Jesus' Supposed Sacrifice
Offline This is actually from the www.infidelguy.com message boards. Another atheist and I were having a conversation, but I felt the contradictions therein are something that should be considered and discussed.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Interestingly enough I was questioning a theist in a conversation about a similar subject. How can the death of Jesus' flesh, even if Jesus was supposedly God, save us from sin? Sacrifices, although a gesture of great purportions, do not affect anything. If I sacrifice a lamb to make it rain, and it rains...is it because I sacrificed the lamb? Similarly, religionists in general like to somehow basterdize the word "sacrifice" to mean something it doesn't.And how was it a sacrifice, anyway? Is jesus dead? Is it preferable to be in human form, or in spiritual form in heaven?
Exactly. Jesus killed himself...to be resurrected later. I mean...that isn't a sacrifice that's 3 days of tanning. He's GOD supposedly, so how can he really die to begin with? Further he ended up in Heaven, supposedly, and that isn't really torment.
What does paul say about the nature of flesh?
"For I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing...." (Rom 7:18) which contradicts: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...." (Gal. 2:20).
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor. 15:50)
Which of course contradicts Luke 3:6, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." See also: 2 Kings 2:11, Heb. 11:5, and Gen. 5:24 directly, as well as Jesus going to Heaven in the flesh.
And as well, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine...." (Rom. 14:21) Which puts a damper on the whole "flesh and blood of Christ" thing the Catholics like to tote around.
Where's the sacrifice?
There is none. And lest we forget that in order to be free from sin, we have to do something to get it. Well...that sort of defeats the purpose of Jesus having abolished our sins, if we still have sin that wasn't abolished.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline Part two coming soon 
- Login to post comments
Offline Nothing could be more idiotic than the idea of a god coming to life, and then sacraficing himself to himself in order to forgive humans for rules he himself created. It is obvious to me an actual god could forgive unconditionally (we do it all the time.) The idea of no forgiveness without a blood sacrafice is more appropriate to a mob boss than an infinite omnibenevolent being.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline Nothing could be more idiotic than the idea of a god coming to life, and then sacraficing himself to himself in order to forgive humans for rules he himself created. It is obvious to me an actual god could forgive unconditionally (we do it all the time.) The idea of no forgiveness without a blood sacrafice is more appropriate to a mob boss than an infinite omnibenevolent being.
Actually, basing one's life around guessing what pleases said god (despite varying views by believers on what actually DOES please him) is still more idiotic.
And hating other people because they hold beliefs or commit consentual acts in private that *your particular interpretation of* a 2,000 year old badly written book says is offensive to said god is the most idiotic thing yet.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:To sacrifice is to lose something... one may gain something else... such a mother who sacifices her life for her child's life... she loses her life, but gains the knowledge that her child is to live. But if she were to magically gain her life back, then no sacrifice occurred. If she knew all along she would get it back, then it's pretty ridiculous to have ever called it a sacrifice at all.Yes, but the ordeal itself was a sacrifice.
I've already dealt with this. The 'ordeal' is not a sacrifice. It's a bargain. You can't trade X and get back Xplus infinity and call it a sacrifice.
If the person were aware, all along, that they were going to magically gain their life back, then they know that they are not surrendering anything. They are losing nothing.
They are gaining, they are making a bargain. They are making the 'bigger, better deal'
They are trading X, and getting back Xplus Infinity.
You cannot trade any finite for an infinite and call it a sacrifice. It's the ultimate gain, its the ultimate bargain.
No person would refuse to go on the cross if it meant saving everyone they Loved and at the same time, meant that they weren't going to die in the first place, anyway!
In fact, it would mean that they gain perfect knowledge that they can't die! That they are going to bliss, forever! That they would receive the love of billions!
You keep ignoring these points.... and this is your problem.
To trade a finite for an infinite is a bargain, not a sacrifice.
It would be like if you allowed yourself to be slowly burned alive for 24 hours with the promise at the end you would be healed. Does this mean that you didn't suffer during the tortuous burning just because you were healed afterward?
You're missing the point.
It's not just that a person suffers, it's that they are offered a bargain, a trade, with full knowledge, all along, that nothing is to be lost.
You give me X
And you get back X times infinity.
There's no loss.
This "jesus" goes in knowing he will not die, that he's not giving up his life. He's not losing his life! He's not sacrificing his life, if he's still alive afterwards! He's gaining perfect knowledge that he's going to bliss for eternity, with the love of billions.
There's no sane person who wouldn't take this deal. Because it's the greatest deal possible... you trade in nothing, and get everything. You bargain away a Friday night, and you get paradise.
Sign me up!
Which means that if you know you're going to get back what you've supposedly sacrificed, then there was no sacrifice, as there was no loss and not even an expectation of a loss!To 'lose' something with the expectation of getting it right back is not a sacrifice!
It's just astonishing how you have to warp words to keep ahold of your dogma...
It's equally astonishing how you can equate Jesus sacrifice with something akin to giving God a penny and having Him give it right back. That is not what occurred.
It's not really. Trading a finite for an infinite is necessarily a bargain. This is pretty straight forward logic.
So, jesus actually, he gave god a 'penny' and got back infinity.
He "gave up' a finite, and got back infinity. AND he knew it all along.
That's the best bargain possible. Not a sacrifice.
Btw. if my dogma is obvious, rest assured, so is yours.
BTW, just asserting something isn't proving it. If my 'dogmatic' thinking is so obvious, then you'd think you could demonstrate it.
Seems to me that I present reasons why I hold to what I hold, reasons that are open to scrutiny.
Oh snap! Did I just commit that darn Tuo Quo Fallacy again?
Actually, it was a naked assertion too.
'Tu Quoque" (not "o" after the "tu"), as wikipedia informs us, is "a line of one's defensive argument based on the concept that the adversary party also engages (or has engaged in the past) in the act for which one is accused by that party. This argumentative move works by showing that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it."
So if you are using the supposed existence of my 'dogmatic' thinking - which you assert without ever backing up - as a justification for your own, then yes, you're commiting another tu quoque logical fallacy.
Actually, we can properly understand the word sacrifice this way:"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."
So if one sacrifices X, any transaction that brings back more of X is not literally a sacrifice, but a bargain.
Jesus sacrificed His life which is infinitely greater than ours and gained salvation for us.
Slow down a second.
Remember when you accused me of just 'making up' my definition.
Well, here, I demonstrated that my definition came from a dictionary.
AND I also showed how your own 'theological definition' aligned with the dictionary definition.... - a gift, a sacrifice.
Interesting that you just passed over that....
I'm not sure you can make a theological case that God was getting the "good end of the bargain" here.
Did he die?
Did he lose anything permanently?
Is he is heavenly bliss for all eternity?
Did he save billions of souls?
Do billions rejoice in thankfulness to him?
Do you ever bother to read these questions?
That's a bargain. A finite for an infinite is the ultimate bargain.
To properly sacrifice X, one can only get back Y - something of a different nature.... such as sacrificing going to a party to study for a test. Or sacrificing your life for your child's. You lose X, but you get back Y, which you might well prize more..... but there is a loss.... something is gone forever... an opportunity, a life....One must give up something, lose something.... to sacrifice. If one knows they will lose nothing, then one is not sacrificing. Any transaction wherein one does not actually lose anything, or where one's loss of X is completely compensated by X, or 2x, 3x or infinityX, is not a sacrifice.
Yes, but this is exactly what happened. Jesus took our punishment for us.
So you say... well, so the bible says... but what sense can we make of that? Do you ever really ponder it?
Can you tell me what he lost?
He 'gave up' a finite and got back infinity.
Will full knowledge that this was the case all along.
And, in a way, He did loose something forever.
What did he lose?
He lost the opportunity to live His perfect, sinless, eternal life without ever having to experience pain, suffering, and shame.
Bargains involve tradeoffs of opportunity. He 'gave up' a finite and got back infinity.
Besides, wasn't the entire point of his life to go on the cross? How is fulfilling his destiny an opportunity loss? That rhymed!
And He did it for us. If that's not a sacrifice, I don't know what is.
If you really don't know what a sacrifice is, go and again read my posts, where I show you that a sacrifice involves a loss.
Or, oddly enough, you can recall your own 'theological analysis' that did nothing but waste a page here on hit site, considering your finaly analysis:
Remember your own words?
An offering... a gift.
You give it up, without any promise of it being returned.. You trade X, and surrender it forever, for the sake of something else - some "Y" some other thing that you value.... you don't give up X expecting to get X right back, or Xplus infinity!
Trading any finite for an infinite is a bargain.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
I would have to agree with you on the picture. She is kinda cute. Too bad she is so irrational.
... and married.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
That's even worse!
I do hope the woman I love isn't irrational.
That's just ridiculous. If you are going to redefine the word 'sacrifice', then what's the point of using the term?
Sacrifice involves a loss, a reliquishment. You can't sacrifice something and then get it back.
