This idea can have logic and great value even for an atheist.
Not that long ago I offered for some angry people to kick my head in, to prove a point about how men should treat women (i.e. don't bully them). (I guess they didn't have the heart to do it.)
Among the many interpretations which can be placed on the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, we can say this:
Jesus went to his death willingly - in that he knew it was going to happen, and didn't run away, when he could have done - in order to prove and illustrate a point. That point was his life's work (well, the last 3 years'). One of his main lessons was that we can all be given the chance for our sins to be forgiven, provided we earn it and do the necessary real work involved. Provided we go to our Crucifixion willingly. If he can get himself crucified, we should be up to saying sorry and putting things right when we have to. We should be humble enough to suffer for what we have done. We should be humble enough to let something go instead of escalating to some kind of blood feud.
He also forgave the people who were crucifying him.
By dramatically illustrating the idea that God can forgive our sins, will always give us a second chance to make good: life became possible, life became good, life became fruitful. Instead of nasty, brutish and short. Hence the Resurrection.
Talking about jesus sacrifice is like saying my cookie was made to pay for all cookies sins by being dunked in milk. And from now on all cookies should be dunked in milk and cookies who aren't are an abomination.
Peace be the Journey
But what of the cookies who can't fit in your glass??
They must be broken down crumb by crumb until they fit. Bwahahaha
The thread seems to be from January, so everybody probably already did their job telling you how embarrassingly wrong you were.
@kOrsan - the debate continues.
The Power Tactics of Jesus Christ.
I found a small book titled that in a college library and had to read it. One of its authors was a psychiatrist and I remember his saying that Jesus went to Jerusalem before he had enough allies.
Idealists do that; they take on villains more powerful than they.
Skilled writers can make them heroes. Scoundrels can use their stories to manipulate children.
"Idealists do that; they take on villains more powerful than they."
That's why he was cool. He was a proper soldier.
Assuming he existed, which you've made clear that you do.
He was cool? Or a fool? A proper soldier? Obeying whose orders?
Why do I bother?
we can take a broad definition of the word "soldier". A soldier doesn't have to obey orders, we can even have an anarchist soldier (like me). :-/
I personally would define a soldier as someone who stands up for what they believe in no matter what the risk, someone who handles their own shit, anyone who's strong and not a bully.
Off the top of my head, I would safely say that Nate Lundgren and Belle Rose are soldiers, which is interesting as they know each other. But we often find that like goes with like. Judith and Nina literally are/were soldiers too. I have a Christian friend in the US who was in the army, and she was the one who made me see that Christianity can be a valid and valuable way of life (although it's not for me).
Aesop's fables have more moral guidance in them than the bible, Simon. If you want to hold forgiveness up as a shining example of good behaviour, there are many ways to do so without invoking the tired old "Jesus died for our sins" adage.
It's questionable that Jesus existed, but let's assume he did. Let's also assume he got killed on a cross, or post or whatever. And finally lets assume he forgave his executioners. At what point did the assumption get made that his execution was in some way to pay for our sins? Where was it decided that this was the purpose of his death?
"Where was it decided that this was the purpose of his death?"
This is a reasonable point. I don't know when this idea gained currency. Until a couple of weeks ago, I couldn't even see any logic in it. Now, I do.