Why Did Jesus Have To Die On the Cross To Prove He Is God?

[Solomon]

A question haunting me since childhood. This is not sarcasm. I'm interested in hearing your opinions.

[sarcasmo]

1. As an Atheist I will ask how do you know their is a Jesus. Because he is

in all of us, that's the moronic idea Jesus freaks tell me.

[Solomon]

4. I don't know if there really was a Jesus. I'm not saying that he really

existed.

[Jo March]

2. He did not have to die to prove he is God

Jesus is the son of God. He had to die on the cross to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament and to be reborn. The rebirth showed people that the love of God can give us eternal life, that death is not the end if you choose Jesus as your Saviour.

That's simplistic but fairly close.

[Solomon]

6. Okay. But if it wasn't to prove he is God, then why only him?

Why not all of the disciples too? Or Joe Blow?

[theorist]

23. Put it into a historical context. Read about Simon Magus.

Here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus">wikipedia entry.

Rising from the dead, raising the dead, levitation, and other so-called miracles were attributed to many Magi (i.e. magicians) at the time of Christ. Perhaps, Jesus was the Supreme Magus - none better. Roman oppression fed the need for the appearance of the messiah. Unfortunately for them (and Judas), Jesus was a pacifist. Mythologically, he was the most compassionate being to walk the Earth.

He didn't have to prove he was God. As the Bible tells, he believed himself to be the Son of God. So I don't think the disciples would have held a match to Jesus, but that's the point of the stories. He was perfect; you never will be. (That last part is probably stressed too much these days.)

[Solomon]

28. I know all about Simon Magus and the other crucified saviors long

before Jesus. If he didn't have to prove he was God, then why the resurrection in the first place? And why shouldn't any martyr rise from the dead whether they are perfect or not? In fact, it would be even more potent if they weren't perfect. Why shouldn't someone who dies for their belief in Jesus be accorded the same accomodations?
Seems to me that would be even more effective.

Then again, bringing on the lightening bolts and magically coming down off that cross without dying at all would have been supereffective don't you think?

In fact, why not come down off the cross and rule now without the necessity of coming back? I don't think anyone would have trouble believing under those circumstances. And certainly at that point, those who continue to be wayward would certainly deserve to go to hell, right?

[Jo March]

58. What is more effective than allowing your own Son to be the lamb?

The whole point was not to save Jesus from being killed. It was to allow him to be killed to prove that there is life after death if you believe in God and accept Jesus.

Also, it wouldn't have been supereffective if God had sent lightening bolts and Jesus had left the cross all nice, healed and safe. It would have shown only that God could rescue His Son and no one else.

[forgethell]

33. Because He is the

only man without sin. Basic Christian doctrine.

[Solomon]

35. But doesn't this defeat the incentive since none of us can be without

sin. If you can only be resurrected because you're perfect, then what's the point?

[forgethell]

47. Through His

sacrifice, we all can be redeemed. Basic Christian doctrine. It is, in fact, the whole point of orthodox (small 'o') Christianity.

[Solomon]

48. Oh. But wait a minute. I thought from all the other posts here that

Jesus died to forgive our sins. Now you're saying that was only conditional. You only have a chance to be redeemed. But isn't that what the situation was in anyway. That you always had a chance to be redeemed? Didn't God change his mind (quite a bit as a matter of fact) in the Old Testament? Usually in response to prayer or someone being good.

No. I'm afraid there has to be something more than a chance at redemption. Something a little more for such a horrible death.

[forgethell]

49. Well, it's

obvious the Holy Spirit isn't moving you just now.

If you really want to know, go to a church and ask the minister,or priest. Read the Bible.

On the other hand :shrug:

[Solomon]

50. Good answer. How arrogant of you to say "obvious the Holy Spirit

isn't moving you just now." Whew. You know it's really heavy for you to assume you know how the Holy Spirit moves.

[forgethell]

51. I see you have

no sense of irony. So many don't.