...the need for christians to dodge reality through reintepreting and redefining problems away.
Sorry, but the last century of critical examination of objectivity and bias debunks that nonsense. As objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... as much as you might try to get a grasp at what the author's intent is, your bias is part of the process.
As are your motivations.
If you are going to use the word 'sacrifice' and then redefine it to the point that it has no relation to the word 'sacrifice' as commonly used, then what point is there in referring to it as a sacrifice?
Your rationalization is cutting out the legs of your entire argument!
Well, ironically, it's usually me making this point to others.... so this makes me smile... I agree with you.
I agree that the dictionary is not the source for rigorous philosophical or theological definitions. But is the word 'sacrifice' really now a special theological term? Or is your attempt to redefine the word 'sacrifice' as a term with special 'theological import' just a desparate special plead used to avoid the clear problems that any already known definition of the word 'sacrifice' contains?
So, while I agree with your claim concerning the context error of relying on dictionaries as a source for rigorous examinations of theological terms, can you really apply this rule to a word like 'sacrifice'? Or is the very attempt just a ploy, a dodge, of the fact that you can't rationally hold the sacrifice to be a sacrifice at all?
The key to uncovering whether this is the case is simple: we must watch to see if you refe to the word 'sacrifice' without any further theological explanation of what you mean.. which can only mean that you are using it as per the dictionary definition....
So, with that said, you're gonna just go ahead and use the dictionary meaning for 'sacrifice'?
Then what was the point of your post so far?
Oh, and I like how you just assert your claim... saves you from all the fuss and muss of actually backing it up...
You've tried to argue that the dictionary definition is not appropriate. Well, then, give us the grounds for your more 'appropriate' theological definition, and make sure to give a coherent one.... make sure to avoid any special plead fallacies.....
Ok, now what does 'sacrifice' mean here then, if it doesn't possess the meaning listed in a dictionary?
You still have not clarified..... You've made the claim that 'sacrifice' has some special theological defintion not included in any bible. Well, what is it?
Again, you use the word 'sacrifice'... what do you mean by it, if not the dictionary definition?
So, that's your answer?
First, you beg the question that god exists
and then special plead a new meaning for 'sacrifice' that makes the word utterly meaningless?
So, I'm the pot, and god's the potter... telling me to shut up about such questions? I don't get to even understand why it's a sacrifice... it just is coz 'god' says so...
Oh, and could you cite chapter and verse for this - where god says "its a sacrifice, but not in anyway you'd understand, and just shut up about it?"
Well then, how could you? If I can't even potentially examine what the term means, then what's the point of the term?
Seems to me that perhaps, just perhaps, this is an expression of your own frustrations - your own inability to answer.
Sorry, but you're just begging the question that this was a prophecy... you've not demonstrated it.
The most parsimonious explanation is that Isaiah was writing for his own time, and that the gospel writers used his works as a midrash, to justify their own god claims. They made prophecies of Isaiah's writings, made them apply to their 'jesus' of their own creation....
Again, it's more parsimonious to say that the writers used it in a 'midrash' - a reformulation of OT stories.
Here, take some time and learn about this:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark01.html
No, you're just begging the question that that's the case.
Circular logic. You can't just assume what you seek to prove.
Your blindness to your own logical fallacies is obvious.
Neither do you. And yet, I've given you reasons why 1) it's not rational to hold that this godman suffered and 2) that real humans suffer more every day...
An ignorance you must share, seeing as you only assert it...
Here again you use the word 'sacrifice' without telling me what it means!
If it no longer means what any dictionary defintion means, then in what sense are you using the word?
It does nothing to demonstrate how this 'jesus' suffered or sacrificed.
I find your contempt for reason and logic tragic. Your post is a string of logical fallacies, capped off by your ridiculous embarrassing attempt to redefine the word 'sacrifice' while continuing to use it as per the dictionary definition all along!
Sigh. Just as I predicted! It's a hypothetical! Answer it and stop dodging!
Again, here's how I ended the last post:
"When you answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical."
Again, even as I warned you against making this dodge, you make it anyway.
And why?
Not becasue you 'can't do it...' after all, it's a hypothetical...
So why did you dodge it, even as I predicted you would ? Because the truth is that you MUST DODGE this question, because the alternative requires you to accept that there was no sacrifice at all.
So let's go through it again, and please stop dodging.
Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus') some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.
When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.
Now, let's give you a question to help you think this over better.
If you were offered the opportunity to go on the cross, to save billions and also go to heaven in eternal bliss, would you go?
When you and again answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
As the perfect man, he would not suffer nor lose anything... and he had full knowledge of his divinity, that he was saving souls, and that he would be in heavenly blisss.
so in what bizzaro world sense of the word 'sacrifice' are you using?
Again, notice how these theists butcher the meaning of a word, rather than concede to their illogic.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Can you stop this special plead fallacy?
When I read comments like, they speak more to your own frustrations than anything else....
Well then, how could you?
And if you can't, then you're just begging the question here, ain't ya?
Infinite being is an oxymoron. It's an absurdity. To be infinite is to be without limits. To be a being is to exist as something, to have limits.
Your assertion is illogical
Again with your special pleads... by your own logic, you yourself can't know, so you're just arguing from ignorance then, right?
Unless of course, there is a way for you to know. And if there is, then you can tell me.
**************************
Jesus, a could not have sacrificed anything, theists need to stop misusing the word. In fact, all your argument amounts to is a pathetic attempt to run away from the meaning of the word sacrifice, while at the same time, continuing to imply the dictionary definition anyway!
A child with leukemia suffers more, everyday, without any reason.
I issue my challenge for any theist:
It makes no sense to state that something is a sacrifice when 1) there was no loss, and 2) the gain for the behavior was infinite.
Jesus could not suffer even as much as a normal person:
Here is why:
1) He knows he's not really going to die in the first place
Here's a purported prophecy of the crucifixion.....
Quote:
Mark 8:34 (New International Version)
34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
(By the way, this passage is self refuting... Jesus didn't 'take up the cross" until after this "event". So what meaning could his reference have for the audience he was speaking to?!)
2) He knows that he will be loved and adored for his act
3) He knows he will save billions of souls with his act.
4) He knows his reward is infinitity in bliss.
5) He knows he will not lose anything, ergo, no sacrifice.
This is not a 'sacrifice' therefore, at all. In fact, its the biggest, best deal in the world, and I challenge a theist to respond as to whether they would go on the cross. I've never seen a theist dare respond at all.
So why do theists call this a 'sacrifice'? Because they don't bother to think it through. It takes compartmentalization. You have to forget that millions die every day in doubt, for no reason. That's the real pain in the world. A child dies of starvation, with no reason, no reward, nothing.
A cancer patient watches his body whither away, in pain. He's not getting any reward, any recognition, no assurance that he will go to some heaven. He just faces death without any comfort.
How many people in the world have sacrificed real blood for others? A mother or a father dies to save their own child - no reward, no assurances. They just do it.
Every day, every person suffers more pain than this supposed savior could ever have suffered "for us". We all live in doubt, we all suffer pains. We do it because we must. Some of us even give more - we sacrifice our time, our blood, even our lives, for others.
No rewards. No guarentees.
A solidier gives up his life for his country. What reward does he get? A ribbon nailed to a wall somewhere, his name recorded in an unseen history book.
Think about it like this: imagine your child is about to be burned alive forever. And someone says to you: you can save him if you agree to go on the cross for three hours. In return, you not only save your own child, you save all children in the world. In addition, you are remembered and loved by billions. Oh, and one more thing: you go directly to heaven, in eternal bliss (after a three day tour of hell, all expenses paid!)
Would you refuse? Would ANYONE refuse? Seriously. There can be no greater gift in the world than to be offered the opportunity.
Again, I challenge a theist to answer the question: Would you go on the cross?
Watch as they continually dodge the question by stating that they 'can't do it!' But this is a hypothetical! If I ask you if you would fly if you could, saying "but I can't fly' isn't a rational response!
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Then why create the sun? Why would an omnipotent being take recourse to a contrivance?
You're a six day, young earth creationist?
Wow....
It's not a taboo. It's a circular logic fallacy to cite the bible in defense of the bible. The bible is also notorious for it's internal and external contradictions...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I see this ignorant response from theists so often that I actually have a stock reply for it, available on my logic site.
Some people like to note that circular arguments are trivially valid. They are right: - circular arguments are valid - after all, since nothing new is generated in the concluson of a deductive arument, all deductive arguments are 'circular' - in that the conclusion is made up entirely from the premises. However, while it is true that nothing "new" is generated in the conclusion of a deductive argument, this would not make deductive arguments 'circular' in the sense of a circular logic fallacy. Here is why:
Deductive arguments work just like mathematical equations: a set of equivalencies - we can even reformulate such arguments as tautologies. Therefore, the point of such arguments is to demonstrate some equivalency (or lack thereof) between two categories. So, yes, plugging the same statement into both a premise and the conclusion gives us an equality, but the fact that that the same exact statement gives us an 'equivalency' is not exactly noteworthy! This is why we call this an informal fallacy - nothing is being proven here, we aren't demonstrating an equivalancy, the equivalency is already a given prior to the argument!
