Even though the fastest growing branch of Christianity, the Emergent Church, downplays the crucifixion story, it is told thousands of time all over the world. It’s hard to understand what it is supposed to mean.
The details of the story change, depending on where you read about it in the Bible, and the entire premise of the story does not hang together. For example, why did the Jesus character say he died to excuse sin and then get himself killed by destroying other peoples’ property? It seems like he should have died heroically defending a sinner.
Easter has behind it several assumptions that are hard to accept. It starts with the assumption every baby is born a sinner. Without this assumption, Easter is lost.
That is, if there is a person everyone agrees has lived an exemplary life, one without a known sin worth mentioning, there would be nothing for the Jesus to forgive. Without something for forgive, there would have been no reason die. So, it is necessary to claim babies are sinners before they have sinned.
Another dilemma of the crucifixion/resurrection story is the martyrdom. Instead of permanent martyrdom, there is reward by coming to life again. Normally, martyrdom and reward are opposites. But, in the Bible they happen together.
It would be most understandable if the Easter story were told as it actually is. It is a story borrowed from other religions with only the names of the gods changed.
FaceBook, Red River Freethinkers