Earl

Winstonjen,

Hmm, looks like he doesn’t appreciate my work. I doubt he actually read the whole thing, since he says that “they,” the atheists—as if a generalization should be based on such a paltry sample, namely me—“think they can hold your attention with balderdash like this.” If I didn’t hold his attention then he didn’t read it, which means his criticism, or rather his psychoanalysis, is void.

Of course, Eugene contends that Jesus felt all sorts of pain on the cross. Here’s something else he wrote from that thread:

“I think Anne Catherine Emmerich said about the Dolorous Passion and Death these words. Answer to a question, ''During His crucifixion what caused Jesus the greatest pain? Was it the nails? Or the crown? He was wracked with pain, but where was the pain most extreme?''—

'”'While He hung up there in pain, Jesus greatest sorrow wasn't the agony of death. It was indeed very extreme-- unbearable. It was the thought that Judas, a beloved follower, had betrayed Him to His enemies; abandoned Him and sold Him; after Jesus had loved him so much! This was something so terribly heavy and painful to His Sacred Heart. His love was betrayed. His holy and selfless, divine love. Sold for thirty pieces fo silver!''”

The problem I take up in my essay can be stated quite simply, although I try to be comprehensive in the essay. The problem is essentially that Jesus should have felt like a masochist on the cross--not in a sexual way, of course, but in the sense that he should have known the good that would come from any suffering he could muster; that is, he should have been pleased by his own suffering, which would have made genuine, pure suffering impossible for him. The masochist gets pleasure from pain, meaning that such a person does not quite suffer in the ordinary way.

Of course, any ordinary masochist could be overwhelmed by pain. Probably everyone has a pain threshold, and once this is crossed the person will simply suffer, no matter how perverse he is. Yet Jesus was no ordinary person. Even were we to put aside his divine nature, so long as he knew the purpose of his death, his suffering would at the very least have been softened. Imagine being one of the 911 terrorists. Did the terrorist simply suffer as the plane was about to strike the building? Did he simply feel fear? Imagine, for the sake of argument, that one of the terrorists survived the plane crash, and lay in the wreckage with mangled limbs and all sorts of other injuries. Still, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that the terrorist’s pain would at least be softened, given his fervent belief that he would soon be in paradise.

Does it matter that the Christian contends that Jesus’ pains were psychological as well as physical? Pretend, then, that all of the terrorist’s allies turn against him as he lies in the plane wreckage. (Somehow they all surround him, together with the American government officials with whom they now work.) Whether the terrorist would then feel pure misery would depend on how strong is his theistic belief. Were even Osama to have become a traitor, perhaps the terrorist would come to believe that his theological and political views were a sham, and that his terrorist act was therefore disastrously unnecessary. In that case, he would no longer believe his war is at all holy, and he would be absolutely miserable.

But in a sense, this conversion from his brand of Islam would amount to the metaphorical birth of a new person, psychologically speaking. Given, for the moment, the truth of the terrorist’s theology, his reward in paradise would, I take it, not be based on his psychological state during his actions in the holy war, but mostly, at least, on the success of his actions. So long as the enemies were killed, he would be rewarded even were he to have suffered as he tried to carry out the act. At least, his state of mind is not crucial to the beneficial outcome of his act. The opposite would have been the case with Jesus. Were he to have somehow forgotten who he was and what he was doing on the cross, then psychologically speaking no longer would Jesus have been the person on the cross. Were he to have lost his faith, as a result of all his followers leaving him and everyone screaming for his execution, he would surely have suffered--but who would “he” have been? Not the person whose perfect faith allowed him to inspire his followers and to perform miracles. The purity of the suffering on the cross is purchased at the price of Jesus’ beliefs and character, and therefore of the suffering’s infinite sacrificial worth. On the other hand, were his faith to have remained perfect on the cross, pure suffering would have been impossible for him.