So the fact that you cite that 'circular logic' is valid just demonstrates your basic ignorance of logic and the circular logic fallacy. It's clear that you, like other theists, only bother to learn enough about circular logic to keep your flawed arguments going... you don't bother to go any further, to critically examine the components of your arguments, to actually learn whether the fact that an argument is 'valid' is enough to hold that it actually works to support your conclusion.
Now I want to stop here and have you take note of the fact that on an issue for which we can reach a firm conclusion, you are demonstratably wrong. Demonstratably wrong. And, you're not only wrong, you rely on this flaw in thinking to support your argument. And you not only rely on flawed thinking in your argument, you don't even bother to do learn enough about logic to uncover just why you might be wrong... instead, you 'learn' just enough about circular logic in order to justify what you already cling to..... but not enough so as to find out what the truth is...
I'm sure you'll treat this all as a trivial detail.... "hey, it was just one mistake'.... but this error is direct evidence of your irrationalism. This is direct evidence of you clinging to flawed thinking, no matter what. That'll you 'learn' just enough to cling to your belief, and avoid the real picture.
Yes, but only trivially valid, seeing as a circular argument just holds that a claim is equivalent to itself! Again, nothing is proven by the argument! So THIS is the problem.
You would have learned that, if you continued to read on and actualy learn about circular logic fallacies. But it's clear that that was never your intent. Your intent was to look for something, anything, that appeared to justify your continued use of a logical fallacy. And oddly enough, you used the same inept, basic misunderstanding of informal fallacies that I've seen from apologists.... just a coincidence, right?
I hope you can see the error now. And I hope you can see that that is conclusive proof of the irrationality of your position.
You'll warp the meanings of words like 'sacrifice', you'll warp logic, to fit your beliefs.
Another basic error in logic. The situation is asymmetrical.
We use the bible to show that the bible either contradicts itself internally, or externally.
You use it as both the source for your claims, and the defense of the very same claims. That's circular logic.
I hope you can see these errors now and address them. I hope you can see how you've acted irrationally here, only bothering to 'learn enough' to continue on with your argument, and not enough to know the truth.
Take care.
PS The bible could have been written as a set of proof, like a book of Euclidean geometry... this would have eliminated the problem as the arguments could have stood on their own..... wonder why it wasn't written that way.... god wasn't up to it?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
So basically we agree on the definition as does the OT. However your analysis following it which asserts that the loss must be permanent is incorrect. The idea of sacrifice in the OT involves the loss of a possession WITH THE PROMISE that God would provide the person offering the sacrifice with either an equivalent amount or more of the original offering. I am going to use the bible to prove the bible here, so don't freak out. I know that this really bothers you and YOU think it's circular, but like I said, the bible can testify on it's own behalf when being attacked falsely.
An example of a sacrifice is given in Leviticus 25:20 where God commands the Israelites not to sow or farm their lands in the seventh year. This, by all accounts, was quite a large sacrifice to God since they would be loosing a whole years worth of crops. But what does God say He will do in response to their offering? "And if you shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase: Then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years." So you see that God is giving back even more than the original sacrifice. The same is true with animal offerings, grain offerings, and the like. God promises to bless the person even more when they trust God enough to sacrifice what He gave to them. Thus when Jesus offered His life to God, He was resurrected and given honor in every realm individually (instead of as a part of the Godhead as a whole) and saved sinners from damnation. So His life was a sacrifice that produced more in return just as the biblical definition allows. (And just so you don't get any ideas about God being a cosmic genie, these promises are for those who truly trust and believe in Him and not all of the blessings are provided in this life.)
Also there is no prohibition in this definition that would militate against Jesus receiving His original sacrificed life back with manifold blessings attached. That is an arbitrary assumption you are making to prove your case.
For more on this see www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html
Matthew 7:5 says it best- "Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eye; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye."
Also, have you told the above to Rook? He really needs to hear that.
No, I don't define it, the bible defines it. Here is the definition of sacrifice:
a) (Qal)
1) to slaughter for sacrifice
2) to slaughter for eating
3) to slaughter in divine judgment
And here is the definition of offering:
1) gift, tribute, offering, present, oblation, sacrifice, meat offering
a) gift, present
b) tribute
c) offering (to God)
d) grain offering
No where does it say that if you give something to God, it cannot be returned to you (and as I pointed out, it was specifically promised to be returned). You are the one making up definitions here and building straw men.
Boy the straw men are just all over the place in this post. Yes, the definition is a special theological one, why does that trouble you? Because it disagrees with YOUR definition?
Well, if I can't assume God exists, then it really is a waste of time arguing about it huh? The fact that YOU, the supposed Atheist, argue about the existence of God is more telling though. It implies that you believe, on some level, in probable likelihood of His existence otherwise you wouldn't make such impassioned arguments against it.
I guess the writers of the New Testament were guilty of question begging since they are the ones who understood that Isaiah was referring to Christ.
But just to end the "question begging" accusations that seem to be occurring ad infinitum, there is a very strong case that can be made for ALL arguments being circular. You would be hard pressed to come up with an example where the premise (or presupposition) is not included in either the proof or the conclusion. You commit the same fallacy when you presuppose that the bible is false and then attempt to show in your proof and conclusion that it is. Even if you could prove your case using such reasoning, your conclusion will only be "superficially" valid. So please, enough with the "you're committing a logical fallacy" business.
If worse comes to worse, I really couldn't care less if you think that I'm irrational or that I commit logical fallacies. We are all biased and begin with certain presuppositions, you are just less honest than I am and won't admit it. So I will stand by my original argument: if I'm guilty of circular reasoning, then so are you.
Gosh, I guess I could be like you and accuse you of question begging, but I really don't care. Just an aside, though, do you have any "solid" evidence to back up those claims?
What utter nonsense. Jesus was God in the flesh Who knew NO SINS. He emptied Himself of His divine prerogatives and power and died physically and spiritually for sins. This was a sacrifice and a huge one at that. Until you know what it's like to be sinless, die spiritually for those sins, be beaten, flogged and crucified, I don't think you can make light of Jesus' experience or compare them to our physical suffering.
Furthermore, He didn't gain anything more except for being specifically honored as God the Son in every realm and He will live in eternity with redeemed sinners. He was from eternity past a part of the Godhead, so I don't think that what He "gained" was much more of a reward than His original position afforded Him. The fact that He would go through what He did speaks more of His loving character than that He was somehow "seeking a reward". He made the effort to do something that He wasn't required or had need of doing. He did it for us.
Look, if you want the blunt answer, No, I don't think I would want do it at all. But if God wanted me to, then I guess I would.
What does this question prove anyway? That any person would die for sinners because it wasn't really a sacrifice? Again, the definition of sacrifice is a slaughter or offering of a life. Just because Jesus sacrifice was returned and rewarded with some blessings does not negate the sacrifice or the experience. It only does by your flawed reasoning.
You are trying to lessen the severity of Jesus ordeal by focusing on the result when you have no understanding of what He experienced. It's like telling a war veteran that because he's now taken care of by the VA and has all his expenses paid for by the government, that his experience in the war and his sacrifice to our country wasn't really a sacrifice. Maybe you should try that and see if they agree with your logic.
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin
If you agree with that definition after all, then what was the point of your entire post?
Why?
What I said follows from the definition.. If you retrieve something after losing it, you've no longer lost it, right? It was lost, but now you have it back.
To sacrifice is to lose something... one may gain something else... such a mother who sacifices her life for her child's life... she loses her life, but gains the knowledge that her child is to live. But if she were to magically gain her life back, then no sacrifice occurred. If she knew all along she would get it back, then it's pretty ridiculous to have ever called it a sacrifice at all.
Actually, we can properly understand the word sacrifice this way:
"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."
So if one sacrifices X, any transaction that brings back more of X is not literally a sacrifice, but a bargain.
To properly sacrifice X, one can only get back Y - something of a different nature.... such as sacrificing going to a party to study for a test. Or sacrificing your life for your child's. You lose X, but you get back Y, which you might well prize more..... but there is a loss.... something is gone forever... an opportunity, a life....
One must give up something, lose something.... to sacrifice. If one knows they will lose nothing, then one is not sacrificing. Any transaction wherein one does not actually lose anything, or where one's loss of X is completely compensated by X, or 2x, 3x or infinityX, is not a sacrifice.
I know this is a complex topic, but you have to realize that getting what you've 'lost' right back can't be a sacrifice, especially when you know you're gonna get it back all along.
I've already explained why this is circular logic, and why it is not circular logic for me to show where the bible contradicts itself, so I would appreciate if you read over that first.