[Solomon]

52. Pardon me if I took it the wrong way. It happens sometimes. I'm sorry.

I wouldn't have known if you hadn't properly corrected me. Thankyou. :)

[Lerkfish]

63. even as a christian, I do not fully understand WHY Jesus had to be

crucified, but his crucification is not what redeems us, but rather our acceptance of Christ into our hearts. obviously, the apostles were already redeemed because they had done this BEFORE the crucifiction, and the thief on the cross was told he would that day be in paradise because he said "you truly are the christ, the son of the living god" and that was before Christ had died on the cross.

so, crucifiction in and of itself is not what redeems christians...however, the lamb of god was offered as a sacrifice to atone for sins...more like a judge who finds you guilty, but instead of sentencing you to death, steps off the dais and places the noose around your own neck, so you can be spared.

As to why, I'm not entirely certain I understand why sacrifice or blood had to be shed, except that sacrifices of unblemished animals were a large part of the Jewish ritual and that christ symbolized an unblemished sacrifice....

I also think that perhaps God KNEW Jesus would be killed, but it doesn't mean he wanted that....similar to the parable Jesus told of the Winegrove owner who sent employee after employee to to the workers, which they killed (meaning the prophets), and then he said "I will send my son, surely they will not harm my son"...and the workers said to themselves "here is the heir, if we kill him, we may inherit the winegrove". So that they did not reverence even the son of the owner.

I think you are struggling with understanding something which IS difficult to fathom.

[Jo March]

57. It had to be the son of God

For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son..."

It couldn't have just been anyone. It would have been too easy to sacrifice any old "Joe Blow", then it wouldn't have meant as much to God or the people He was trying to teach about eternal life. It had to be His son.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. I think of it this way:

I don't believe Jesus NEEDED to die in order to do anything. God being omnipotent, after all. I think God CHOSE to have his son die by way of showing just what lengths God would go to to prove love for us.

I suspect that had we learned the lessons earlier prophets had tried to teach us, there might not have been a need of the lessons of Jesus. He put things pretty clearly, made the lessons pretty simple (love one another). I see a God so determined to have us understand the extent of God's love that a demonstration that couldn't help but move us was needed. So it's a human need, not some sort of God-chemistry thing.

I don't know that it is possible to "prove" he is God. It's faith: even at that time, one would chose to believe it or not. Many people have died in a similar fashion -- the death wasn't that remarkable. For those who believe, it's the resurrection that matters. A demonstration that with God, death is meaningless.

I'm no theologian, and I'm sure I'm making a hash of this, so I apologize. I hope there's a glimmer of a gleam of sense in here for you!

[madeline_con]

66. You're looking....

for something, I think. Without trying to push any belief on anyone, I'd like to suggest you look into the theory of Christ Consciousness.

The idea that God is in all of us, moronic as one poster thinks it is, can be found there. Some people say that when Jesus said all men can do what he did, he meant reaching communion with God (or the inner self, as some say that is)can be achieved through meditaion and reflection.

Jesus dying on the cross is a metaphor for the last blood sacrifice God asked for, IMO.

Also, you might want to read about Theosophy. This won't answer all questions, but it will certainly help in the search, because each place you stop leads to another mind blowing area and a new philosophy.

Like I said, I'm not pushing anything, just making you aware of the tons of info available to the seeker and the confusing labirynth one might happily fall into if they're interested. :shrug:

[skylarmae]

9. Yup, kind of boils down to - did He come out of the tomb like He said

He would? One easy sentence... Did He come out of the tomb, like He said He would?

[RoeBear]

14. If some one said

they rose from the dead today, what would it take for you to believe it?

[Solomon]

15. Well, did he? And if so, why the secrecy? Why not go before Pontius

Pilate and say "see, you couldn't stop me after all"?

[lateo]

3. How do we even know Jesus was really Jesus...

This was a story passed down by word of mouth for a hundred years (IIRC) before it was written down. What are the chances their savior wasn't even named Jesus?

[RoeBear]

12. It's not important what His name was...

just that He was.

[Solomon]

17. That's not really true according to a lot of christians I know. If you

don't believe in the name "Jesus", you can't be saved.

[RoeBear]

24. Not true

Italian- Gesu
and lot's of other ways to spell it in other languages. It's the person not the spelling that is worshipped.

[Solomon]

31. Oh Christ RoeBear, I'm not talking about spelling. Most people

realize that names differ in foreign languages but they are still the same name. You're being disingenious here and you know it.
Come on. Admit it.

