Is crucifixion that bad?

[paulos66]

They reckon Jesus suffered for our sins, but surely if he was suffering for everyones sins, including those not born yet he got off llightly with mere crucifixion

[WaldoMcFroog]

If there were claims that Julius Ceasar fought from his flying saucer using lasers, then the same level of proof would be demanded for him as it is for Christ/ relgion.

There aren't, so we don't require extraordinary proofs.

As for why bother to make it up, one can surely ask the same question about the many micro-religions that crop up today. And given that they cannot all be true, it therefore axiomatically follows that there can be plenty of reasons for making such a thing up, not least of which are delusion, power or material gain.

[Beanmistriss]

It must have been sad for jesus to think god had just let him get on with it, the horrible, painful death. Dying thinking god had abandoned him. Then a wee while later god brought him back to life, it was all a big practical joke! ! I bet jesus could see the funny side in the end. My, how they must have laughed.

[Theland]

Infant babtism is the same act but done for different motives.
On the one hand some people believe it is a necessary step and achieves salvation, whereas others believe it is merely symbolic and a public statement of faith and promise to bring up the child within the bounds of Christian values.

[alexcoa]

anyone felt something lk"i have no idea what im gonna do when im older or when i finish my degree... but i know im meant for something massive:| maybe Jesus was feeling lk that... i know i do most of the time:S
Jesus being crucified.... ok it doesnt sound that painful to what could be done to you today... but back then that was the main form of torture so yes it was absolutely extreme and even know it doesnt sound too nice. His crucifixion was a representation of everything bad happening to him in that time period... God Bless Him if you ask me.

[chakka35]

Whiffey your comparison with Julius Caesar is particularly unfortunate because you could not have chosen a story so far removed from that of Jesus.
I totally accept that Caesar existed and did, more or less, the things attributed to him, for the following sensible reasons:

We have writings by Caesar himself.
We have contemporaneous writings by those who were there at the time and who recorded their experiences of him.
We have accounts from eye-witnesses written both during his life and afterwards.
There is plenty of physical evidence on the ground of the things he did and the places he went to.

None of this applies to the Jesus story.

We have no records of anything written by Jesus or of anything written during his supposed lifetime.
We have no eye-witness accounts of anything he said or did.
The gospel writers are unknown to us. Therefore we have no idea whether they were truth-tellers or liars, historians or fantasists.
There is no physical evidence of his existence.

So a man who claimed to be nothing but a mortal human being has everything to support his existence; a man who is claimed to be a supernatural miracle-worker has nothing to support his.

A bad comparison, Whiffey.