Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

thedope:

Perception is knowledge even though you dispute it.
Knowing the beloved does not stop me wanting to know.
Knowledge is not just shared, imparted, but ongoing.

Sure, but not being able to help but share my mind, doesn't mean it is not I who share it. One mind does not extinguish its plurality.

lol :-D

Granted.

I don't admit its necessity, only its desirability.

Not a problem. If you ever find yourself in a situation that for whatever reason occurs to you as being 'dionysian', remember it's not whether or not you're an Olympian, but __________________. :-D

Experience may be as mutual as you please, but that you possess it, not exclusively, but individually, will ensure its novelty. Love needn't make knowledge pale by comparison. lol

 

That's hard to answer. His death was a likely result of His being perceived by the Temple and Roman authorities as a dangerous troublemaker. The atonement metaphor was necessary for the continuation and spread of the movement built around Him. Without it, I suspect the religion would have died out. Paul was a genius in developing a metaphor that gave meaning to what would otherwise have seemed the failure of a man in whom His followers placed great hope. Symbols, metaphors and myths may not seem "necessary" to rationalists, but by definition they are directed at non-rational components of the human psyche. Freud and Jung recognized that the unconscious has a powerful grip on us, and religious myths, symbols and metaphors are psychologically important in managing it. To Freud, Christianity represented a shift from a religion of the Father (Judaism) to a religion of the Son, and was a way of dealing with Oedipal guilt and anxiety over primal patricide (Totem and Taboo). To Jung, blood and sacrifice were manifestations of the Shadow and mechanisms for integrating the conscious and unconscious aspects of the human psyche. "The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man" (Civilization in Transition).

 

The fact that you can be mistaken in what you see, disputes it.

And the common denominator is always you. You come to know yourself by sharing yourself, because in sharing yourself you see the reflection of what you have. To have all give all to all. You have no relationships, over there.

The human body is set to a specific frequency. Within that frequency is a high peak and a low peak and human experience oscillates between these two. I say high and low not as in high is higher than low but to differentiate the peak and the trough of the oscillation. Our lives are a series of sensations some of which we call pleasant and some not so. That is the sum of sensational life and quite frankly, it is boring at a certain point.

Now there is the sensational life, and there is the intentional life. There are states of being that are expressed as varying intensity.

To pick ones life up and lay down at will does mean live or die at will. It means go where you will when you will.

Love is without condition, everything else is respiration.

 

Okie:

Don't mind if I call you a shifty git does ya oke? :-D

No-ones asking what his murder was the result of. Upon everything available to you in the way of evidence, do you believe it was necessary?

OWB currently enjoys the position of dodgy old codger. He questions why the question is being asked at all, in a thread titled:
"Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive Sin" LOL

 

thedope:

No, it only means that knowledge/perception exists by degrees, or "diversification" if you like.

All too common! The common denominator is us.

The sensational life may not always be intentional, but the intentional life is always sensational.

Love is condition through and through.

 

I might if I knew what it meant. It doesn't sound like a compliment. lol

Necessary for what? If there had been no sacrifice, there might very well have been no Christian religion today. Sacrifice animated the movement.

 

It means perception can lead to knowledge. Knowledge is complete albeit emergent. You are not yet to be but in a constant state of becoming. Perception is not a state of being, it is a facsimile of being.

But not always at 98.6 on the dial.

Condition means to speak with. Love has nothing to say knowing only itself.

 

Is it practically necessary to believe the story for our salvation?

 

It could not have been that event that animated the movement. Very few witnessed the event or had even heard of the event. It could have been pauls command of metaphor that created an emotional hook. It was a feat of politic.

 

Okie:

For anything. But I see you're concerned for your religion.

thedope:

Perception leads to knowledge because it is knowledge. By your reasoning here, being is only a facsimile of itself.

And? At a certain frequency, it may prove boring that a peak is also a trough, but there is nothing duller than a flatline.

If it is important to you that love has no condition, rather than being condition through and through, who am I to argue? Have the last word on this matter if you like, but the last thought, the last laugh? Surely neither one of us believe in such a thing! :-D

 

Filling the pews with maudlin sentiment however left a vacancy in the works department.

 

By your interpretation of what I have said, being is only a facsimile of itself.
Being is real, the perceptual images that you see are reproductions, of the organization of reflected light. You do not have x-ray vision. Perception does not penetrate substance. It is the sense to make sense of what you see, the being of mind, that is knowledgeable.

Spirals are nice.

It is not that I want the last of anything or to take any enjoyment from you but that I prefer to share what I have. If love is conditional, then it can be spoken against.

 

thedope:

Perception is not just reproduction, but apprehension. You seem to be confining insight to sight, or rather not acknowledging that perception can itself be perceived.

Perception is penetrative, and not only reflective. It is not merely sensation, but its own sense as you say, of mind. Knowledge, however one perceives it.

It's in your genes to find them so.

Then your personal integrity is without fault.

Are you worried?

 

Two different things.

 

I don't know what you are getting at.

 

No but you are.

Since you couldn't just answer yes or no to my question, I will not answer your answer your question yes or no either.

I've read the question several times and the question is meaningless. Since it has it has already happened, what is most likely is that Jesus would be killed.

It doesn't make me look like anything, except that I don't know the answer. You on the other hand, are starting to look like Johnny one note.

Yes it does. So why are you implying I'm guilty till proven innocent?

 

True this thread is titled "Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive Sin" but it is not titled "Why did God need to "kill or murder" Jesus to forgive Sin", as you seem to think it is but if it was that could be easily answered, God did not "kill or murder" Jesus.

 

OWB:

Bullshit. How?

I did answer no. My subsequent explanation of why I answered so does not change that fact. To not allow that one be the defendant of ones own answer is to will it be misleading.

So since the murder of Jesus has already happened, it is most likely that Jesus would be killed?! You're not making sense.

It makes you look like 'innocent until proven guilty' means nothing to you.

The only thing you are guilty of, in my opinion, is being out of your tree. That is not in itself a crime.

No, 'God' did not. So why then do you imagine it might have been necessary that Jesus was murdered?

 

If perception were just reproduction then it would be knowledge. It is not. The facsimile produced is influenced not only by bottom up processes, putting bits of information together to form a whole, but also by top down processes. The top down processing refers to a person's concept and expectations that influence perception. Because perception is influenced by education, top down effect, different models can effect the synthesis of distal and proximal stimulus. This confusing ambiguity of perception is exploited in human technologies such as camouflage, and also in biological mimicry.
An ambiguous stimulus may be translated into multiple percepts, experienced randomly, one at a time. Ambiguous figures demonstrate that a single stimulus can result in more than one percept. For example the Rubin vase which can be interpreted either as a vase or as two faces.

Perception is an adaptation for moderating movement, not specifically for acquiring knowledge. Most animals perceive but because they are less complex their knowledge is limited.
It is because your being is knowing that you can perceive.

Experienced. There was a time that I thought love was conditional, that is the example I had been given. From that example some are worthy of love and some are not. Sometimes I felt I was with love and sometimes not. Conditions dictate. Love does not seek it's own, knowing only itself.

 

Did god "sacrifice" his son?

No one takes my life from me.