Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Pallas_Athene]

The key words in my post are “the folly of the Cross”.That is where the scepticism usually comes in… Do you believe Jesus was justified in choosing to die?

If that is the case then why did you include: “To die for strangers is usually regarded by non-believers as a sign of lunacy…”? What need was there for a “filler”?

First, Jesus did not “die”. It was a temporary event. But that is just the smaller part of the problem. Was that “temporary death” necessary? Could God forgive the transgressions of humans without a “sacrifice”? This whole “sacrifice” is a leftover of the pagan religions where the angry gods needed to be appeased. But the Christian God is supposed to be different from the pagan deities. He is supposed to be a tad above those angry, vengeful gods, who demanded that your most precious possession be sacrificed. If God could have forgiven our transgressions, then the “sacrifice” was unnecessary - and then it was a “folly”. If he could NOT have forgiven without the sacrifice, if the sacrifice was necessary to “appease” him, then he is just another pagan god, needing to be appeased. Not someone worthy of being worshipped. Your choice.

 

[PRmerger]

First, Jesus did not “die”. It was a temporary event.

Of course he died. All death is “temporary”.

But that is just the smaller part of the problem. Was that “temporary death” necessary? Could God forgive the transgressions of humans without a “sacrifice”?

Sin requires justice.

There is no other way around it.

And the atoning death of Christ is justice for sin.

This whole “sacrifice” is a leftover of the pagan religions where the angry gods needed to be appeased.

Or, pagan religions could be articulating a human truth: sacrifice is required where there is love.

You cannot love someone without sacrificing.

 

[PRmerger]

If that is the case then why did you include: “To die for strangers is usually regarded by non-believers as a sign of lunacy…”? What need was there for a “filler”?

First, Jesus did not “die”. It was a temporary event. But that is just the smaller part of the problem. Was that “temporary death” necessary? Could God forgive the transgressions of humans without a “sacrifice”? This whole “sacrifice” is a leftover of the pagan religions where the angry gods needed to be appeased. But the Christian God is supposed to be different from the pagan deities. He is supposed to be a tad above those angry, vengeful gods, who demanded that your most precious possession be sacrificed. If God could have forgiven our transgressions, then the “sacrifice” was unnecessary - and then it was a “folly”. If he could NOT have forgiven without the sacrifice, if the sacrifice was necessary to “appease” him, then he is just another pagan god, needing to be appeased. Not someone worthy of being worshipped. Your choice.

Incidentally, the profound ignorance in your signature in professing what you think is Catholic teaching is astonishing.

“Yet you label this LOVE to be intrinsically evil when it is non-procreative.”



Love between a husband and wife is** almost always** non-procreative, PA.
A woman is only fertile for a few days of the month.

You should know that.

And yet the marital embrace is sacred and holy when entered into by husband and wife at all these infertile periods.

What is intrinsically evil is to deliberately thwart the procreative aspect of the sexual union.

 

[clem456]

…
First, Jesus did not “die”. It was a temporary event. But that is just the smaller part of the problem. Was that “temporary death” necessary? Could God forgive the transgressions of humans without a “sacrifice”? This whole “sacrifice” is a leftover of the pagan religions where the angry gods needed to be appeased. But the Christian God is supposed to be different from the pagan deities. He is supposed to be a tad above those angry, vengeful gods, who demanded that your most precious possession be sacrificed. If God could have forgiven our transgressions, then the “sacrifice” was unnecessary - and then it was a “folly”. If he could NOT have forgiven without the sacrifice, if the sacrifice was necessary to “appease” him, then he is just another pagan god, needing to be appeased. Not someone worthy of being worshipped. Your choice.

By no small coincidence, your post embodies the misunderstanding of marriage very well.
Sacrifice is not simply or solely blood for justice, it is the total self gift of one’s self. If people did not give themselves completely for one another, the world would “cease to turn”. In fact, if people did not give themselves completely for one another, you and I would not exist.
Sacrifice is fruitful. The cross is called the “tree of life”. It’s blood is not simply a counterweight to justice, but is the total gift of love.

Marriage is the primordial sign of this love and reflects, signifies, and effects, the “goods” that come from total gift of self.
“…(spouses) love one another, as Christ loved the Church”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course he died. All death is “temporary”.

Somehow I missed the report in the National Enquirer where they made pictures of the zombies crawling out of their graves.

Sin requires justice.

Ah and the “justice” for a misdeed is only served if you find someone who is innocent, then torture him to death… What a novel concept! I wonder why it was never accepted by the secular justice system.

You cannot love someone without sacrificing.

I can. And many people can…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Love between a husband and wife is** almost always** non-procreative, PA.
A woman is only fertile for a few days of the month.

You should know that.

And yet the marital embrace is sacred and holy when entered into by husband and wife at all these infertile periods.

What is intrinsically evil is to deliberately thwart the procreative aspect of the sexual union.

My mistake, obviously. I did not think that the concept needs to be dumbed down to the level of comprehension of a toddler. The love between people stays love even if those people do not wish to procreate.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sacrifice is not simply or solely blood for justice, it is the total self gift of one’s self.