:evilgrin:

[lateo]

42. Spelling doesn't matter one iota...

I posit that his name wasn't Jesus AT ALL...but somewhere along the way the name Jesus was given to their "savior" and it stuck.

[RoeBear]

45. I'll admit I'm confused

nothing new there.

[madeline_con]

67. What's in a name

Just a quick note. A lot of ancient cultures believed in the power of a name. Even to the point that knowing someone's true name gave you power over them to cast spells or cause harm.

Anyway, point is, it's the belief in the man, not in the name necessarily that some Bible scholars say that means. :)

[mmonk]

5. Actually, he was considered an enemy of the state

by the Romans in the middle east at that time because he had a large following. The early Christians (or followers) didn't consider him a god. They saw god in him as opposed to the Roman Emperor who was considered divine by Romans. The church didn't consider him god until the A.D. 400's at an ecumenical council.

[displacedtexan]

7. Martyrdom's a hell of a good marketing tool.

Donning my asbestos suit now.

[Solomon]

10. LOL!

[The Straight Story]

18. Unless you are the person being Martyred :) (n/t)

[madinmaryland]

26. Yep, Martyrdom it is.

Most everyone living today (2000 years later) knows who Jesus is or has heard his name.

[opiate69]

61. Most everyone living today (2000 years later) knows who Jesus is

I, for one, would put that down to the early Church's extreme power and influence more than anything else. Remember, the Church essentially ruled Europe for centuries.

[TheModernTerrorist]

8. As the comedian Jimmy Carr says....

"IF we're all God's children.... what makes Jesus so special??"


also, from what I understand, Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Qua'ran (Koran)... just what I've heard... I wouldn't know.


but it's all worth thinking about...

[deutsey]

11. This presumes that Jesus did indeed have to die on the cross to prove

he is God.

My take on it: The arrest and execution of Jesus stunned his followers, who were expecting him to usher in the Kingdom when they went into Jerusalem. After his abrupt death, his followers struggled to make sense of what happened. I'm not saying that they made things up to explain away this turn of events, but I think his early followers, in their grappling with answering the questions: "What just happened and why?" believed they encountered a deeper reality as a result. This experience was, to them, an awareness of the resurrected Christ.

This is way oversimplified, but I think it touches on what I believe happened to early followers of Jesus shortly after he was executed.

You have to remember that the Gospels were all written decades after Jesus was killed. They were the written expressions of oral traditions that emerged from the life and death of Jesus. By the time these were written down, expressions of that early experience had become codified and a church was developing out of the movement Jesus initiated.

[Solomon]

21. This is way oversimplified because it leaves out the fact that there

were at least 16 crucified saviors before the time of christ. Looks like they just took one of the other stories and changed the name of the savior to Jesus.

[deutsey]

29. I don't know anything about the 16 crucified saviors you cite here

but I do know that Jesus was one of many reformist rabbis at the time. So I agree that it's interesting to ponder why did the Jesus movement take off and the others didn't.

You might want to consider that perhaps Jesus was personally "charismatic" and had something special about him that uniquely resonated with people. Maybe that resonance stuck with his followers and pushed them to a deeper level of making sense of the tragic events that happened in Jerusalem during that Passover season. Consequently, maybe his followers were more driven to stay with the example set by Jesus than the followers of other similar rabbis? Just speculation.

I'm not a Christian, by the way, but I draw a lot of meaning from the Christian narratives.

[Solomon]

37. Oh but the others did take, in a big way. Mithrais was one and I won't

bore you with the details about all the others. It's obvious that people haven't learned the history of all the other myths that have the same elements as the story of christ.

There are tons of books on the subject but as an introduction I recommend Kersey Graves. Google him. I think his book was entitled the "World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors". There's also John G. Jackson's "Christianity Before Christ".

[deutsey]

39. Again, though:

I have to say that maybe there was a different dynamic at work with the Jesus movement than the others.

I'm not equating Christianity with Bolshevism, but why did the Bolsheviks rise to power and the Mensheviks didn't? Same basic Communist message, yet the followers of one were more dedicated, passionate, driven, than the other and they prevailed. What I'm saying is that maybe there was something in the dynamic between Jesus and his early followers that just wasn't there with the other cults of personality at the time.

