jesus existed.

They needed a martyr to believe in.

Jesus, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, they all have untimely deaths in common, sure. It's odd how death slingshots people to cult status,.... just take Elvis and Bruce Lee as examples.

Is it required? I guess so. It prevents the figure from falling from grace. If Jesus had got old and fat and got divorced by Mary when she found out he was having an affair with Judas, it would have just got messy.

In Christian belief the death of Jesus was an act of atonement for all past and future sin. Christians generally believe that the torture and subsequent murder of the Christ was an ultimate act of atonement. That is why you hear people stating that "Jesus died for you." They believe that his death has made them pure in the eyes of God.
In other religions the death of a massianic figure represents their achievment of an ultimate goal, generally transcedence. In Buddhism they say "If you meet Bhudda on the road, slay him." This is refferencing that Bhudda is supposed to have achieved universal transcendence. He has gone on to a state of being that all others should seek to attain. I believe this is the true guiding force beneath all religions and their Iconic figures. They have achieved a state of being that we should all aspire to.

Jesus, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, they all have untimely deaths in common, sure. It's odd how death slingshots people to cult status,.... just take Elvis and Bruce Lee as examples.

Is it required? I guess so. It prevents the figure from falling from grace. If Jesus had got old and fat and got divorced by Mary when she found out he was having an affair with Judas, it would have just got messy.
Oh no your starting to be funny like Me. Jesus was suicidal megalomaniac like Me. A working Man disillusioned with the way of the times he lived in . The voices he heard told him to kill him self and to follow a perceived protocol dictated by the past . I can hear the same language telling Me to kill my self. I don't listen to it , or better yet I don't believe in the message . Someone has to brake the curse is how I feel about it . Why not Me. I think I can ! I think I can I think I can! I think I can! I already drove the stake in the vampires heart by way of social slavering in the construction industry for 40 years . That seems to be some kind of magic number in bible prophesies .

O.K. this is funny , I was just starting Morris log House and we dig down to grade and what have you it is muck yuck wet clay for another 2 and a half feet to 3 ft. before we hit solid rock . Then it was an underground stream flowing over the rock . Fuck Me and my horse, What a fucking nightmare . So I contact my geo engineer friend who owes Me a favor . I call in the favor and he engineers a system that will not fail under the conditions . So a lot of builders would have just taken a chance and fucked er up good knowing the results of there fuck up would not be noticed for many many years down the road . Not Me I eat it big time , dig all the clay out , spend massive amounts of money bringing in shot rock and rapping with appropriate barriers of fabric Layers of other gravels and what have you to achieve a solid base to pour on above the existing underground stream . Boom done 10,000 of mine pissed away to make things right . So this being my Nine mile job and me living in a dream wold of the Nine Mile valley like it was Cloud Nine . I am re reading the new testament cause I am positive the forces of nature are yelling at Me with a stern stoic voice not in my head . but coming from out side influences . I was just friggen freaking big time from what I was hearing coming out of all souses were ever I was going . So I was finding comfort in the new testament. Some one then told me that the Book of Luke was the Healing book and I should read it and it would help me to understand better . So I come to this part: Luke 46 to the end of 49 . Go read it for your self if you Dare . So reinforcement was incurred . I saw my self as the work Man and it was by a deed I had already done in just the last couple of weeks . Freak butt coinkidink . Maybe ? But it synchronicity is still going on relentless like . I don't read the bible so much as of late for I know all to well I will find glimpse of my actions already written . Question is :
Do I follow the writings our did the writings predict my movements . Was it set in stone by outside influence of a Pharaohs wish for the Kingdom to prosper or do I follow the goals of a dream in progress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48JFIv9LZ2w

Or knowing three chords.

Jesus, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, they all have untimely deaths in common, sure. It's odd how death slingshots people to cult status,.... just take Elvis and Bruce Lee as examples.


I really dont know much about Joseph Smith but David Koresh's death didnt "slingshot" him into cult status at all.

Elvis and Bruce Lee, made no difference to their popularity but actually didnt help at all...Hell you cant even say it "slingshot" Hendrix into cult status. Use your damn head.:rolleyes:

Faith in God will set you free.