It doesn't 'bother me', it's just that it is irrational, so your claim is not justified. So there's no point in it. To say "X, therefore X!" proves nothing.... you are just reasserting.
And I've already explained to you why circular logic is a fallacy: because circular arguments simply assume their own conclusions, they don't support them. So again, please read this over. Saying X, therefore, X! proves nothing.
Saying X is like Y, Y is like Z, therefore X is like Z is proving something... that X is equivalent to Z. I'll go into more details below.
Well, one might say that irrationalism is quite a log in your eye....
Again, as objective as a person tries to be while making an interpretation, the individuals interpretation is the guiding force... I don't see anything here that counters this.
And you pick and choose which parts to cite for your definition, and which parts not to cite, just as you pick and choose which version of the bible you use and not to use, and so on.... so the 'bible's definition' is actually your verson of the bible's definition....
See the problem with just assuming that 'the bible says it" now?
See how your own interpretation is necessarily involved? See why we need critical thinking to deal with this?
Because another christian will use the 'same' bible to say something different. You already know that... in fact, you christians have a saying "even the devil can cite scripture on his own behalf...."
Well, this is only a circular definition - it uses the term. It only refers to killing.
Well, this is refering to a method of food acquisition..... !
This again only refers to killing.... this time, in the sake of 'divine judgement'
Ah, a gift or present.
Here's a definition of the word 'gift':
Something given voluntarily without payment in return.
Can you say 'checkmate'?
No payment in return. A loss. You don't get a gift back! Do you give gifts expecting your gift back?
The part where it says 'gift' -offering....
Thanks for checkmating yourself, makes it easier on me.
Again, when we sacrifice X, and get back Y, we properly sacrifice. But if we sacrifice X and get back X times infinity, then we have sacrificed nothing. We've simply been prudent!
Gee, and here I was thinking that we were getting along... agreeing on something for once... thought we were becoming pals...
Seriously, if you want to cry 'strawman' then you might try to point one out next time, rather than just assert it.
Actually, you just proved it wasn't! You came up with the definition of a gift! I guess you could say it was a 'holy gift' or something, but the word 'gift' is pretty clear...
unless now there's a special theological definiton for gift too?
Quite an imagination. I think you'll need to ask yourself that now.
No, not at all. When people set out to support a claim rationally, they don't start out just assuming it is true! The actively seek supports for their claim.
You're just begging the question that they were the ones 'who understood that Isaiah was referring to christ!"
Why? Well, ask yourself: How do you actually know this? How could you prove it?
You can only assume it! But you're assuming your conclusion when you assume it!
Circular logic.
Do you see it?
Consider that the more parsimonious explanation was that they used books like Isaiah to create their story. That they turned his writing into 'prophecies' - even when a more sober reading tells us that they were not prophecies at all
Such as :
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this verse was living at the time of the prophecy.
So this again demonstrates a more parsimonious explanation of the 'gospels': that the gospel writers created a midrash.... they cobbled together a story using the OT, turning parts of the OT into 'prophecies' that they 'fulfilled' with their stories.
I don't just accuse, I back up my claim. Try it sometime.
Again with this strawman version of logic. This is incorrect. Let me explain again. While deductive arguments are tautologies, inductive arguments are not circular. And, furthermore as I pointed out to you previously, the problem with a circular logic fallacy is not that it is a 'circle' but that it assumes it's own conclusion as a premise in a circular fashion! So the problem with a circular logic fallacy isn't just that it is circular, per se. It is that it just holds that something is equivalent to itself, when the very point of a deductive argument is to hold that TWO things are equivalent to each other.
Here, let me explain this again:
Some people like to note that circular arguments are trivially valid. They are right: - circular arguments are valid - after all, since nothing new is generated in the concluson of a deductive arument, all deductive arguments are 'circular' - in that the conclusion is made up entirely from the premises. However, while it is true that nothing "new" is generated in the conclusion of a deductive argument, this would not make deductive arguments 'circular' in the sense of a circular logic fallacy. Here is why:
Deductive arguments work just like mathematical equations: a set of equivalencies - we can even reformulate such arguments as tautologies. Therefore, the point of such arguments is to demonstrate some equivalency (or lack thereof) between two categories. So, yes, plugging the same statement into both a premise and the conclusion gives us an equality, but the fact that that the same exact statement gives us an 'equivalency' is not exactly noteworthy! This is why we call this an informal fallacy - nothing is being proven here, we aren't demonstrating an equivalancy, the equivalency is already a given prior to the argument!
No kidding. Every component of the conclusion is found in the premises, that is precisely why a deduction works. But the point is that one does not use the conclusion itself as a premise!
Here, this again is from my site on logic:
Once an argument has been delineated by ascertaining that it contains a series of statements that make a commitment to the truth, a set of premises and a conclusion, it should be presented in proper argument form, wherein each premise is listed in some logical order, followed by the conclusion. Here is an example of an argument; I will present it in proper argument form:
(P1 = premise 1, C = conclusion):
"Hey, is that a gun in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?"
P1 Either that's a gun in your pocket, or you're happy to see me
P2 You don't have a gun in your pocket(This is implied - implied premises are called "enthymemes")
C: You must be happy to see me
Notice how this argument makes a transition from the premises to the conclusion. A connection from each premise to conclusion is brought about when each proposition possesses at least one element in common with at least one other proposition. In this example, each proposition (gun in a pocket, happy to see me, ) appears twice. This is why we can say that valid arguments help us preserve truth, as long as the premises are true, a valid argument form will preserve this truth and 'carry the truth safely" to the conclusion. This is why we 'preserve truth" or carry along the truth from the premises so carefully: because if we carry the truth along without making a mistake, then the conclusion MUST true.
This argument is a valid deductive argument (these terms will be explained in the next two sections), and as we will also see later, it is called a disjunctive syllogism.
We should also notice that in deductive arguments, nothing necessarily "new" is being discovered, for all the elements of the conclusion can be found in the premises. Deductive arguments work just like mathematical equations: a set of categories or definitions that are equivalent to each other. So, we can best think of most deductive logical arguments as a coherent way to present our thoughts - a point the philosopher Wittgenstein famously made at the turn of the last century. Now, that's one great reason to learn logic, isn't it?
So again, the point here is that one cannot simply use the conclusion as a premise. That's a circular logic fallacy. If an argument is to demonstrate anything, it must make a series of logical, valid connections from the premises to the conclusion.
I started out life as a christian. I read the bible from the presumption it was true, and realized that it could not be true becuase it was contradictory.
But the stronger point is this: I can assume the bible is true, and still come to the conclusion that it is false, by way of recognizing contradictions.
So you're claim is false. There is no symmetry here. There's no white bird here, Bigwig. It doesn't matter which presumption, if any, you start out with. Contradictions are necessarily false.
AH If worse comes to worse... in other words, even if my argument is true!
In other words, even if I prove you are being irrational, you'll respond to this by being more irrational - you'll stick to your gut feeling, no matter what.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this refreshing bit of honesty and directness.
No matter what I say, right or wrong, you'll hold to your beliefs in a dogmatic fashion.
I really should just stop here, shouldn't I?
So then, it's best to be as rational as we can be, it's best to be open to learning new things about ourselves. It's best not to insist that even if we are proven wrong, we'll still cling to our beliefs anway.
Right?
The fact that everyone is biased doesn't give you the right to wallow in your own bias, Sara. The fact that everyone is biased ought to compel all of us to try and combat bias, not wallow in it, coz 'you're biased too'
That's a tuo quoque fallacy.
Well, let's see... you just said that even if I demonstrate that you are irrational, you'll just not care. Is that 'honesty"? Well we can say that you are honest about your dishonesty....
So, I'm not so sure that I'm less honest than you. But you can be honest, and so can I, so let's just leave it at that, why not?
I think I've demonstrated otherwise. And again, tuo quoque is not a rational defense... "you're wrong, so I can be wrong too' isn't a rational means of holding to beliefs....
There's no question begging there, and please remember, when I hold that you are begging the question, I actually have the courtesty to demonstrate why, so you can at least examine my thinking and respond.
Just like in math class, I 'show my work' so you can show me where I went 'wrong'
So you might consider doing likewise.
Now, I want to also say that I think you might not know what 'parsimonious' means. My apologies if you do. Anyway, my explanation is more parsimonious, even if your theory is true... because my theory doesn't invoke any recourse to the supernatural.
Parsimonoius means 'stingy'.. it means that I take recourse to fewer "problematic' entities in my theory, than you do in yours.
For example:
If I flick the light switch, a fairy flies to the bulb and turns the electricity on.
If I flick the light switch, electricity courses through the wires and turns the bulb on.
No matter whether there are faires or not, the second theory is more parsimonious, because it involves less problematic entities.
That the OT is midrash? I already cited it to you.
I'll try again:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark01.html
Seriously, take a look, you'll like it.
Thanks for asking again. And please just take a look, you don't even need to respond to me about it...
Not just nonsense, but utter nonsense? Oh well... I thought it made sense...
