Christ and our sins

[_Inconceivable]

To experience one's burden lightened or even lifted from their shoulders, whatever those burdens my be.

Some people call this phenomenon Jesus, Harm. Whatever it is, I've experienced it sporatically over my lifetime - not particularly consistant.

I used to wholeheartedly agree with Nehor (and BC hasn't even a clue what we're discussing).

I am unwilling to pin it all down now.

[_huckelberry]

We're told that Christ suffered in the Garden, bled from every pore, was whipped, and was crucified whereupon he died. This suffereing was supposedly so great that he paid the debt for billions of people's sins (to Justice, whoever that is).

How did what he did wipe away the sins of billions of people? It doesn't seem like much punishment, for the sins (some of which are really bad) of everyone who was ever born. And who is Justice, that she can make that kind of claim on God himself?

Its MAAAGIC harm, magic for a made up condition. It does not make sense because the first premise of sin does not make sense.

The church controls access to Christ's "magic", therefore they are the actual magicians, stringing along a group of generational idiocy called "the faithful".

Jesus was a Palestinian jew revolutionary who had his eye on the kingship of Judea. He co opted the archetype of the Messiah while he gained a following, preaching all the while about being the real king. I don't see a difference between Jesus and Joseph Smith crowning himself "king of the world". They are both individuals with aspirations of power, one of the most truly evil forces on this planet.

I am puzzled, Merc you state that the first premise of sin makes no sense. Actually I have no clue what you understand to be the first premise of sin. To my understanding you have specifically accused Jesus of representing that first premis of sin. That is why you do not like what you have accused him of. But if that first premis of sin has no sense why bother with being upset about it and pointing out where you preceive its, sins, presense.

magic? what is that? Perhaps you mean it is a simple illusion. I incline to think the picture of an organization contrilling the atonement is an illusion. Magic. On the other hand sharing forgiveness and responsibilty with those people you live with I think is concrete action and I believe it works.

The story of Jesus presents that mutual responsiblity very well. I understand you think that is all PR. disappinting, why can't people come up with real examples of people to admire?

I suppose it could be said that we see bits and pieces of what is admirable in people all around us. Perhaps it is only in fiction that those fragments can be brought together as an ideal.

On the other hand I think the New Testament picture makes more historical sense than the composit alternative. It fits the evidence. Now I realize some people want to proove the evidence beyond what is available. I see no elimination of ambiguities .

But why fret? Perhaps you like the other fellow above do not wish to sign on, whatever that means.

[_bcspace]

Let me defend a little the "Lord of the Rings". As far as I can remember, it is one of the rare books which don't mention gods, angels and religions in general.

Ever hear of the Simarillion and the Valar?

[_ludwigm]

Yes, I have read everything from Tolkien..
If one want to redefine every word - to defend something - then Gandalf is an angel.
Fortunately - for me - he is not. Anyway, in the book there are no such word as angel, god, religion.
There are people who define their gods, (whatever that may mean) Tolkien is not of them.

There are interesting similarities. If Sauron can be Lucifer, then horses may be tapirs.

Well, and science is only a religion among the other thousands, every one of them is more true than the others.


OK, we are far from Christ and from our sins ...

[_Bond...James Bond]

I could understand [sorta] the dying for the sins of those who sinned before. My real trouble was trying to reconcile how he could die for my sins before they even happen...at that point I was like. Yeah.

[_John Larsen]

Jesus didn't even suffer that much. There have been many who have suffered much much worse for longer periods of time. There are some horrible diseases that will kill you in a agonizingly slow way.

It has been said that Jesus had a bad weekend for the sins of mankind. In reality, I figure the suffering for my sins was less than a millisecond. I just as soon suffer for my own sins. They are mine, I made them. I never authorized anyone to suffer for them.

[_harmony]

Jesus didn't even suffer that much. There have been many who have suffered much much worse for longer periods of time. There are some horrible diseases that will kill you in a agonizingly slow way.