One of these days I hope someone will explain how can one make a “total gift of one’s self”. Because I think that this is one of the empty slogans floating around. Should I cut off a finger and give them to my spouse? And should they reciprocate this “gift” in the same manner?

 

[PRmerger]

I can. And many people can…

That’s one of the saddest things I’ve ever read.

I pity anyone married to a man who says he won’t sacrifice for her.

“Nope, honey. I won’t sacrifice for you. I am not getting up in the middle of the night to drive you to deliver our baby. My sleep is important!”

And I pity the children of any father who says he won’t sacrifice for them.

Imagine a crying child, awake with an earache, and a dad who says, “I am not sacrificing my sleep for you.”

That’s absolutely horrid.

 

[clem456]

One of these days I hope someone will explain how can one make a “total gift of one’s self”. Because I think that this is one of the empty slogans floating around. Should I cut off a finger and give them to my spouse? And should they reciprocate this “gift” in the same manner?

In procreation, for example, a spouse makes a total gift of one’s self. Two human beings mutually donate themselves to the other, giving themselves, body and soul, in a unique way. And a new being is brought into existence. The complementarity of the couple binds them together in all ways, such that a new life can be created and nurtured. A total gift.

Father and Son loving each other, breathing forth the Holy Spirit. Total and complete love pours itself out in creation. Creation is breathed into existence where there was nothing.

One being loving another so much that, rather than “sympathize” from a distance, one being takes on the the existence of the other and lives in the same manner, and subjects himself to the same vicissitudes as the beloved, without reservation. Nothing held back, no dignity retained, no wealth held onto, no beauty maintained, letting go of all power, so that one might simply live with and suffer with (com-passion) the beloved.
God, who needs absolutely nothing, condescends in the first place to create inferior beings, invites us into friendship with him, and when we refuse, God condescends to assume our nature. For an infinitely good being to condescend and become like his creation requires a total gift of the self.

The total gift of self is commonly revealed, if you have the eyes to see it. We are called to live this total gift of self all the time. One does have to be religious to hear this call. What mother does not look at a sick child and wish to take his place and absorb his suffering? What spouse believes he can live his vocation to marriage by giving half of himself to his wife?
Even in circumstances of starvation and torture, there are loving souls who give every bit of themselves for the good of others, taking the place of others in starvation chambers, taking the place of others for execution.

Without the total gift of self, and the aspiration of every human being to it, the world would descend into complete chaos. The chaos we have now is due to the rejection of love, which is “to will the good of another”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That’s one of the saddest things I’ve ever read.

I pity anyone married to a man who says he won’t sacrifice for her.

I wish you would not have twisted what I said. Nowhere did I say that I WOULD NOT sacrifice myself. It just so happened that there was NO NEED for it. And that did not lessen my love.

And the examples you brought up show the deep crevasse between your world and mine. To get up when someone (not just one’s spouse or child) is in need of help is NOT a sacrifice. It is what every normal, decent person would do. Giving up a kidney would be a sacrifice. But of course I would do it, if there would be a need. The word “sacrifice” has connotation of “giving up something that is VERY important”. Do you ever tell your child: “I sacrificed my nights for you, when you were sick”? If you consider that act a “sacrifice”, and not a normal thing to do, then we probably live on two different planets.

What about the idea of torturing the innocent in the name of “justice”? Are you going to maintain that it would be “just” to punish an innocent for the misdeeds of some else?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In procreation, for example, a spouse makes a total gift of one’s self.

Let’s just say that I disagree with your concept of “total gift”, just like I disagreed with PR’s concept of “sacrifice” or “justice”. To give a gift means that the original owner loses the claim of self-determination, that the recipient gains full control.

 

[PRmerger]

I wish you would not have twisted what I said. Nowhere did I say that I WOULD NOT sacrifice myself. It just so happened that there was NO NEED for it. And that did not lessen my love.

So you never gave up watching a football game so you could take your wife to see a movie she liked.

You never left work early so you could see your child perform in a painful 7th grade cello concert.

You never dropped your wife off at the theater since it was raining and parked, walking in the rain.

Wow.
Just wow.

And please, again, try to think in the abstract here and spare us the, “I don’t watch football” excuses.

Or “I live in the desert so it never rains”.

Think. In. The. Abstract.

If you don’t sacrifice, you don’t love.

Period.

So either you’re proposing that you’re the most monstrously selfish individual and you never sacrificed a thing for your wife and children, siblings, parents, friends…

OR…

you have to acknowledge you are wrong. And love requires sacrifice.

QED.

 

[clem456]

Let’s just say that I disagree with your concept of “total gift”, just like I disagreed with PR’s concept of “sacrifice” or “justice”. To give a gift means that the original owner loses the claim of self-determination, that the recipient gains full control.

So you are claiming that giving a gift detracts from a person’s dignity and causes loss of autonomy?

You are just disagreeing now for the sake of it.
It’s embarrassing.

 

[tonyrey]

The key words in my post are “the folly of the Cross”.That is where the scepticism usually comes in… Do you believe Jesus was justified in choosing to die?

You cannot belittle His suffering and death by writing a word.

