This, unfortunately, is an often used 'trick' by Christian apologists in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. However, it doesn't work because the negative of a negative is a positive. Think for example about whether or not you are skeptical of non-belief in Unicorns. This would be fundamentally no different from saying you believe in unicorns. So saying you are "skeptical of non-belief" is merely to confuse language by using the negative of a negative. Why not just admit you believe X things and move forward with providing evidence? This seems like a much more honest and accurate approach to discussion and debate.
I do not see unicorns the same way as God.
I had a spiritual experience with God. I never had a spiritual experience with unicorns. Many people around the world always claim to spiritually experience God, not unicorns.
That is why I believe it is unfair to compare the two.
The point of the OP (Original Post) was that, according to what the bible claims, Jesus didn't stay dead and so his "sacrifice" wasn't genuine - especially since he was supposedly God in flesh. So God sacrificed himself, to himself (but didn't actually stay dead) in order to "save us" from himself? Isn't this God supposed to be all-powerful? If so, it doesn't seem this action (if it happened) did anything at all b/c an all-powerful God cannot lack anything, and therefore by definition cannot sacrifice anything. Do you follow? If God requires a sacrifice (and I think this is an absurd idea) why would a very short three days away from earth be sufficient? The point is, if he didn't stay dead (and therefore actually lose something) then this doesn't seem to count as a real sacrifice at all.
These are the kind of questions where I would have to know God's thought processes in order to answer them.
I do not know why he picked 3 days. But, I also do not know why he picked 3 days for Jonah in the whale either. I also don't know why God is 3 persons that make up 1. Why not 5, 6, or 7, etc...?
All I know is that a lot of things in the Bible are based on the number 3. I can not tell you why God picked the number 3.
So slaughtering something innocent (i.e. - a bull, lamb, or person) somehow makes it so that we are no longer responsible for our actions? How? Would you sacrifice your son or daughter if you thought God told you to (like Abraham supposedly) and if you thought other people would forget about how you wronged them? The idea of blood sacrifice doesn't seem to have any connection whatsoever to our actions, other than just a divine dictator saying, "This is how it is", but is that kind of dictatorship moral? How can we evaluate whether or not this alleged God is actually "good" or not? In other words, how can we determine if a sacrifice is necessary?
I do not have kids, but if God told me to sacrifice one of them, I would do it. Like I said, I have no fear. God knows best. The afterlife is where my child will go, which is the end goal.
The child is also not mine. The child is God's. So it would be God asking for his own child if you really think about it. Nothing in this world is ours. it all belongs to God. God does what He thinks is necessary for His plan. I can not question the creator of everything. God was generous to create a world for us.
Right now you may be thinking, "What a sicko!" but I believe you may be missing the point. God will never ask me to do that because sacrificing is OVER. Jesus completed it. No more sacrifices. If 'God' told me to sacrifice my child, it would be a demon masquerading as God to try and fool me, and I wouldn't end up doing it anyway.
Again, I'm just trying to explain my view and thought process.
You don't think mass genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and rape are barbaric or evil? What could be more barbaric than those? I won't assume you have read the whole bible but many of us here (including myself) have and find those "reasons" quite wrong and irrational. Have you read the passages in 1 Samuel 15 where God supposedly commands the slaying of women and children, or Psalm 127 where God supposedly says, "Blessed is he who dashes the little babies against the stone"? In Exodus 21 God allegedly sanctions slavery (owning people as property) and in Judges 11 God condones human sacrifice. Can you think of any situation where this would be morally OK? It would seem to me that if a sacrifice is required for wrong doing then God himself needs a sacrifice for his wrong doing. I do realize this will likely get us into discussing the Euthyphro Dilemma but that's OK.
A lot of those things were because the nations refused to worship the true God. They were all worshiping false gods and disobeying God. God gave them chance after chance after chance to repent but they did not do it. They knew the punishment was coming and they didn't care.
Any reasonable parent would stick to the punishment if their children broke the rules. Otherwise, the children will do whatever they want and that's not good. When you warn your child of what happens if they disobey, and they disobey you, you have to do what's necessary and punish them. This is why a judge doesn't say to a murderer in court, "Oh you murdered someone? No big deal. Go free." The judge must stick to the punishment.
If God is evil for enacting punishment, then judges are evil for sending people to prison. The people knew the risk they were taking, disobeyed the law anyway, and have to deal with the consequences. Don't blame the cops or judge.
If Jesus was God, and was the ultimate sacrifice, why didn't he stay dead? A real "sacrifice" would require a loss, don't you think? But in this story, God didn't lose himself did he? Can God lose anything? He didn't really even die b/c his real self was (supposedly) immaterial and lived on (isn't he supposed to be eternal?). Of course, I personally don't think any of this took place at all but I think it's important to think critically about these doctrines - especially when there is so much at stake. Don't you?
It's not about jesus having to lose something. It's about jesus being the ultimate innocent sacrifice to end all sacrifices.
I am glad about this, and for what it's worth I used to believe these things too until I ran into a bunch of ex-Christian folks like us here and had to change my view to better fit with sound reasoning and intellectual honesty
I look forward to your reply and thank you for joining WWGHAF.