It has been said that Jesus had a bad weekend for the sins of mankind. In reality, I figure the suffering for my sins was less than a millisecond. I just as soon suffer for my own sins. They are mine, I made them. I never authorized anyone to suffer for them.

See that's what I don't understand. If Jesus suffered so terribly for our sins (it doesn't seem all that terrible to me... I mean a couple of days and nights of agony, in exchange for the sins of all mankind?), and his was only a couple days, why would we have to suffer for all eternity if we don't confess our sins to our bishop and choose instead to take them to the grave with us?

Let's say Member A has done a terrible sin, but no one knows about it. Let's say they're temple endowed, and they managed to commit adultery (a sin which must be confessed to the bishop) without anyone knowing about it. An affair conducted only on business trips. So... based on an analysis of Jesus's suffering for all of the sins of mankind, Member A decides that confession would cause more trouble in the here and now than taking their chances with the next life and possibly having to suffer for their own sins. What's the payoff for confessing? Excommunication and extreme disruption of the family. What's the payoff for not confessing? Maybe they'll suffer a couple of days? Why would anyone choose to confess?

[_Mercury]

We're told that Christ suffered in the Garden, bled from every pore, was whipped, and was crucified whereupon he died. This suffereing was supposedly so great that he paid the debt for billions of people's sins (to Justice, whoever that is).

How did what he did wipe away the sins of billions of people? It doesn't seem like much punishment, for the sins (some of which are really bad) of everyone who was ever born. And who is Justice, that she can make that kind of claim on God himself?

Its MAAAGIC harm, magic for a made up condition. It does not make sense because the first premise of sin does not make sense.

The church controls access to Christ's "magic", therefore they are the actual magicians, stringing along a group of generational idiocy called "the faithful".

Jesus was a Palestinian jew revolutionary who had his eye on the kingship of Judea. He co opted the archetype of the Messiah while he gained a following, preaching all the while about being the real king. I don't see a difference between Jesus and Joseph Smith crowning himself "king of the world". They are both individuals with aspirations of power, one of the most truly evil forces on this planet.

I am puzzled, Merc you state that the first premise of sin makes no sense. Actually I have no clue what you understand to be the first premise of sin. To my understanding you have specifically accused Jesus of representing that first premis of sin. That is why you do not like what you have accused him of. But if that first premis of sin has no sense why bother with being upset about it and pointing out where you preceive its, sins, presense.

magic? what is that? Perhaps you mean it is a simple illusion. I incline to think the picture of an organization contrilling the atonement is an illusion. Magic. On the other hand sharing forgiveness and responsibilty with those people you live with I think is concrete action and I believe it works.

The story of Jesus presents that mutual responsiblity very well. I understand you think that is all PR. disappinting, why can't people come up with real examples of people to admire?

I suppose it could be said that we see bits and pieces of what is admirable in people all around us. Perhaps it is only in fiction that those fragments can be brought together as an ideal.

On the other hand I think the New Testament picture makes more historical sense than the composit alternative. It fits the evidence. Now I realize some people want to proove the evidence beyond what is available. I see no elimination of ambiguities .

But why fret? Perhaps you like the other fellow above do not wish to sign on, whatever that means.

If you break out some reading comprehension and review what I read it clearly lays out that "sin" is a false construct created by those who supposedly have the magic tools to rid oneself of "sin". Jesus (if he ever existed) was a revolutionary cum holy man. Jesus had his eye on the kingship of Israel. The whole magic show (see, it works in several contexts) involving supposed miracles was a tool to gain a power base. This, of course, assuming Jesus existed.

[_huckelberry]

Merc, I thought I understood your comment the first time. YOur words were staightforward. You have repeated the statement with only minor variation. I do not see the minor variations in the restatement as changing the meaning. Did I miss something?

Break out my reading comprehension? It is hard to imagine what I missed. Is there some special glasses which transforms your string of words into something marvelous? That would be magic.

[_Mercury]

Is there some special glasses which transforms your string of words into something marvelous? That would be magic.

Nope, no glasses. There is a stone in a hat though :)