Faith in God will set you free.

Free from what? I used to believe in god, and I was set free by atheism.

Jesus' death was needed to seal the new covenant with the Father, in the same manner as a traditional Jewish animal sacrifice. (Hence, He is the "Lamb of God" in that He is the perfect sacrificial offering.)

That said, the Jewish messiah was a savior figure, and yet he was supposed to triumph over the enemies of the Jews, so I doubt that death is needed in every content where a "savior" rises.

The more difficult questions to me are: (i) if God wanted to forgive mankind's sins, why require a sacrifice at all? (ii) If a sacrifice were needed why was God making a sacrifice to Himself for the purpose rather than asking the people of the world to make the sacrifice? (iii) Assuming a sacrifice were needed, why revert to a human sacrifice when Judaism had otherwise eliminated that tradition?

I'm partial to the fascinating paradoxical concept of the Salvator Salvandus (a Latin phrase, translated as "the Savior who is in need of being saved").

The mystery of the Incarnation of God in a human being tends to be botched when you try to short-circuit the paradox (or even contradiction) symbolized by it -- either by conceiving it as all-powerful God using an empty human vessel; or on the other hand, as a mere man merely "inspired" by God in a wishy-washy Wayne Dyer sort of way.

As my professor explained it, the Incarnation is not 50% God + 50% Man (let alone, as implied above, 100% God and 0% Man or vice versa -- nor some other arithmetic calculated to minimize the astonishing paradox), but rather 100% God + 100% Man.

Or, if you like (to borrow the multiplication metaphor in explaining the Trinity as not 1 + 1 + 1 but rather 1 X 1 X 1): it was God X Man.

God becoming man, was an example of walking a mile in someone else's shoes. From the comfort of heaven, God could not figure out why so few humans could get with his program. The god of the old testament was very grouchy. But once God walked a mile in man's shoes, and saw, first-hand, all the pitfalls of human nature and the persecutions from other humans, he understood. From the ivory tower the pions seem such a bother. But being among the pions god learned something.

One may ask, why don't the inner city kids just get away from gangs and drugs. It is easy to be an expert of good choice in the safety of a nice house on a nice street. But get an apartment in the ghetto and collect real data. It may not be their fault, because of pressures and pitfalls.

Jesus came as a nice guy trying to do good. This is how you should be, see this is easy. But there was always pressure to conform to less that the ideal he already was, so others could retain positions of power and wealth at the big table. The system was messed up by doctrines of men. Jesus learned the answer to the age old question of why humans could not get with God's program. It was not their fault.

It was fear of death that held them all captive. Jesus had to confront this human fear and walk that last mile in their shoes. Walking this last mile, god realized even those who persecuted others had something hanging over their heads; fear.

In the analogy above, you move into the ghetto for many years. There are drugs and gangs and life has little joy and little future. To get the full experience you may need to go deeper into the gutter of dispair. Once God realized what humans were up against, he opened the gates of heaven. Jesus goes to hell to free those held captive, dope slaps Satan, and comes back to give hope.

The death of the Savior was so Gd could drink from the cup of humanity and not remain aloof in his ivory tower shaking his head over the pions. Instead the lesson softened God's heart and he changed approach.

I'm partial to the fascinating paradoxical concept of the Salvator Salvandus (a Latin phrase, translated as "the Savior who is in need of being saved").

The mystery of the Incarnation of God in a human being tends to be botched when you try to short-circuit the paradox (or even contradiction) symbolized by it -- either by conceiving it as all-powerful God using an empty human vessel; or on the other hand, as a mere man merely "inspired" by God in a wishy-washy Wayne Dyer sort of way.

As my professor explained it, the Incarnation is not 50% God + 50% Man (let alone, as implied above, 100% God and 0% Man or vice versa -- nor some other arithmetic calculated to minimize the astonishing paradox), but rather 100% God + 100% Man.

Or, if you like (to borrow the multiplication metaphor in explaining the Trinity as not 1 + 1 + 1 but rather 1 X 1 X 1): it was God X Man.