Take Eugene’s example of Judas’ betrayal. Ordinarily, of course, such a betrayal would be heart-breaking for the betrayed person. But ordinarily there is not so very much good riding on precisely the betrayal’s success. Were Jesus not betrayed he might not have been executed, and thus many billions of God’s children would not have been saved. Jesus should have known that, so while he may have been profoundly disappointed in Judas’ lack of faith, he should have been comforted by the benefits to humankind which depended on something like Judas’ betrayal. Without the final sacrifice, how would we be redeemed from the Fall? Perhaps Judas betrayed Jesus freely and thus was blameworthy, but without some such lead-up to his execution, billions of people who would otherwise have been saved would instead suffer forever in hell. Why should Jesus have focussed on Judas’ betrayal rather than on the wonderful outcome of his sacrifice? As Heb 12:2 states, Jesus “endured the cross” because of the “joy set before him.”

winstonjen

Nice counterargument, Earl. I wonder what Eugene would say to that?

worldling

The still-retired Koyaanisqatsi's "Jesus Suit" quip inspired me to write a sawng:

<a href="http://home.freeuk.net/worldling/poems/jesussuit.html" target="_blank">The Jesus Suit</a>

Hope y'all like it.

FOGuy

From Winstonjen:

Hehehe.....Well I do live in Nor. Calif. and our local cash crop has earned quite the reputation. I would be happy to send you (and Diana) some. Its clear to me you ALL could use a little consciousness expanding.....

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: FOGuy ]</p>

diana

How thoughtful of you, FOGuy.... But I'll stick with legal brain cell murder. IOWs, Unc Sam gets pissed if I piss illegal mind-altering drugs, so I'll stick to getting pissed on beer.

d

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

babelfish

Just so long as we do it the old fashioned way!

worldling

That was f*ckin' great! Have you set that to music yet? If so, please email me a version asap ("nullenfoid@aol.com") and I'll post it to my <a href="http://www.hideinplainwebsite.com" target="_blank">website</a>.

I am much honored.

"Categories?" Well, technically, nothing can be a "mutually contradictory" category by the simple definition of what a category is.

What is "mutually contradictory" is that these two disparate "categories" (as you put it) are applied to the same person; that the same person is said to have both a divine nature and a human nature; fully (dude).

It is not possible to be "fully dog" at the same time that you are "fully cat." You could be "fully dog," yet behave in ways that might give one the impression of "catness" (if you need to go to this exploded extreme), but if one's "nature" is fully anything, it can't also be "fully" something else.

Do you understand what the word "fully" declares?

"I am fully cat at the same time that I am fully dog."
To which the only answer should always be, "Then you are a nutcase in need of serious psychological treatment."

In the case of cult members, however, the response to someone stating something so patently absurd is, "We believe you, oh Cog!"

I just hate cognitive dissonance. It distorts so many otherwise perfectly healthy minds.

Thank you! You do get it! I was beginning to worry. Though, enough with the "categories" terminology, since we're discussing a person, not the Dewey decimal system.

Here, let's over simplify and use cult terminology to clarify. If God is "fully good" then he can't also be "fully evil," yes?

This is a much better deconstruction, so let's only use the correct terminology from now on, since we are, after all, discussing one's "divine nature" here, so the terms good and evil as absolutes are really the only correct terms to use.

Is God "fully good" at the same time that he is "fully evil?" There's your proper question in a theological nut.

And here's the peak of the slippery slope...

Yes, the "a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle can not be a square" sophistry that I correctly dismissed previously. Or so I thought.

Although this has little to nothing to do with the abstractions of one's "nature" in any substantive way (see the now correctly formatted question regarding "fully good" and "fully evil"), to this point I would have to say simply, no, one can not. Even according to the mythology that instigated this cognitive dissonance in the first place.

The single defining quality of being human as opposed to divine according to Genesis is precisely mortality and nothing else.

But why take the Bible's word for it?

Which list would that be? Certainly not mine, unless you can explain how God can be "fully good" at the same time that he is also "fully evil?"

The unavoidable contradiction, here, by the way, in case you're still missing it is the qualifier "fully." It is an absolute, not a degree that can be apologetically fudged.

(edited for dyslexia - Koystill)

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

babelfish

Koy, please un-retire. I'll make it worth your while (the old fashioned way - wink, wink). . .



And in case that doesn't tempt you, since you seem to appreciate fine poetry....


Ode to Koy

Things just haven’t been right
Since you’ve been gone
Lately the believers have felt
They can just preach on and on

Without the repercussions
That before were swiftly dealt
With all the new ones signing on
You can imagine how we’ve felt

We’ve tried to quote the classics
By Russell and by Paine
We’ve looked up lines of wisdom
From Lamont and even Twain

But though they’re great they’re dated
The world has changed since then
So Koy we humbly beg you
Take up that pen (keyboard) again

I know it makes your head hurt
It makes your spirits weep
To see how little affect you have
On people who are sheep

But Koy we really love you
The way you think and write (and look!)
So even if you don’t return to us
Could you at least write us a book?