He didn't come back then?
I thought you christians didn't value the soma anyway - I thought you guys held it to be corrupt, sinful...
Is he dead spiritually?
You keep asserting this, but you can't demonstrate it. You can't show what he lost, no can you prove what 'pain' he went through. And even if he did, you can't prove that it's more painful than a mother watching her child die from leukemia, without any reason for it, and without any guarentee that he'll 'go to heaven'
People die in pain every day, for no reason, for no reward, with no promises.
Aren't I dead spiritualy, according to you?
children with leukemia go through far worse pain, for no reason, no reward and no promise of heaven.
And you don't know either. I don't think you really can prove that this 'jesus' could suffer anything. I don't think you could demonstrate that he suffered more than a starving child.
Gee, that's all? He's god's son, in every realm, and he will live in enternal bliss with the billions who love him?
That's all?
No gamecube? No Intendo?
What a gyp!
I mean, really... That's all? Just eternal bliss as the son of god?
He didn't gain the love of billions of those he saved? He didn't gain your love and eternal thanks?
And if he refused to go on the cross, wouldn't he have lost all of this?
I didn't ever say he was seeking a reward, only that he knew he would be rewarded.
What if it were to save your own child?
Ok then.... then it's possible you would do it...
Right.
Anyone would go on the cross, because the cross is the most incredible gift imaginable for a human
1) You get to know, without any doubt, that this god does exist.
2) You get to save billions of people
3) You get to go to heavenly bliss, where you will be adored forever
No sane person would refuse to sacrifice himself for billions of people. When you add in that there is no actual sacrifice at all, then no one at all would refuse.
Without getting it back.
Neither do you
And it's inconsequential anyway, unless he is still suffering this pain.... can you cite chapter and verse backing that up?
Are you saying he's still in agony?
Or you denying that heaven is bliss? The ultimate satisfaction of all desire?
Are you denying that he chose to do it freely, with love?
Do you see the problem now?
No, it is not. because having your expenses paid ain't quite the same as being the Son of God in ALL REALMS LIVING IN ETERNAL BLISS BEING LOVED BY BILLIONS.
There's a slight difference between that, and having your medical bills paid off.
But you see, that ain't my logic... it's your strawman.
Please take note that I actually demonstrated WHY your counter claim is a strawman. Up there, with the ALL CAPS responses... I pointed a few minor differences between your analogy and my argument.
Just a few, minor differences...
A pleasure talking to you... seriously... take care.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Nice use of a "Watership Down" reference.
Somebody obviously has no understanding of logic....
I knew someone would catch it!
And Matt - yes, I obviously agree with you. In debating theists, I've noticed that they tend to learn just enough about logic to justify their informal fallacies and irrational arguments...... they rarely if ever bother to really investigate what logical argument is... because if they did, they'd realize that the majority of their arguments are irrationa. So they tend to make the same errors which I find very interesting. Particularly the fact that several theists have now tried to use the 'circular logic is valid' argument.... a complaint that demonstrates a basic ignorance of what an argument is!
Will I have to repeat this same correction again on this board? Yes. In this same thread? I wouldn't doubt it.
A quick review
Some of of the most common errors used by theists in argument are:
Shifting the burden of proof.
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something positive, it is never on the fallback position. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion.
Tu quoque - the attempt to justify your own irrational beliefs by saying "you are irrational sometimes too!"
TU QUOQUE or "You too" fallacies, concern arguments that are used to justify or defend one's wrong-doing by claiming that an opponent has committed a similar crime. This is more commonly known as "two wrongs don't make a right."
SPECIAL PLEAD
Special pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules to others while claiming special dispensation or exemption for themselves without providing adequate justification for the exemption.
Naked Assertions
A "naked" assertion is simply an assertion of one's conclusion without any evidence, proof, or other support for it.
Strawman
In the straw man fallacy, an arguer oversimplifies, or purposely distorts an opponent's argument (sets up the straw man), in order that he may attack it more easily (knock it down), and then claims that the opponent's position has been refuted.
And so on.....
And here's another thing you might notice. When an atheist arguer points out the informal fallacy in a theist's argument, the theist typically will usually respond by tossing back the same fallacy.... whatever fallacies I bring up, and support in my arguments, you'll hear them back.
I tend to like this however... it shows the theist is struggling to learn what the fallacy means.... he or she still doesn't grasp it, and they usually still can't work out that you're supposed to demonstrate why the fallacy occurred... but at least it shows a general curiosity into logic.
http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
My understanding of sacrifice was that this was something the Jews did as a means of atoinment for a sin (transgression of god(s) law). If I violated the law, my punishment was that I had sacrafice something dear or costly to me, e.g.- 10% of my crops or some of my best cattle, etc.
How is it a sacrifice to me if someone I don't know or even like is put to death? What did it cost me? Nothing. Then by defination, it's not a sacrafice.
Most xian's claim that Jesus's death was a sacrifice God made by allowing Jesus, "his only begotten son", to be killed for man's sins. Can God make a sacrifice to himself?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
I meant that we agreed on the first part of the definition as far as a loss or relinquishment. Where your analysis false short is in the portion which states that it can never be returned. There is nothing in the biblical definition that prohibits God from giving the sacrifice back to the giver. I gave you a specific instance where it actually was reciprocated in Leviticus which you obviously ignored. So your entire position is a straw man. You have concocted your own definition where the sacrifice must only involve a permanent loss of life. The biblical definition does not require this.
So, like I said, you are making up your own definition and then citing how the bible doesn't fit with it (straw man). I will repeat what I said: the idea of sacrifice in the OT involves the loss of a possession with the promise that God would provide the person offering the sacrifice with either an equivalent amount or more of the original offering.
When people gave God the first fruit of their harvest and livestock, He always gave them more in return.
I thought that we agreed earlier about using definitions that are derived from the text? Are you changing your mind since the biblical definition doesn't help your case?
I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree. To me, it seems as though we are starting out with the debate centered around a certain verse or theological concept that is "contradictory". We are not attempting to determine the validity of the bible as a whole per se, but only the portion we are addressing. When we examine the verse, it is necessary to look at every piece of evidence either in favor or against it. Just like when people on here try to state the the biblical authors thought the world was flat, they cited several verses from several different biblical authors to make their case. And I agree with their methods since if there are other verses that clarify the meaning of the concept or verse we are discussing, it should be admissible to the debate.
It's like we are looking at a piece of a puzzle and trying to determine if it actually fits in with the whole. When I attempt to fit the piece with other parts of the puzzle to allow us to see if it truly does mesh, you cry foul and instead want to continue to ponder the piece separately and attempt to make a determination about it out side of it's context. In essence you are switching your argument in mid-sentence from examining the specific verses to the questioning the validity of the book as a whole when this was not the original argument. In my opinion, you are committing the fallacy of composition by asserting that if one part of the bible is questionable, the entire bible is.
If you were truly an honest skeptic, you would allow as much information from the source as possible before making your determination and you wouldn't discount the information ahead of time. However, you don't want to do this because it will weaken your case. So instead, you try to prevent all the information from coming to light by obfuscating (don't you just love that word?) the issue with a bunch of tangents on how I am violation logical fallacies.
Like I said before, I don't really care if you think I'm irrational. Just because you and every other Atheist think you are reasonable and we Theists are not does not make it so.
I didn't counter it. I was merely pointing out that you too have biased interpretations and motives. My hope was that perhaps you would be able to see that you are falling victim to your own accusation.
The definition I offered was from the Thayer's lexicon. If you have a different lexicon that you wish to cite be my guest. But don't offer your own manufactured definition as the only logical choice and then proceed to attempt to disprove the bible with it.
And what exactly does the latter half of your argument have to do with anything? I'm not discussing scripture with a Christian and you have offered no alternative biblical definition of sacrifice. So why the rant?
You seem to be implying that I am somehow "twisting" scripture to back up my claims. If this is the case, then I would appreciate if you would explain exactly how I did this and why it does not fit with scriptural hermeneutics.
Ok, so again, these definitions are from a biblical lexicon, so you can accuse Thayer of circular reasoning...better yet, why don't you just say that all dictionaries use circular reasoning since most of them use synonyms in their definitions.
Anyway, you are building your straw man back up again by stating that a gift cannot be given back when offered. That is your view, not the biblical one. The biblical definition of gift is usually accompanied by the promise of a greater gift or blessing in return. So you are not adhering to the biblical definition, but instead are making up your own and then using it to disprove something the bible does not even teach.
If Jesus offered His life to God, then God had every right to give it back if He chose to do so. I don't see why you are the one who gets to decide what God should have done with the gift Jesus gave Him. Did you even read the link I gave to you? Here it is again: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2littlepain.html. The author really does explain it very well. Please read it.
The straw man is that you are using your definition to disprove something that is not being asserted.