That is strange. How did you come up with that "God X Man again ?
Dwy are you getting this ? Got Milk !

hmmm....

Previous to "Slave morality" as prescribed by such as Jesus, Socrates, Zoroaster....the ancients believed great men rose up and became gods themselves, through feats(Heracles) or by Guile(Persus) or by slaying gods themselves (Gilgamesh).

People felt like they could perhaps do that too or something...

The whole Jesus died for you sends wrong messages to my brain. It says that in Christianity it's okay to pass the blame from one person to another and that it is quite alright to make someone take responsibility for my actions.As for the actual act of dying for humanity, it wasn't much of a sacrifice since he came back to life 3 days later.A sacrifice from himself to himself is questionable taste.Isn't God all knowing? If so God already knew how humans would act once he created them and all the events that followed. :shrug:

*************
M*W: I certainly don't know all the saviors of the world, so my main focus for asking this question is based on the dying demigod savior of christianity Jesus. Why was death required of Jesus in order to save the world? This seems counter-productive to me.

I agree. Death is not a requirement to be a savior in my opinion. Also it makes no sense to me that Jesus had to suffer so much just to make up for the sins of other people.

Quite simply, Jesus died for the sins of the world.

for - because of

Anyone who dies at the hands of another dies because of the "sins of the world".

There is no such thing as sin.

No, because you can just pretend he or she did, and nobody will be able to tell the difference.

Sin is just irrationality.

No, there is nothing rational about the definitions of sin. What's irrational about insulting your parents or cheating on your wife?

No, there is nothing rational about the definitions of sin. What's irrational about insulting your parents or cheating on your wife?

I agree with you Spidey . To Me that is what it means with new Messiah. That is what is said . He will take away your sin . See that is what you are doing . See how your a slave to scripture. Your taking away all sins by saying there is no sin . I agree as we are dictated to by circumstance . If the circumstance calls for your butt to be corn cobbled then by the name miss liberty your butt will be corn codded, Holy Mackerel. Smelly fish .

What sin . Don't kill people . I am down with that . Stealing , Every body steals in one form or another . It is a human trait . Communication it self is a form of stealing . Intellectual property? That still tickles my funny Bone Ha Ha Ha Ha That is a joke right. Lots of people think up the same thing at the same time . It is the nature of the god language. Funny God Language, The Word! To funny . It is all of you. It is like you live according to a script.

I had lunch with my wife today . Yeah she called out of the blue and told me to come to her office and have lunch with her . Very out of character. So at lunch I whispered nasty sex stories. I could see she was squirming in her chair . Then she would say Good after each sentence of small talk. It was on Que of my repeated story line . Meaning when ever I would get to a particular high light in the story it would time perfect with her good she was using in her small talk . She called Me to her office just to get a sexual rise . She secretly made that clear when I walk in the office by her body language and her hidden speech like that good I just described. The thing is you all talk like that in a coherent speech with multiple words . It is so strange to be able to hear it plane and clear like that now . God I struggled so long for this breakthrough. Much more testing must be done . We are just on the verge of understanding it . It has to be evolution at work . The things that dictate change . The slow change of progressions . Now question is can I cause a time warp into the future information stream . Meaning cause a jump forward in human activities by utilizing this God language as a tool . I think I can . I think I am. Un fucking real God Fuck Me . I knew it . Fucking unreal . Girls and Boys I knew something came together when I had that last ban fiasco. Just starting to get a handle on what happen . Fucking un real

The Messiah took away sins by removing the law. Sin is not imputed when there is no law. Without law, there is no sin.

For example, PC creates word prohibitions. Before any given word prohibiton, these same words were not sins, sinced it has not be labels as yet with a law. Once the law is created, then sin magically appears, since it is through the law that sin is imputed. The new Messiah took away sin by removing the old law. If PC said, today we changed our mind and the word ($%#) is OK to say. The sin is gone when you say ($%#). Isn't that amazing. All to takes is the law to be gone.

The death of the New Messiah was needed to allow the holy spirit to appear. If there is no law, and therefore no sin, how do you know what to do and what not to do? If PC said this range of words is no longer a sin, whether you use these words or not does not matter. But you might use you inner voice to decide if these words wil edify or is it done to help another. But either way there is no sin if you do or don't. But based on a good inner sense you dioes the right thing even without law or sin.

