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. 

Views: 4404

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was thinking of Deepak Chopra as well, Strega.

Yes, or Eric Alan Bell - he's another one with a soul-shining technique

Alain de Botton's another one who insists that atheists need some kind of religion.

Oh yes - Atheism 2.0 was one of his TED talks. Weird bloke.

And one who needs to do his research before opening his mouth. After spouting his 'Atheists in America should do X', he later admitted that he'd not done any research on what America was like for atheists before coming up with his opinion.

The more Simon the Stump posts, the more I think he's actually Deepak Chopra slumming for material for a new book.

"a greater master." - how theistic - are  you sure you're on the right website?

Anybody want to play "Simon Says"? - me either.

Well, I'm an atheist, and this is an atheist website, so here I am.  Sorry I don't agree with everybody  

EVERYbody? Try ANYbody!

When someone mentions 'the ego', I just figure the next one liner will include, 'your too selfish, wheres the money?' I guess, If I counted all the times when someone wanted me to sell my 'soul', I would need to learn how to mass produce them!

Only got one, maybe...

That is one way to look at the story, another way is that the gods realized that Adam and Eve were now as wise as they were, and that if they ate of the tree of life, then they would be gods just like them. So, they kicked them out to avoid the competition. No sin involved.

The meaning I get out of the myth, is that man was now realizing he was different than the rest of the animals, because he was now aware of his ego, or his sense of self and death.

@Dennis - that seems like a valid meaning we could take from it too.  There is no denying that we're different in certain ways from the rest of creation or nature.  Our consciousness is orders of magnitudes more sophisticated than any other animal, and we have culture, technology and language to help us.  Other animals of course have superior abilities in other areas. 


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service