[Solomon]

44. Do you know any history at all before "Judaism and Christianty?

You're way up here with the Bolsheviks. I'm talking ancient Babylon, Egypt that kind of thing. Greece flowered 1000 to 500 B.C. but were talking 2500 B.C. 3000 B.C. and so on. Their Gods were just as big as Jesus Christ for their times. And most of them were born in a cave or manger celebrated on December 25th, were crucified on a tree or cross, and resurrected three days later. Christianity is as old as dirt. It didn't start with "Jesus".

You assume that somehow Christianity sprung out of nowhere, with absolutely no connection to previous religions, which obviously, because of Christians' obsession with the name "Jesus", in whatever form or spelling you want to refer to him as, as the only one and true God, were mere heathen religions and of no moment or consequence.

[deutsey]

54. Of course I do

You're obviously not getting my point and are, for some reason that I'm unable to discern, belligerent too.

I'm assuming nothing at all along the lines that you're saying. Just FYI, I've done graduate work on world religions as well as primal religious experience, so while I haven't read the books you cite, I've done my fair share of research and thinking on the subject. I was just answering what I thought was the initial question you posed, which, I might add, was pretty non-specific in terms of the points you're now raising in this post:

"Why Did Jesus Have To Die On the Cross To Prove He Is God? A question haunting me since childhood. This is not sarcasm. I'm interested in hearing your opinions."

You may want to more clearly define the parameters of your inquiry in future posts. From the responses I've read of yours, it appears as though you were laying some kind of trap and hoping to elicit responses that you could then slap down with whatever it is you've read in these books you mention.

Addressing the points you now raise, I'm well aware of how the Jesus story fits into the mythic patterns of other cults and cultures. Paul, in fact, acknowledges this in one of his letters. It's too early in the morning for me to go flipping through Bible pages and I'm spending too much time on this as it is, but it's in there somewhere. The question for me, which I've been trying to answer in some way, is why did the Christians prevail and the others didn't? Frankly, I don't know. I'm offering my speculation about what was going on with the followers of Jesus (whether you want to believe he really existed--which I do--or not). Perhaps some of this is coming from a book I'm reading now, The True Believer. It's a classic in sociology; you've probably heard of it. I've read about it and have had it sitting on my shelf for years. I'm only now getting around to reading it.

Why didn't the early followers of Christ bend and acknowledge the Emperor as a god? The Romans would have left them alone if they had just done that. That's what I'm trying to address when I bring up the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. I assumed that example was pretty straight forward. The Bolsheviks were purists and had a cultlike following around Lenin. They were "true believers" and were not going to compromise with the less ideologically driven socialists or the czarists. The Mensheviks did. Say what you will about how awful purists and cults of personality are (and I think they're dangerous, myself), they give people a larger purpose, a reason to live and to die, a reason to absorb persecution and to persist that other more flexible movements and social activities don't provide.

I'm just saying that something happened to the early Christian movement that put them in the category of "true believer" while the other cults you mention apparently did not. That's what I've been talking about, but apparently I misunderstood your original question.

[Solomon]

55. I guess we just look at things differently. You see it as why did the

other "cults" die out and christianity prevail. I see it as simply the march of time. There'll be another form of christianity one day and Jesus will fall the way of all the rest of the gods.

I realize this is blasphemy to a lot of people who for some reason assume that all the other religions in the past were wrong and now we've got the right one for all time.

[deutsey]

56. John Lennon said as much

and if there's anyone I come close to worshipping myself, it's him.

:evilgrin:

Seriously, whatever replaces Christianity (and I don't think Christianity is going away anytime soon) will have the same dynamic at heart that the early Christian church had, so I think it's worth examining that dynamic since it's what animates enduring religious and secular movements.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Mithras wasn't a rabbi-he was Persian

:eyes:

[salinen]

13. Jesus did not die

As the claim goes, Jesus will return. When was the last time you saw a dead person come back to life?

[The Straight Story]

16. Simple to me (reader's digest condensed version)

God is the same today/tomorrow/yesterday.
Lucifer transgressed and would die for it.
Lucifer knew God was the same always - ie consistent
Lucifer gets man to do the same thing, differently.
Man must now pay same price, but had little chance.
God, being lawyer like, finds a loophole - he never said WHO had to pay.
So he pays, and since he is perfect the scales equalize - god is still consistent.