Paul said all thuings are lawful to me but not all things edify. All things are lawful to me but I will not be mastered by anything. So he could eat, drink and cuss but he was also making sure he was standing tall and not becoming an addict who lacks self control. But his sins are covered.

No, there is nothing rational about the definitions of sin. What's irrational about insulting your parents or cheating on your wife?

Then what rational purposes do those actions serve? Monogamy exists to ensure the survival of our offspring, and man has always counted on the pro-survival support of the basic group unit, the family. These are even basic evolutionary survival strategies. You can't get much more rational than the strategies that have allowed us to survive and evolve.

That is incorrect. Sexual dimorphism does not suggest humans had a history of monogamy.

According to Daly and Wilson, "The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals."[33] One proposed explanation is that human sexuality has developed more in common with its close relative the bonobo, who have similar sexual dimorphism and which are polygynandrous and use recreational sex to reinforce social bonds and reduce aggression.[34][wiki] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism)

I never made any claim to the contrary. Can you say non sequitur? With the length of human gestation and rearing of offspring, we require either monogamy or a group support system, like the family, to ensure the survival of our young. Both of which are exactly why your above examples are irrational.

And you never answered my question:
"Then what rational purposes do those actions serve?"

Cheating on your wife doesn't necessarily interfere with raising your children, and it can be rational because maybe your wife is a total biatch and relieving sexual tension is good for your health and state of mind, perhaps allowing you to be a better father.

Cheating on your wife doesn't necessarily interfere with raising your children, and it can be rational because maybe your wife is a total biatch and relieving sexual tension is good for your health and state of mind, perhaps allowing you to be a better father.

Only because there is a group support system. And no, rational would be to quit subjecting yourself to an abusive woman entirely, by getting a divorce, instead of raising your children in a contentious environment and providing an example of dishonesty as a pattern for their future relationships. All else is merely justification of how one may chose to reconcile one's own personal survival (say, financially) versus the best survival environment for their children.

Why was death required of Jesus in order to save the world?

Yes indeed, why. Water to wine for the homeless would have been the more compassionate route indeed. And wine on tap for those of us with indoor plumbing. I'm not saying it's all about the wine. There's bread, too. And fish.

Also: what happened to the idea that they were waiting for a savior to rescue them from oppression and rebuild the temple once and for all, NOT a guy who would would save their souls. This is where the story leaves off before the New Testament drives up.

Conveniently, the soul-saver savior archetype evolved from the temple-saver savior archetype right about the time the Iesu Xristo embryo was implanted in the betrothed gal whose home pregnancy test kit included both an audible annuciation and a visual projection. The story is crazy from the get-go. Who needs all of this hype just to get saved?

And the story just gets more complicated from there, like when you're trying to explain why you missed the staff meeting on account of the train running late. Were they making excuses for a Messiah who kept missing his deadlines on saving the Temple?

And when did they get the idea of angels - messengers - and the Devil, life after death, heaven and hell, and all of the other strange mutations on Judaism that Christianity brought to bear?

If it wasn't such an arid country I would suspect the mushrooms, at least that might account for the hallucinatory nature of Revelations.

But back at that magic moment, when this idea first dawned on them that their Superman wasn't going to just resurrect the Temple - maybe he would just resurrect himself. But why? Who would want to kill such an amiable guy? The enemy du jour (later) would be Nero, so as the story evoleved they must have decided to give him the Roman death on a tree. With nails, so every congregation would get an extra flight of sadomasochistic voyeurism, or however you say that in Aramaic.

As you see I'm not dwelling on the prevailing belief, but I do wonder about the weird stuff that must have been going through their heads back in the day. How did they assimilate these disparate myths that were dribbling in and out of the area, and how and why did they weave these together to create the Roman-style execution of a sort of psuedo-savior?

I mention Nero because that had to be the ultimate blow, that they stood up to him and got crushed in return. That must have been the worst of demoralizing defeats for the people who were just trying to keep the temple up to snuff. And, as Josephus tells us, the Romans were bringing the Emperor's statue into the Temple for the Jews to worship. What a low blow to such a long persevering and proud people.