I told you that the definition of sacrifice is a theological in this context. Gift is not any different, but you are placing demands on the definition of gift that aren't necessary. Gifts can be returned without insult to the giver, the bible is full of such instances.
Furthermore, if Jesus offered His perfect life to God and paid the penalty that was required, why does He need to continue to suffer for all eternity just because YOU think He should? If someone offered you a gift of infinite worth and you only needed a fraction of it, would you really keep the rest even if it caused the giver to suffer needlessly? That would be sheer cruelty to the one who offered you the gift. Why would God do that?
Everyone has presuppositions, I'm no different. The problem is that you think you are. I hate to tell you, but you assume that God doesn't exist and then actively seek to support your claim. So how are you more rational?
My basis for determining that the NT authors understood that Isaiah referred to Christ is that they quoted passages from Isaiah and applied them to Christ. How is that an assumption?
Furthermore, I don't think that I would ever be able to convince you "rationally" of anything biblical because you won't agree that any of my methods are rational. If the bible can't be used to clarify my position and I can't presuppose the existence of God, then I have no other means of communicating my position to you. So I resign myself to the fact that you will continue to assert that I am irrational and use circular logic. Not that I agree with you in any way or that I could ever prove otherwise since you reject any means by which I could convince you.
But one thing I want you to seriously consider is that if my position is correct (i.e. God is real, the bible is His word, and all of it is true) then you would be the irrational one. Just a thought.
Well, that is a very interesting theory. Too bad it's equally as unprovable as you state mine is. At least when I take the bible at face value, I'm not accusing the writers of being total and complete liars. And I thought that all Americans stood by the motto "Innocent until proven guilty"...I guess not.
Anyway, it seems rather strange that these biblical authors would get all nit picky and write incessantly about not lying, being immoral and not sinning because it was evil when, according to you, they were nothing more than liars themselves.
It's more likely that these people witnessed the Life of a Person Whom they deemed to be God in the flesh by His miracles and words. And that they carefully recorded this event in History using passages from what they deemed to be God's word to back up His claims.
I'm sure Rook has a thread devoted to Isaiah somewhere around here, so I'll address your accusations there when I have time.
So can you apply all of this to the issue at hand. I'm not making the connection here. I'm not asserting the bible is true because the bible says it's true. I am stating that verse A means this and verses B , C, and D back it up. Therefore I am proving something. If you want to determine that the premise I've proven is not true or not possible, that's a different argument altogether. See what I mean about switching your argument in mid sentence?
You've already determined that the whole of the bible is false and therefore inadmissible. There is no way for me to correct your interpretation by bringing more information to light because you've already decided I can't, so you've effectively ended the debate before it can begin.
Maybe you aren't interpreting it correctly and there are no contradictions. So you're spending your time debunking contradictions that are figments of your imagination. I'm sad about that.
You're right, there is no symmetry because you aren't sticking to the original argument.
No, if worse comes to worse means that even if you are wrong about me being irrational and you can't see it, I will still continue to assert what I know to be true. Even if you should accuse me all the day long of being logically fallacious, that doesn't make it so. Like I said, depending on who's right, you could just as easily be the irrational one in this situation.
You do like to make an incorrect conclusion and run with it don't you? I am merely pointing out that biases are inherent. You have them, I have them. I don't deny it and try to pretend that I am some neutral party here that is just looking for some good conversation. While I can put myself in your position and see your point of view, that doesn't mean I have to accept your interpretation as being more rational than mine.
Well, this very quotation proves my point. You put words in my mouth and then went on to form some lopsided conclusion. Nice, this gives me real insight into how you must interpret scripture.
FYI, I'm not stating "you're wrong, so I can be wrong." I'm simply pointing out that you have biases and perhaps, just perhaps, they are causing you to misinterpret scripture. It's something to consider in light of YOUR statement that everyone has biases and interprets scripture through their warped lens.
You are assuming the Gospel writers were liars ahead of time and then going on to conclude that they manufactured a fake Jesus. This seems to be a blatant case of begging the question since you are making an assertion in your premise that hasn't been proven and then simply making a conclusion based on it. Satisfied?
Since you were not a witness to Jesus life and miracles, we only have the Gospel accounts, history, and our reason to draw from. It seems that Jesus was able to convince a large number of pretty reluctant people that He was able to perform "supernatural" fetes and also that He was God in human form. So it seems as though your "fairy explanation" hardly applies. What is the rational and parsimonious explanation for a man who was born blind having received his sight and Lazarus who was dead being resurrected? I guess you would probably deny these events occurred.
Furthermore, I can find more problems with your "parsimonious" explanation than with simply accepting the account as factual. You have to first believe that the Gospel writers were liars and had some ulterior motive for creating a fictitious figure such as Jesus which by all accounts gave them no Earthly benefits. Then they went on to be ostracized from their communities and eventually die for their false beliefs. Yeah, that sounds way more rational.
Christ was sinless and was as perfect a man as could be born of a woman. He didn't have a sinful or corrupt body. It was pretty close to the one Adam had before he sinned.
Also, Jesus was resurrected in His own body, but it was changed to that of a Heavenly one. Meaning it was physical, but capable of things our body is not.
No, but He did taste death for every man which means He experienced something akin to it, though on an exponential level.
I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Since you are not God and you don't know what it's like to have never experienced any sin in all your existence and to then endure death, shame, hatred from your creation, beatings, crucifixion, and taking the penalty of their spiritual death upon yourself, it seems that you should not pretend as if you understand what He experienced.
Because you live in a fallen world that comes face to face with some of these horrors daily, you have become dull to them and cannot see how awful it must have been for a perfect loving and sinless being to go through what He did. So you cite the worst example you can think of , an innocent suffering a vile ordeal, without realizing that you are describing the very thing that Jesus DID experience, though His was on an infinitely higher scale.
Just because Jesus knew the outcome, does not make the act or the ordeal any less, it just made Him WILLING to endure it. He knew that we would be lost forever with no one to save us. We would endure eternity in Hell because of our own actions.
So He saved us because He loves us, not because He gained anything more than He already had. This is why when you give something to God, it is more a sign of our faith than of anything. How do you give something to Someone Who made everything? What does God need that He doesn't already possess? Nothing. So you see, Jesus already had everything to begin with.
Yes, but the irony is that this doesn't need to be the case. People who are suffering and dying in this life COULD have the comfort of knowing they will enter eternal bliss for doing nothing more than truly believing in Christ!
While I believe that children are a special case since, up to a certain age, most are incapable of really knowing right from wrong in a spiritual sense. It very well may be that children who die do go to heaven, though I can only cite scripture references for this and you will probably discount them anyway.
According to the bible, yes. Your carnal mind is at enmity with God and hence the reason why you deny His existence even though you know deep down that He is real. You may seek to vehemently fight against the truth, but it is the truth nonetheless.
Ah, so you admit that you don't know. That's brilliant. I guess that means your whole argument has toppled, huh?
As for my proving that Jesus suffered, you don't seem to be willing to accept the biblical verses that state He did and I can't seem to reason with you on it. Though I like the fact that you finally admit your ignorance of His ordeal. So why do you keep on with your argument?
Like I said, He was restored to His original position, you don't seem to be able to grasp that. He already possesses everything and has need of nothing. The more amazing fact is that He left His abode of bliss and endured what He did for ingrates like us. It's incredible.
I think you are missing a very important fact, though. You think that humans are the only beings who are capable of loving and praising God. There are multitudes of angels in Heaven that worship Him day and night. Do you really think that He "needs" our love? No, but He made the sacrifice for us anyway because He is love.
I thought I couldn't use the bible to prove the bible. But if you must know, He does still bear the scars of His ordeal John 20:25-29 and Revelation 5:6.
No, no, no and no.
Are you being nice, or is this just sarcasm? It's hard to tell.
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin
Which means that if you know you're going to get back what you've supposedly sacrificed, then there was no sacrifice, as there was no loss and not even an expectation of a loss!
To 'lose' something with the expectation of getting it right back is not a sacrifice!
It's just astonishing how you have to warp words to keep ahold of your dogma...
Incorrect, I demonstrated otherwise in my last post.
Right here:
No. Actually, you're wrong. I cited the dictionary here:
"The surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."
Please pay more attention while reading.
This is a dictionary definition. And before you say "But we need a theological defintion" - your supposed theological analysis of the word determined that sacrifice involves an offering or gift. THOSE WORDS ALSO IMPLY A SURRENDER, A LOSS.
So your 'theological analysis' only came right back to the dictionary definition!
So pick your poison. You're either wrong, or your wrong.
No, it's not a strawman, that's the proper definition. And, astonishingly enough, I have to point out that your own analysis of the word 'sacrifice' concluded that sacrifice was an offering or a "gift' - which involves a loss!
And this was the conclusion of YOUR OWN ANALYSIS!
So there's not strawman here. YOUR OWN DEFINITION IS BEING USED! A loss.