All this goes to a deeper thing about God and his constraints philosphically.

[Solomon]

19. That may be simple to you. But quite frankly, you lost me there.

[The Straight Story]

25. How so?

Just trying to help out.

Here is the gist: Can god make a rock so big he himself cannot lift it? (and old jewish thing to ponder).

Basically, God is not all powerful as we define it. He was limited by his own rules. So when mankind rebelled against god he (lucifer thought) had but one option, mankind must die as he would eventually for doing the same thing.

But man did not simply rebel on his own like Lucifer did, he was led to it. But the rules were what they were - so to get around said rules God decided that if man must die he would come down and become man himself and die - lead a sinless life, virgin birth, etc and take the punishment for us. This gave us an out, and bruised satan's ego (ergo perhaps the head of serpent being bruised in genesis).

So satan loses, god comes down as man and suffers and dies even though he did nothing wrong according to the rules, and the equation is now balanced.

Just my take on it though.

[The Straight Story]

20. As an aside to the question

I personally don't think he died to prove it, he died to take the place of the rest of us so we would not have to die. See my previous post above - this all deals with God's limitations.

[AutumnMist]

22. From What I Understand (And this isn't flame bait)

He didn't die on the cross to prove he was God per say. He knew that he would be sacrificed for his beliefs that didn't fit into the Roman/current religious sect for the times he lived in. He was an outcast and a rogue. He was not mainstream, he was not someone who was embraced by his fellow neighbors. He had his followers. And he told him that he would die for the sins of others. For the others that believed in the same way he did. That those outcast by society shouldn't have to pay a tax to worship, or give donations, or bow down to Roman law. That he alone would erase that. For eternity. And that he alone was the one who started the Christian movement, and therefore he alone would fall. He died so others could speak without limitations. He truly knew he was the son of God. For all that followed him. Simple enough for me.

[deutsey]

34. Jesus refused to compromise and back down from what he proclaimed

even when it meant execution on a criminal's cross.

That kind of example strikes a deep chord with people, both in good ways and, as we hear all the time from Bush followers when they say they like Bush's uncompromising nature, in a very bad way.

[babsbunny]

27. I understand

Jesus had to to die on the cross for our sins, and now we are forgiven!

[Solomon]

40. I see. You mean like the old human sacrifices. God imitates man.

If we are forgiven our sins because Jesus died, then why do we have to die?. And why do we punish people if our sins are forgiven?

[shimmergal]

59. Yes. As below, so above.

It's taken me most of a lifetime to see the point of sacrifice in an intellectually respectable religion. Now I've come to believe that Jesus's death and resurrection is a giant metaphor for the universal law of life (on this planet anyway): all life is purchased by the sacrifice of others. Whether it's the food chain, or the many things parents give up to care for their children, (or much else), life isn't possible without it. And even so, no one gets out of here alive.

Seemingly humans are the only species to realize this. That's what I think "original sin" and the "Tall" was all about--coming to full human consciousness of our mortality. Jesus's passion is a way of letting us know "It's OK; there's something more." Whether he had to purchase our "salvation" this way is secondary, it's the final and greatest message of his life & teaching.

Not orthodox (small O) Christian doctrine, I suppose, but it's the only way I can square it with my view of the universe. But I have a feeling the early Christians were onto this in some ways that have been lost by our later literalness and rationality. Witness the former Catholic practice of fasting on Fridays. It makes more sense from this perspective. As does the whole communion ritual.

[blogbear]

30. The Poor Sucker Next To Him...

Needed Him And Right Then!

[forgethell]

32. It wasn't to prove he was God.

It was to pay the penalty for our sins. Which can be defined as separation from God.

Basic Christian doctrine. didn't they teach you anything in Sunday School?

[Solomon]

38. How did you separate yourself from God? When you were born, did

you sin?

[deutsey]

41. The development of our socially constructed ego separates us

from the unconditioned, instinctive experience of the Divine.