[edited to remove unintended salacious double entendre]

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>

Matthew144

I have to say that using your definition of fully, you are correct.

But, sophistry aside, we are not talking about your valid definition of fully, we are talking about another valid definition of fully.

When we are talking about the hypostatic union and we say that it refers to the fact that Jesus was fully God and fully man, we are saying that he possessed all the essential attributes necessary to be God and all the essential attributes necessary to be man (and that none of those essential attributes contradict one another).

As an example I am fully married, fully white, fully human, etc. None of those things contradicts one another, and neither does anything essential about being God contradict anything essential about being human.

You give an example of the square circle. Lets call this a shape that is fully square and fully circle. The reason that this is a logically impossible shape is because some of the things that you have to have to be a square (you can list these better than I can) are the same things that disqualify you from being a circle. What we are saying is that nothing that you have to have to be God contradicts with what you have to have to be man.

I would challenge you to find one.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew144 ]

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew144 ]</p>

Stephen T-B

Well, I liked what FOGuy said.
I think he’s out on his own, and that attempting to align all the OT and NT stories with his interpretation would do your head in, but believing in a soul is equivalent to believing in god and if a person can / wants to do that, then doing it the way FOGuy does seems a lot less daft to me than doing it the way the Fundie-Literalists do.
FOGuy - you should get over to the Christian boards and come back to tell us about the havoc you’ve caused.

Koyaanisqatsi

Holy shit, babel! I'm blushing six ways to Sabbath!

I have been thinking about writing an essay about my theory regarding the NT being nothing more than Roman propaganda (poorly conceived at that), but in the meantime, you can always "visit" me at my <a href="http://www.hideinplainwebsite.com" target="_blank">website</a> anytime you wish for some sardonic, dark comedy fun.

Well strap me to a pig and roll me in the mud! Things have changed a bit around here .

I spoke too soon...

Yes, you are certainly saying that. Well, typing it anyway.

It's fascinating to watch (especially with all of the many qualifiers and disclaimers you've carefully tossed in there), but it doesn't mean anything and, so far, doesn't address anything salient in relation to what I posted, but it is fascinating, I'll give you that.

Yes, but what you are not and can not be is "fully white" at the same time that you are "fully black" (or "fully yellow" or "fully fuscia," etc.) and that, my friend, is the only salient issue being discussed and the only salient issue you seem to either avoid or not understand.

So now we're back to using the word "essential" as the evasion. What joy.

No, I did not.

Crazy, man!

NO, what we are saying is that an individual can be "fully" one thing at the same time that they are "fully" something else. You keep dancing around the maypole like that and I'll have to buy you a corsage.

Again, lets us use the only proper terminology applicable.

Can God be "fully good" at the same time that he is "fully evil?"

You're trying to introduce fuzzy logic in a construct that demands absolutes and is defined by absolutes. You must therefore argue in absolutes, capisca?

I have, several times, according to the proper, concise and applicable terminology.

As I stated before, I can be "fully dog" and have qualities that to some may resemble a cat, but it is impossible for me to be "fully dog" at the same time that I am "fully cat," just as it is impossible for God to be "fully good" at the same time that he is "fully evil," or, if you prefer, "infallible" at the same time he is "fallible," which may better describe the dichotomy/disparity between God's nature and Man's nature.

If I am infallible, then it is impossible for me to ever be fallible, yes?

If Jesus were "fully Man" then he would have to be fallible (not to mention a sinner) and if Jesus were "fully God" then he would have to be infallible. It is impossible to be fallible and infallible at the same time.

And do not attempt to say that the God part of Jesus is what's infallible and the Man part of Jesus is fallible, because the fallibility we're discussing (ultimately) is the abstract quality of sinning and not simply whether or not Jesus' suit had to fart.

Got it?

The "essential" qualities (as you put it) are not separated into Man=Body, God=Spirit. The suit is entirely irrelevant, so to claim that the body is fallible while the spirit is infallible is to engage in childish, disingenuous apologetics.

Being in human form is not what sends us to hell.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>