Here's a definition of the word 'gift':
Something given voluntarily without payment in return.
dictionary.com
We did and that's just what we did. What is wrong with you? We're discussing the conclusion of your own analysis - a gift, an offering.
According to definition that YOU yourself pulled from the bible, a sacrifice was a gift.
Which is a loss.
Seriously, spend more time reading over what you yourself write....
Do you have some sort of serious reading comprehension problem?!
I'm not changing my mind, I'm showing you how your own definition defeats you! Because a gift or an offering is precisely what I've said that sacrifcie is all along - a loss.
YOUR OWN ANALYSIS determined that it meant gift/offering! This was your own analysis! So according to your OWN ANALYSIS, sacrifice is a gift. An offering
And a gift involves a loss. Do you go to parties and take your gift back at the end?
So I can't fathom why you are so confused. Is it because the biblical definition doesn't help your case?
.
Then you are being illogical. Circular logic is an informal fallacy, because it doesn't demonstrate anything... it merely assumes it's own conclusion. Saying "X, therefore, X" proves nothing.
And I do. But citing the bible to 'prove the bible' is a circular logic fallacy. I've already explained why this is so. Several times now.
But if you want to talk about bible claims, be my guest. Talk all you like. Just don't use your conclusions as a premise in your own arguments, and expect to get away with it.
See the difference yet?
Again, I don't just think it, I've demonstrated it. You've tried to argue that circular logic is acceptable, because it's 'valid'. This demonstrates a flawed understanding of logic.
I showed that the only reason that it is valid is because it uses it's own conclusion as a premise! It says X, therefore X!
And the fact that you don't care that you are being irrational just says it all... it just tells us who is being the stubborn one here...
But then again, your refusal to accept what the words 'sacrifice' and 'gift' mean already tell us that.
No kidding. But your pointing this out is a tu quoque fallacy if you use this fact to justify your own irrationalism.
Look. All that matters is whether our arguments are justified. Whether our arguments are sound.
I don't have to. The one you cited refuted yourself. You determined it meant gift or offering. You don't take back an offering and still
call it an offering. You don't take back gifts and still call it a gift.
You're own analysis refuted you. I'm using your own analysis.
You're confused again. I pointed out that your own definition refuted you. I'm not saying that you're twisting scripture... at least not in this case..... what I am saying is that according to your analysis, sacrifice involves an offering, a gift... this means a loss.
So you are actually contradicting yourself here.
The end result of your 'theological analysis' of the word 'sacrifice determined that it is a gift, an offering.... which is precisely the same as a loss, a surrender... we're right back to where I started... your own analysis refuted you.
I can't believe I have to keep pointing this out.
I didn't accuse you of circular reasoning here. Please slow down and read more carefully.
I just told you, that your own definiton, refutes your own argument.
If a sacrifice is an offering, a gift, then it involves a loss.
Obviously.
A drunk at the bar could see it.
And you're obviously smart...
So I can only interpret your reticence as dogmatic thinking.
Your own words here are a strawman. Unlike you, I'll actually demonstrate why.
I never said "a gift cannot be given back when offered!" That statement only exists in your confused imaginatin.
Yes, a person can give a gift back.. but the point of a gift is that people don't give gifts, fully expecting to get them right back! The intention of a gift is give up something. An offering is not supposed to be given with the anticipation that it will be returned.
But your "Jesus' knows he will not lose his life, and that he will go to bliss! He knows he cannot lose anything.
Yet a sacrifice is a loss - a person who 'makes a sacrifice' knowing he will lose nothing, cannot be sacrificing!
First of all, all you are doing here is defining the term strawman'. You're not demonstrating where I created one.
Next, I have to point out for the 100th time that I used your own definition against you. So you're calling your own definiton a strawman. You said it was a gift, an offering... those involve loss.
Yes, of course you can give a gift right back, but if the person KNOWS ahead of time that they will get the gift back, if one EXPECTS that they will get their 'gift' back right from the start, then there is NO sacrifice!
And the theological context that you gave was gift/offering.
Which makes 'sacrifice' the same as it reads in a dictionary.
Which means that 'sacrifice' means precisely what we all thought it meant, all along. Making your entire argument pointless.
Unless of course, you want to now redefine 'gift' in a 'theological context'
Perhaps eventually we'll redefine every word in the english language...
Then what did jesus sacrifice?! You're just proving my point: nothing was lost and this jesus must know ahead of time that nothing would be lost. To sacrifice, even according to you and your 'theological definition', is to offer/gift.... if you know you're not losing anything, then you're not sacrificing...
So you've refuted yourself here.. I see no reason to continue this argument, as you've checkmated yourself.
I'm going to separate the other part as another post.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Continued, different subject(s)
Even if this is true, no one is justified in holding to presuppositions that violate everything we know of nature. There's no rational justification for them.
Whereas other presuppositions don't contradict what we already know of the world.
There are rational justifications for them, such as Pragmatism.
So using the fact that everyone holds to presuppositions as a justification for your own is a tu quoque fallacy. What matters is whether or not your presuppositions are rational.
Of course, you're free to presuppose that irrationalism is the way to go....
How do you know their understanding was rational? Or justified? How do you know their mindset?
How do you know that they didn't just build a story from Isaiah? How do you know that they didn't just use Isaiah to make up their jesus story in the first place?
Sure you could. Argue rationally, and I'll be convinced. Don't just assume I'm irrational because I disagree with you. That's self serving, and irrational itself.
I don't just assume that about you.. I assume you are rational, otherwise, what's the point of discussion? And when I make a claim about your arguments being irrational, I demonstrate it.
At the same time, I don't presuppose that you yourself are irrational. Just dogmatic about your religion.
So, I should just seriously consider that I'm wrong? Ok. Thanks for the advice.
Thank you.
Is it?
My theory is more parsimonious. That's already one plus on my side.
And here's another reason to doubt:
Look at Matthew, chapter 21, verses four and five. In those chapters are irrefutible proof that the matthew writer merely took from the Markian source and from the Old testament to tell his story, and did not ever witness anything.
In those verses, he has 'jesus' riding two animals:
21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"
21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
Based on his MISREADING of Zechariah 9:9
9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Matthew misreads the original and has jesus riding TWO animals when the original writer only meant one!
This is proof that the matthew author took stories from the OT, and that he did NOT actually witness the events he wrote on!
Since the book of mark, the first gospel, is clearly a midrash of the OT - we can clearly see that most of the claims are simply stories taken from books of the old testament. So this refutes the idea that ANY of the gospels are eye witness accounts:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark01.html
Now: since we are discussing scripture, you're obviously free to use scripture to argue back...
And neither am I, that's a strawman of my argument. Each writer might well have felt that there was an ultimate truth behind their stories... they didn't have to 'lie'... they could have really felt that there was an important truth to the 'story' they were telling.
You're misapplying the concept of jurisprudence here, when the matter involves assertions.
This is about justified belief and proof or evidence. You can't just assume something is true without proof. That's the fallacy of naked assertion. Look it up.
No, it's not more likely. No supernatural claim is more parsimonious than a natural one.
These writers, except for John, all took from Mark... and Mark's work is midrash. There isn't any compelling reason to hold that these were aged eye witnesses, actually writing down distant memories...
As for "john', eveyone agrees that this 'gospel' came last... making the idea that it was an eyewitness account simply insane....
Ok, thank you for asking so nicely. You stated that
1) all (deductive) arguments are tautologies anyway
2) that cirular logic was valid.
And I pointed out that the fact that they are valid in no way means that they demonstrate anything, ergo pointing out that circular logic is valid is demonstrative of a poor understanding of logic
Yes. Repetition is a valid form.
Does it demonstrate anything?
No. Because it merely repeats itself, it merely uses it's own conclusion as a premise.
First of all, you are ignoring that you attempted to defend circular logic, earlier on, by holding it was valid. That was wrongheaded. Because circular logic isn't a formal fallacy to begin with! (Validity refers to logical form)
So let's not just ignore that, OK?
Next, if you use a claim in the bible to prove the credibility of the bible, then you're just arguing in a circle.
However, if you say "the bible says X, and by that, it means Y" and then you cite passages Z, AA, BB, to demonstrate that, then you're not necessarily arguing in a circle - assuming that your interpretations of the passages themselves involve begging the question...
So yes, your example here is NOT necessarily a circular logic fallacy.
But this has nothing to do with:
1) your initial argument that justified circular logic because the form is valid
2) Any case where you do use the bible to justify the bible.
3) Any case where you simply beg the question that X, Y and Z, support W.
No. What I am saying is that, ultimately, trying to use the bible to justify the bible is circular.
If I've determined that the bible's key claims are false, I've done so based on a logical analysis of it... not just a dogmatic rejection of it.
You can use scripture to 'correct my interpretation" if you like... but the truth is, you've already proven that no matter what the scripture says, you'll simply redefine the words until it fits your present need. So the real problem is that your argument style is to beg the question, to assume your conclusion and use that to interpret everything else.... if you get a round peg, the conclusion that it must fit into a square holes leads you to chisel the peg to conform.... that's the problem.