[forgethell]

46. You should read

the Bible. It is[/i[ one of the foundation documents of Western civilization. "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. So, yeah, I guess I have.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. I believe in Islam

they honor Jesus as a prophet, but not as the only begotten son of God. In Sura 4 verse 157, the Qu'ran states:

That they said (in boast)
"We killed Christ Jesus
The son of Mary,
The Messenger of Allah"--
But they killed him not
Nor crucified him.
But so it was made
To appear to them.
And those who differ
Therein are full of doubts.
With no (certain) knowledge .
But only conjecture to follow.
For of a surety
They killed him not.

Verse 158
Nay, Allah raised him up
Unto Himself, and Allah
Is Exalted in Power, Wise--

An interesting sentence in the notes on these verses follows:

...But some of the early Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the Cross. The Basildians believed that someone else was substituted for him. The docetae held that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, bout only an apparent or phantom body, and that his Chricifixion was only apparent, not real. The Marcionite Gospel (about A.C. 138) denied that Jesus was born, and merely said that he appeared in humand form. The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of substitution on the Cross. The Qur'anic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced the illusion in the minds of some of his enemies, that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain: and that he was taken up to Allah(see verse 158)

Source: The Meaning of The Holy Qur'an, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

[H2O Man]

53. In the gospels,

we note that Jesus always made a point of avoiding "proving" his divinity. More, we see that he refers to his disciples as his "friends." Now, this is significant, because he has eliminated the teacher-student relationship that is generally assumed in interpretations of Christianity. A student/servant obeys the teacher/master without understanding what the teacher means, or why the teacher asks the student to do certain things.

But a friend is one who understands, and follows direction through that understanding. This is why the Master says, "Ye are my friends." In fact, it means that they are obeying/following the Order of Truth of which Jesus spoke and lived. This means that they were able to, like Jesus, act in a manner that is beyond their own self-interest. When one puts the Order of Truth beyond (or above) one's self, then one is able to rise above the "things of men," and take the first step towards losing one's soul ..... but that brings us to your more recent thread, which questions the reality of a "soul" ..... and I will continue this most interesting discussion there!

[supernova]

60. I don't think He died to prove he was God, but to prove

his love for us. He died to say how much he loves us. He was willing to sacrifice Himself for us. The ultimate selfless act.

OTOH, from our stanpoint, if you really love someone, you don't ask them to immolate themselves for you. That's really the great contradiction between the love we have for each other.

[Roland99]

62. Considering he *didn't* die on the cross, the question is moot

Jesus survived the crucifixion.

That said, he *was* willing to sacrifice his life for what he preached: a more liberal application of Judaic laws to extend to all people, not just select elite.

[Stevepol]

64. A different take: Jesus died because he was meeting his own karma.

Edgar Cayce saw it partly this way. As Joshua, the soul that was Jesus or Jeshua, he participated in the ethnic cleansing that resulted in the establishment of the Jewish state. As Jesus, who became the Christ, he met his karma in leading the Jewish people. It's interesting that some of the kings Joshua killed were sealed in caves much as he was. Also interesting that the places where Jesus "healed" are the same places where Joshua killed. What we sow in one lifetime, we reap or "meet" in a future lifetime.

One way of seeing this symbolically: as we move outward toward the outer world, we necessarily make mistakes in making a place for outselves. We over-emphasize one thing, under-emphasize another. When we change direction and move toward God, the Kingdom that is within, we meet those things we have done in the outer world in our own life and consciousness.

As always, we judge ourselves. Some bearded old man doesn't judge us according to some set of rigid laws. As Christ said, "with whatever judgment you judge, you shall be judged." The way we judge others is the way we ourselves are being judged and will always be judged.

[madeline_con]

68. Thank you

That was interesting. I'll have to check further into the Joshua/Jesus connection. That's pretty cool. :)

[enki23]

69. he died on the cross to suffer something for a couple days...

that he threatens to subject us humans to for all eternity. that is, if we don't get hip and love him. for this we should be awestruck: that he was willing to suffer temporarily what he will sentence those pesky nonbelievers to for a billion billion years (and that's just the warmup).

this, some might argue, would be like expecting a mayfly to be eternally grateful if you heroically gave three seconds of your life to shoo it out a window.

so much for gratitude. that's why most christians stick with the threats.