So we got a savior killed the Roman way. Who knows, if the Scots had been their enemy, maybe Iesu Xristo would have only had to win the Highland Games, do the caber toss, all of that. Most pipe organs already have a stop that renders a bagpipe, so it wouldn't have been that severe an impact on the guildsmen who came later, and the church services would have been just about as cheery as ever.

It's not ridicule. This is hard thought out stuff. The question is a deep probing one, it strikes right at the heart of the religion, right at the moment of its conception. We know the Essenes had left, gone to the desert to have their pure way of life, to invent baptism, and to stash the Dead Sea Scrolls, which may have been rescued from the temple before Nero flattened it. We know the Zealots were ambushing Roman centurions and getting crucified. And there were Stoics running around - they were probably still ragging about Socrates and the cup of hemlock. What a crazy set of parallels. And Hebrew had gone out of use as their sacred script of choice three centuries earlier, when Alexander stormed through with Hellenization. Who were these people after that, after so many generations? Their culture must have been through a severe paradigm shift. They must have barely resembled the Jews of yore. They had to be something new - but what? For some, it may have been as simple as declaring a new identitiy: they were Xristians - followers of the anointed one.

All they had needed was a brand. And now they had one.
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-om4RLBztyP5NTrmHkYcvCHEsOlBlZfUhIa7yWS1ZORTaTwJC

Sin is just irrationality.

Is lying a sin?

Is it ever moral and rational to lie? Anne Frank is hiding in your attic and the Nazis ask if you know where any Jews are...

Is lying a sin?

Is it ever moral and rational to lie? Anne Frank is hiding in your attic and the Nazis ask if you know where any Jews are...

Is it rational in a given case? Is it irrational to say "fine" when asked how you are doing, even if not true? Rational can be defined as the best result for the greatest number of those involved. Do the benefits outweigh any detriment? Does saying "fine" harm the person beyond the benefit of being expedient?

So there are no rules, we just have to evaluate every situation for ourselves?

Simple-minded or less than rational people may require an absolute codification, otherwise general rules apply.

Let's just drop the term sin then, since it is defined, by the Bible, and in many cases not sinning would be irrational.

Then I assume you concede that Jesus died because of the irrationality of the world, which was my original point.

No, it was perfectly rational for the occupying Romans to kill a young blaspheming revolutionary.

No, it was perfectly rational for the occupying Romans to kill a young blaspheming revolutionary.

Double check your history, as the Roman's had absolutely no motivation of their own to do so. They didn't care one wit about his "blasphemy", nor was his "revolution" any kind of threat.

I don't doubt that they didn't care about it very much personally, but it was just par for the course. They were concerned in a more general way about intimidating the population and maintaining order.

I don't doubt that they didn't care about it very much personally, but it was just par for the course. They were concerned in a more general way about intimidating the population and maintaining order.

Site your source.

You first. But this is a separate issue.

Why is death a prerequisite for a savior? It's easy, myths can be much more inspiring than real people, who can be disappointing.

You first. But this is a separate issue.

Why is death a prerequisite for a savior? It's easy, myths can be much more inspiring than real people, who can be disappointing.

Here's a fairly comprehensive one:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_1.shtml

It is true that any death could sever as a catalyst for myth and lore, and I have not refuted that the death may very well have been necessary.

"The leaders of the Jewish establishment realise that he threatens their power, and so do the Romans, who fear that Jesus has the charisma to lead a guerrilla uprising against Imperial Rome."

"The leaders of the Jewish establishment realise that he threatens their power, and so do the Romans, who fear that Jesus has the charisma to lead a guerrilla uprising against Imperial Rome."

Still no siting, huh? Just making up stories. Mmm, sounds like a familiar accusation.

The only threat of "uprising" was the angry mob and religious authorities demanding his death. There are no indications that the Romans considering the followers of Jesus as any kind of threat as opposed to those of the established religious authorities. Pilate reluctantly agreed to the execution only to stave off riot from those demanding his death.