One of the potentially largest implications of religion is that of salvation and the afterlife. Such a belief gives light and hope to many people – as well as inhuman hate for others, given the idea of hell. The requisites for these categories of afterlives are a bit vague, to put it mildly, but we can assume for the sake of the argument against Christianity that they depend on the belief that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were necessary and sufficient in God’s plan to try and save humanity.
But, exactly what did Jesus accomplish by dying on a tree? Is death on a stick really the ultimate act that will save us all? If anybody else died on a tree, nothing like that would happen. If Christ died in a different way, say, of natural death after everyone had accepted him, what would have happened? How does his method of dying magically save us? Why did he have to die? To suffer? The whole idea seems absurd, especially when it is given next to no explanation whatsoever by religious authorities. So what I’ll do is, I’ll assume it’s true, then try and create my best explanations for it, and finally dismantle those.
Here’s God’s conundrum, pre-Christ time. Humans were in a bad way, and God doesn’t like that. So he wants to send humans a message. He wants to tell us about himself a little more, and what he has in store for us. So he sends a messenger. The messenger is in human form because he wants to connect with them better and show that even the flesh can be strong for God. It is our fault that we didn’t believe him, and eventually crucified him. So in a way, God was sacrificing his own son to us, for us. And he was sacrificing his son, not so that we’d directly be given salvation, but indirectly so that we would know of it and be able to make a freely chosen decision on the matter.
That’s my best made-up explanation. There are nevertheless huge problems in it.
One thing we find is that God is a distant god. Instead of directly telling us his message, writing his thoughts in our minds and in our hearts, he sends a messenger to one small region of the world, and only for the span of that man’s life is he here to talk. Why would God limit his method of communication to the ways of humans? This communication is too damn important for such unreliable means! Now the rest of humanity cannot tell if his message is legit, and the fault is entirely with him. God’s method of reaching out to the masses is indistinguishable from that of cults and other religions: people tell, or indoctrinate, other people. If you can find me a person who has converted to Christianity before ever hearing about the religion, then I’ll be surprised.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 27, 2008 at 5:39 am
poppies
I’m not sure I understand “If you can find me a person who has converted to Christianity before ever hearing about the religion, then I’ll be surprised.” The literal reading is clearly absurd, so I assume you’re getting at something else.
August 28, 2008 at 2:40 am
Brad
I was trying to rhetorically expand on the idea that religion only seems to be something that is transmitted instead of universally understood. I assume a true God, of the theistic brand, would want to be universally understood or known, at the very least. Since no conception of God is universally acknowledged, we have evidence against the existence of God here. (Or at least a personal God who desires our well-being, et cetera.)
Maybe my statement is outside my flow of thought there, but I felt compelled to say it. If we can’t find anyone who has become Christian without ever being told about its existence or its beliefs, then we must conclude that all Christians only come to know God, to whatever degree they do “know” God, through other Christians. I think this supports my idea, thus far produced, that if there were a god it would be a distant god. And that Jesus did not effectively help all of us by only communicating us through fragile humans as a medium. (Hypothetically accepting Jesus and the relevant religious background, here.)
I don’t see what’s so “clearly absurd” about that…
August 28, 2008 at 3:52 am
poppies
Ah, I see your point now.
Theists argue that God chooses to work mostly through the aegis of humanity in order to avoid overwhelming free will. Many people find fault with this method of working, and it can be described as distant in a sense. Nonetheless, the Bible does exist and can be utilized to bridge some of the distance.
August 31, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Brad
Couldn’t he just talk to me directly?
September 23, 2008 at 5:41 pm
cl
Hi Brad – first time to your blog. Routed here from a comment you left on Greta Christina’s.
You ask, “Is death on a stick really the ultimate act that will save us all?”
About salvation – I don’t think any of it has to do with when or how Jesus died. IMO the missing piece in your evaluation is sin. Atheists and theists can and usually do agree that sin exists, although atheists generally refer to it as suffering, pain, evil, etc. The Bible, science and sociology clearly suggest that sin interferes with the structure and flow of energy in our bodies and in the world, and the Bible makes the argument that sin leads inescapably to death. When a human being sins against God or fellow man or creation or whatnot, there must be a resulting penalty. To sin is to throw our bodies and the world out of whack, and such actions are deserving of judgment. All the rest of the universe’s laws operate with amazing consistency regarding cause and effect; so could this law of retribution for wrongdoing.
By coming to Earth and remaining sinless, which is what the Bible maintains Jesus did, Jesus surely received a decent amount of authority, authority to decide to die in our place. Sin is like virginity – lost once and for all. When unable to pay, only the creditor can absolve the debtor.
That’s where I think some atheists and skeptics tend to misunderstand the gospel – they’ll ask things like, “Is death on a stick really the ultimate act that will save us all?” or regarding the idea of sacrifice, “Why does God enjoy such perverted justice?”
There’s no inherent power in death on a stick, or even in death at all. IMO, the animal sacrifices of the old testament didn’t change the molecular structure of the world – they didn’t magically absolve sin or negate its physical expressions; instead, they reminded the Israelites of sin’s severity by providing a constant, visible association between sin and death.
Jesus probably didn’t have to die or even show up here at all. Maybe it’s not that Jesus had to die for salvation to be possible – maybe it’s that the Jesus chose to die so salvation could become possible to whomever might be deemed fit. In this context, Jesus becomes the creditor and retains every right to absolve our debt by any means fit. That’s why salvation is twofold – a belief and a call to action – first believe that one lived sinless – then strive to do the same.
I’ve got lots of friends that help me out when I don’t have Physical Need A, B or C met. For example, yesterday I was broke and a friend helped me out with some food, beer and cigarettes.
I see little or no difference in the motivation behind the gospel.