Theists typically rely on two tools - two complaints, really:
"Translation error!"
And
"Out of context"
The problem is that this method of arguing is often irrational, it often ends up circular... whatever the theist wants, is what it says....
And the reason is that it's entirely ad hoc... there's no consistent, rational, non arbitrary method behind it... the truth is: whatever the theist wants to prove, is what the passage will eventually say... once you're done redefinging everything. Need a square peg, and only have a round one? Well, it must really be square somehow....
So this ultimately is why it is so pointless. You know that 'even the devil can cite scripture on his own behalf' and the reason is that through 'translation error ' and 'out of context' you can make round pegs fit square holes as long as you're determined enough...
And maybe you're dogmatic need to believe this helps you warp the meaning of words until contradictions disapear. Or until all the pegs are jammed into their 'proper' holes....
The idea that there are not internal or external contradictions in the bible is simply insanity masquerading as piety....
Sigh.
There's no symmetry here because it doesn't matter whether I start out thinking the bible is true or false... if i am rational, i will see the contradictions, even if I don't want to see them.
But if I take the next step into ad hocism, then I'm sunk... if you're commited enough, you can make anything appear to work.... and yet, that's exactly what theism asks of you... faith..belief no matter what....
And that's precisely why you're on the problematic side of the equation here...
I don't think you are irrational, only your arguments, and only the arguments you've given here. I bet you are rational elsewhere.
No, I try to stay out of your field of expertise.
Yet the reason we began this line of discussion was because you said that the 'scripture' guides the interpretation of scripture.. but now everyone has biases?
Ok, good. Glad we agree then. So you have to now concede that the claim that 'scripture interprets scripture' is bullshit... your interpretation guides what the bible says.
And you've proven this, by redefining words to fit your needs.
Thanks.
This is rich!... again, the reason for this exchange was because you started out saying that scripture helps interpret scripture, and my point to you was that your own interpretation guides interpretation...
So apparently, you've taken ownership of this now... good.
No, this follows and your attempt to deny it away is silly.
I've demonstrated where you've been irrational in your arguments, and you've responded by saying you don't care. I've shown that your misunderstanding of formal validity led you to defend circular logic when in fact it commits and informal fallacy - meaning that form was not an issue in the first place.... Yet you held to this position despite the fact that you clearly were not informed enough to hold to it.... you ran to it, because it bolstered up your beliefs... you ran to it, because you wanted something that made you feel right. This is irrationalism.
I've also shown that your line of discussion concerning tu quoque is also irrational.
Furthermore, you can't just assume that you are right, and that I am wrong, when I've demonstrated an error in your argument. You can't just stamp your feet and say "you're wrong, and I don't care".... that's just... well... irrational.
But it's implied in your argument. You've said similar things in this very post. I really don't even see why you'd attempt to justify anything by pointing out supposed flaws in your opponent... this entire line of thought is tu quoque....
Again, what matters is whether you justify your own claims.
No, I am not. Please stop commiting the errors you accuse me off... you're just wrong here, and I've already stated why. There's no need for lies or a conspiracy... they could have felt it was telling the truth all along.... after all, if jesus lived, he woulda done all those things, right?
So they could have been just like you.. no need lie, you're not a liar... you just believe, and then make everything fit your belief.
And where do you get this claim from? That anyone at all witnesses this jesus?
The gospels
Circular logic. How do you know there were any witnesses at all. in the first place?
Here's a nice challenge for you.
Name ONE contemporary historical account of "jesus'
Just one. One fella or gal who was alive when Jesus supposedly lived, who wrote something down DURING that time... an actual eyewitness report written during the time....
(PS - contemporary means alive when jesus would have lived, and old enough to write and produce a work during that time.)
(PPS Please don't waste my time and cite josephus. Please.... he's not an eyewitness, wasn't even alive then.... and citing him is self refuting for reasons' I'd be glad to share...)
No, I do not. Sorry. It doesn't require a lie. As for earthly benefits, who are you to say that they didn't benefit from what they wrote?
So? Could he get a body back if he wanted?
Is he dead?
Every person tastes death.
He supposedly 'tasted death' as a god god/man, knowing that he was saving billions.... obeying his lord.. going to heavenly bliss... and not really dying in the first place...
Your proof of that is? And if he experienced it at an 'experiential level' did he do it as a man, or as a god/godman? Doesn't that change things?
Remember, you stated earlier that you couldn't go on the cross, as you wouldn't be able to... but your 'jesus' could... so clearly, you yourself are saying he had some 'extra ability' to deal with it....
So, you seem to be conviently leaving this out....
And doesn't the fact that he goes to bliss sorta soften the blow?
Is he still in torment?
well then, then neither have you... right?
so how could you know either?
see the self refutation?
Do I even need to say that you're begging the question?
Just coz he knew he would go to heaven in eternal bliss, and save billions of greatful souls, it didn't make it better?
How do you know?
Do you just make up whatever helps you answer the question? Does it feel like lying to you?
Do you see how the gospel writers could have been just the same? Assuming it had to be true, finding whatever fit, and making everything else fit, no matter what...
But they don't have the certainty. Nor the rewards of being a christ. That's the point here.
The point is that children die every day, in pain, without promises or rewards.
Well then, I seem to handle it OK. ... how come your god found it so hard? Coz it's like 'exponential when he feels it?"
wouldn't he also have expontentially better ways to deal with it too?
See how self serving your 'arguments' are?
Well, I could say that I think that, deep down, you know there isn't a god....
But I see no reason to attack you and call you a liar... so why call me one?
This is where you christians go completely nutty.. why wouldnt I want to go to heaven in eternal bliss? All I have to say is 'jesus, may I?"
The reality is that there's no symmetry here either...
Dearheart, try thinking straight. I said "and you don't know either"....
Which would imply neither of us could know. Which implies that if I don't know, then you don't know.
So neither of us would know.
Rendering your arguments moot.
And rendering your arguments moot is 'rather brilliant', ain't it?
No, it means your entire argument is toppled, because by your own argument, a human couldn't know.
Do try to read more carefully. You tend to think you're refuting someone else when you refute yourself...
What does that prove, exactly? How isn't that circular?
My, oh my. Actually. that's been my argument... that he didn't lose anything. Nothing sacrificed. You don't seem able to grasp much of anything.
As for what I grasp, let's leave my sex life out of this...
You can't, but I'm not asking you to do that. Please read more carefuly. I asked you to prove that your own claim was biblical. This would mean that you would have to point me to scripture. This isn't arguing that the scripture is true, merely that it exists.
Please read more carefully.
Thank you for showing the references, I'll take a look.
I didn't think you'd see the problem.
Yes, there is. There's a slight difference between eternal bliss and financial solvency.
Both the result and the experience are qualitatively different. Not just quantitatively different, so your analogy commits the fallacy of false analogy.
And you are wrong. Because the result you used was self serving... it was only finite, it was not equal to the loss.
But any INFINITE REWARD is necessarily INFINITELY MORE REWARDING than any finite loss.
See the problem now?
No, you don't, do you?
Why do you keep doing that?
What is it with you with liking and not 'liking' arguments?
Is it possible that it's not that I dislike your argument, but that your argument is flawed?
Do you ever see me say "hey, I don't like your argument?"
Ever?
Do you instead see me give you reasons why your argument fails?
Incorrect. Any infinite reward is infinitely greater than a finite reward, or even a finite loss.
So your analogy fails, because it is based on an erroneous presumption on your part.
Nice. I don't think you are a bad person just because you act irrationally while clinging to your dogma.... If I really found talking to you an odious affair, I wouldn't respond in such detail...
By the way:
"Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin"
This is a classic projection. This quote describes religion to a "T"
Religion is all about little lies.. .like 'sacrifice doesn't require a loss'
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yes, but the ordeal itself was a sacrifice. It would be like if you allowed yourself to be slowly burned alive for 24 hours with the promise at the end you would be healed. Does this mean that you didn't suffer during the tortuous burning just because you were healed afterward? Does it make the experience of being burned any less painful?
It's equally astonishing how you can equate Jesus sacrifice with something akin to giving God a penny and having Him give it right back. That is not what occurred.
Btw. if my dogma is obvious, rest assured, so is yours. Oh snap! Did I just commit that darn Tuo Quo Fallacy again?
Jesus sacrificed His life which is infinitely greater than ours and gained salvation for us. I'm not sure you can make a theological case that God was getting the "good end of the bargain" here. More like He got the worse end, but for our benefit. Which is what makes it a sacrifice.
Yes, but this is exactly what happened. Jesus took our punishment for us. He gave His life for His children and suffered our penalty so we would never have to.
And, in a way, He did loose something forever. He lost the opportunity to live His perfect, sinless, eternal life without ever having to experience pain, suffering, and shame. And He did it for us. If that's not a sacrifice, I don't know what is.
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin