He can only be one of three things which is it?
-
LostKiera — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 09:39 AM)
I think the idea is a sin has two victims. The person who was affected and God. So if I steal from you I have wronged both you and God. So God can forgive me for wronging him, but you still have to forgive me for wronging you. Which is why the Our Father/Lord's Prayer asks God to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" - if all forgiveness was from God then the latter would be unnecessary.
I could be wrong but that is my understanding of it. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 01:53 PM)
I think you still fail to understand why forgiving the transgressions of others against others is so presumptuous. Claims to be "authorized to speak on God's behalf/in a mediatorial position/appointed Judge are likewise presumptuous. You pretending that all of the above are reasonable is presumptuous too.
I was merely pointing out that Hitchens wasn't considering all possibilities. To say it 'only makes sense if [this]' is to neglect [that] and [the other]. That you deem all or none unreasonable is beside the point. -
YouMightRabbitYouMight — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 05:46 AM)
Or if he was authorized to speak on God's behalf. Or if God put him in a mediatorial position between Himself and Man. Or if God appointed him Judge. Or all of the above.
None of that works if Jesus is claiming to take those sins upon himself as opposed to channeling them to God, a bit from that same text you curiously omitted.
Plus, this is all in the context of
Lewis's
framing.
Hitchens often seems to be very short-sighted, and this excerpt doesn't help to convince me that he doesn't have tunnel vision when it's convenient.
Seems more like coarse apology once again trying to slip one through. -
YouMightRabbitYouMight — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 02:06 PM)
In the vast majority of cases, and certainly around here, it is a straighforward pejorative.
I like to believe you're smarter than that.
Misc., I already know that coarse sophistry is your handmaiden. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 02:12 PM)
In the vast majority of cases, and certainly around here, it is a straighforward pejorative.
Then I'd say that in this case, the majority does indeed mean that all the fools are on the same side.
Misc., I already know that coarse sophistry is your handmaiden.
Lay off the hallucinogens, Rabbit. Those walls aren't
really
breathing
ps. Your next "witty retort" will be ignored. -
YouMightRabbitYouMight — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 02:16 PM)
I'll agree that you're a fool.
Lay off the hallucinogens, Rabbit. Those walls aren't really breathing
Misc., acid could only improve your bullsh!t.
Or if he was authorized to speak on God's behalf. Or if God put him in a mediatorial position between Himself and Man. Or if God appointed him Judge. Or all of the above.
None of that works if Jesus is claiming to take those sins upon himself as opposed to channeling them to God, a bit from that same text you curiously omitted.
Plus, this is all in the context of
Lewis's
framing.
Hitchens often seems to be very short-sighted, and this excerpt doesn't help to convince me that he doesn't have tunnel vision when it's convenient.
Seems more like coarse apology once again trying to slip one through. -
harpon-1 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 07:01 PM)
You left out "God", really. "lord" is something else.
After wanting to believe in him, Jesus is now actually more really a sort of myth to me- an attempt to describe how God in the flesh might relate to the world- an interesting framework, but too often twisted into the needs of people. -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 07:16 PM)
Why can he be only one of those things?
Option 4 : Legend. He may never have lived at all. Or if he did, the actual jesus could have been quite different from the person we think of as jesus.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:27 AM)
Option 5: Literary character, a composite of various sources.
"there was one
Jesus, the son of Ananus
, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud,
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!"
This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man,
brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"
And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost." - Josephus,
Wars of the Jews
6.5.3.
Ȥ -
gladoscake — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 01:19 AM)
Regular inspirational human being who was made out to be something more. With this logic, you should consider Einstein as Jesus, or any of the most famous physicists who gifted us with knowledge of the World around us!