But that is just the smaller part of the problem. Was that “temporary death” necessary?

It was indeed necessary to give all of us faith, hope, courage, inspiration and determination to follow His example if ever it becomes necessary for us to die for others. Actions not only speak they proclaim far more convincingly than words how we should live and die for everyone including our enemies.

Could God forgive the transgressions of humans without a “sacrifice”? This whole “sacrifice” is a leftover of the pagan religions where the angry gods needed to be appeased.

Jesus transformed the primitive sacrifice of animals into self-sacrifice. Although it was an evil custom it was based on a recognition of guilt. People realised they had done wrong after they killed others. It is understandable that they thought one death could atone for another because they were depriving themselves of an animal they valued. In that respect they were morally superior to people in our “civilised” society who commit crimes without compunction. Killing unborn children is an example - although in many cases it is due to ignorance rather than wilful murder.

But the Christian God is supposed to be different from the pagan deities. He is supposed to be a tad above those angry, vengeful gods, who demanded that your most precious possession be sacrificed. If God could have forgiven our transgressions, then the “sacrifice” was unnecessary - and then it was a “folly”.

I have pointed out the reason for the self-sacrifice Christ made on the Cross. If you can think of a more effective way of demonstrating how to live - and die if necessary - for others please say what it is.

If he could NOT have forgiven without the sacrifice, if the sacrifice was necessary to “appease” him, then he is just another pagan god, needing to be appeased. Not someone worthy of being worshipped. Your choice.

God forgives us even before we repent because He knows all evil is due to ignorance even though it is culpable. He doesn’t descend to our level because He understands how our minds work. He feels compassion for us because we are ignorant when we harm, ignore and neglect others. We are doing far more harm to ourselves because we are making ourselves detestable and unlovable. We are alienating others and isolating ourselves from the rest of society and ultimately that is a fate worse than death. Solitary confinement is the worst fate that can be imposed on anyone and in this case it is self-imposed. In other words it is hell on earth. That is a lesson we all need to learn, whatever else we believe or disbelieve. God doesn’t need to be appeased. He doesn’t need anything. We are the ones who need to learn how to live - with love and gratitude - and how to die - with hope and fortitude.

 

[PRmerger]

.Jesus transformed the primitive sacrifice of animals into self-sacrifice. Although it was an evil custom it was based on a recognition of guilt. People realised they had done wrong after they killed others. It is understandable that they thought one death could atone for another because they were depriving themselves of an animal they valued. In that respect they were morally superior to people in our “civilised” society who commit crimes without compunction.

Wow. Pithy. Trenchant. Well said.

:bowdown2::clapping:

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So you never gave up watching a football game so you could take your wife to see a movie she liked.

You never left work early so you could see your child perform in a painful 7th grade cello concert.

You never dropped your wife off at the theater since it was raining and parked, walking in the rain.

In my world none of those are “sacrifices”, and I already explained it. Why should I have to explain it again?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It was indeed necessary to give all of us faith, hope, courage, inspiration and determination to follow His example if ever it becomes necessary for us to die for others. Actions not only speak they proclaim far more convincingly than words how we should live and die for everyone including our enemies.

That is not what I asked. Was the self-sacrifice LOGICALLY necessary? Could God have forgiven us without it? If he could have forgiven us, then it was not necessary. If he needed that sacrifice, then he is just another pagan god.

 

[PRmerger]

In my world none of those are “sacrifices”, and I already explained it. Why should I have to explain it again?

LOL!

Well, that’s just because you have a tortured reading of what “sacrifice” is.

PA: Sacrifice is only being crucified. Everything else that the entire world understands as sacrifice is, well, I just decided it’s not the definition of sacrifice.

Everyone else in the world understands that parents sacrifice for their children:

google.com/#q=%22I+sacrifice+for+my+children%22

And that husbands and wife sacrifice for each other:

blackandmarriedwithkids.com/2013/06/5-sacrifices-im-willing-to-make-in-my-marriage/

And that children sacrifice for their parents:

boomers-with-elderly-parents.com/my-sacrifice-to-care-for-my-parents.html

#lovewins
#withoutsacrifcethereisnolove

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Well, that’s just because you have a tortured reading of what “sacrifice” is.

Really? Mundane little things like walking in the rain to fetch the car is a “sacrifice”? Getting up in the night to bring a glass of water to your child is a “sacrifice”? Sheesh.

Giving up your possible education to help your spouse to finish her education… that would be a sacrifice. Giving up something important would be a sacrifice. Actually the links you provided emphasize that “sacrifice is to give up something important for a greater cause”. But most people never face such choices… so according to you they cannot “love” their spouses. Life is a collection of small things. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[clem456]

That is not what I asked. Was the self-sacrifice LOGICALLY necessary? Could God have forgiven us without it? If he could have forgiven us, then it was not necessary. If he needed that sacrifice, then he is just another pagan god.

what you are asking is, " could god have simply done the minimum required" to accomplish our salvation. the answer is no. only doing what is necessary is minimalism, not love. complete gift of self is just that. complete, without counting the cost. relationships between persons who only do what is necessary are relationships of convenience, not love.