Arising from the aforegoing

[avevale_intelligencer]

Quote from a comment to the previous post, by catsittingstill:

"For my part, as best I understand it, the unifying point and central mystery of Christianity is that a powerful, knowledgeable entity deliberately had its own child tortured to death to right wrong(s) committed by somebody else."

Put that way, it does seem a trifle odd, as if one might suggest that a powerful, knowledgeable being, a peaceful man of science, would level a Japanese city and condemn the survivors to horrible and lingering illness and death for the betterment of humanity. Albert Einstein did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, any more than God crucified Christ, but one can see an inevitability, with hindsight (which is the other side of the coin of prophecy) which implies foreknowledge and therefore responsibility. He made it possible, and therefore it happened, and its results were, in some measure, salutary; actual images of the consequences of nuclear bombing, actual experiential knowledge, has resulted in an increased determination in some people to prevent such a thing happening again. So in its way, the crucifixion may have had a similar effect on some people. Maybe even a few more.

But Einstein is not God, and God is not Einstein, and the mystery is still a mystery. Here's Father Brown again:

"Real mystics don't hide mysteries, they reveal 'em. They set a thing up in broad daylight, and when you've seen it, it's still a mystery. But the mystagogues hide a thing in darkness and secrecy, and when you find it, it's a platitude."

"He died for our sins" is not a platitude, though constant repetition may make it seem so. Its meaning is not obvious. Why would God create a being, acknowledged as his child, in order to have him killed, and in what way would that have any effect on the sins of mankind past, present or future? Surely if God can forgive, then God can forgive. Why doesn't he just do it? Why go through this ritual?

Well, I don't know. It's a mystery. But I can think about it, from my premise of a God who is potent but not omnipotent, scient but not omniscient, and desperately concerned for the success of his experiment on this one small world.

Free will is the key. It was never foreordained by God (though it was prophesied) that we would crucify Christ. All participants in the story must have had free will, or the story itself is worthless, just a puppet play. Christ, therefore, was a volunteer, if not prior to his incarnation then certainly when he went to be baptised. He went into it knowing what could happen, and as the time grew closer, what was bound to happen. And like many volunteers, he had his moment of "what the hell have I done?", and if he had persisted in his plea that "the cup pass from him," perhaps it would have. And maybe it was as agonising for God as it was for Christ.

But how does his death save us?

Well, let's suppose an authority over God. (Why not?) Let's suppose that God has to justify his funding every so often or the project will be closed down. He has to prove that we are turning out well, according to whatever guidelines he's been given, or that grinning idiot on the next star system over will win the science fair again, maybe. I don't know. So this time he tries something new. He injects a human into the system, gifted with abilities and knowledge that are bound to bring him, and not in a good way, to the attention of the authorities in the region where he lives, and waits to see what happens.

It's actually win-win for God, if you think about it. If we spare him, acknowledge the truth of his teachings, then we're obviously doing all right. If, as seems more likely, we kill him, then the fact of his self-sacrifice (because he had the choice) proves that there's good stuff in humanity somewhere. Either way, he can parlay it into another millennium's funding or whatever. Our sins are forgiven us. We go on.

I'm not saying this is how it is. I don't know. I'm just putting forward one possible explanation of why it had to be the way it was. Why a powerful, intelligent being might deliberately have his child tortured to death to right wrongs committed by somebody else. Why one life might be sacrificed to save many. There may be other possible explanations, better ones.

See the cut tag for comment guidelines. Part three of Breaking Down The Walls Of Time is still coming, honest.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Albert Einstein did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, any more than God crucified Christ, but one can see an inevitability,

Albert was neither powerful enough to stop a war in some other way, nor knowledgeable enough to be able to predict the future. Which makes him so qualitatively different from God-as-she-are-spoken that I don't think this analogy is useful in analyzing the situation.

"God knowingly committed evil but good came of it" is like arguing "a mugger beat you up and permanently paralyzed you, but you met the love of your life in the emergency room, therefore it is appropriate that I not only forgive the mugger, but celebrate--indeed, worship--him and follow his commands."

I don't find this a compelling argument to forgive someone who hurts somebody else. For me to use it to forgive someone who hurt *me* would at least be ethically defensible. But I am not the injured party here.

And the whole argument, as I understand it, is that God intended from the beginning for Jesus to be tortured to death--that was Jesus's *destiny*. So, while there is plenty of blame to go around, excusing God by blaming human free will seems...unjustified. It's a very common move in these sorts of arguments, but I don't think it's right.

If I abandoned a drunk friend when I saw a rapist moving in on her--*intending* that she should be raped, I would be blameworthy even though I didn't commit the rape with my own..err...hands. And *I* am not all powerful or all knowing--I can be hurt or killed and I have good reason to be afraid; I have evil impulses and sometimes I give in to them. Yet people still (and rightly) expect better behavior from me than they would--*do*, apparently-- from God, who abandoned his own child, *intending* that he should be crucified.

As for supposing there is an evil Authority over God, that he didn't *want* to commit this cruel act but he *had* to because a more powerful entity forced him--again we have departed so far from God-as-she-are-spoke that I don't think this is a useful argument for analyzing the mystery. If there were an evil Authority that had the power to push God around, the Evil Authority would be God, by definition, and the original God becomes a sort of Angel--someone under the thumb of God.

Yes, why not forgive people their sins--since both the sins and the human nature that makes people commit them were handed down by God-- without this cruel play of having his own child tortured to death? Why NOT? WHY not?

I think you dismiss the question too soon.

I think what is going on here is that originally Jewish culture called for gaining forgiveness for your sins by "paying a fine to God" in the form of valuable livestock, traditionally a lamb. This makes perfect sense (I mean, presupposing a belief in God, of course), and is moral if you think of the lamb as property.

Jesus got mixed up in people's minds with that lamb. The lamb is put to death for something it didn't do--Jesus is put to death for something he didn't do; it seems kind of equivalent if you don't think too hard about Jesus being a human being and not a possession. But the lamb was a possession and thus a fine and Jesus was an innocent human being--and the moral ramifications of that are considerable.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

There are as many versions of God as there are Christians. I laid out the basics of mine, starting from the viewpoint that he (or as it might be she) created (by the mechanics of cosmology and evolution) a flawed world and a flawed sapient species and then basically left it alone, apart from a few direct interventions.

I don't see the authority over God as being evil, any more than bureaucrats who run research institutions in our world are evil. Nor do I think that the authority is therefore by definition God. And throwing around words like "evil" and "cruel" isn't that useful for "analysing the mystery," either, any more that talking about things "getting mixed up in people's minds" as if everyone back then was stupid. The sacrificial lamb started out as real, and became a symbol for Christ's--I repeat--voluntary sacrifice. That's not getting mixed up.

I think the problem is that what I'm giving you is my view of this particular religion, my take on the mystery. What you're arguing against is your view of Christianity (your "God-as-she-are-spoke" filtered through your ideas about it). And that's an argument you're always going to win, because you've won it already. But you're not going to persuade me that way.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I don't see the authority over God as being evil, any more than bureaucrats who run research institutions in our world are evil.

? if a bureaucrat required that a scientist have her child tortured to death, you wouldn't see that as evil? Even if her child agreed to it?

Having had a little more time to think about it, I realize I left out a middle step in the lamb to Jesus progression:

1) Jews "pay a fine" for their sins in the form of giving up valuable livestock by killing a lamb.

2) People see the death of the lamb, not as a way of giving up the livestock, but as a specific punishment of the lamb for the sins of human beings. (This is reasonable--presumably the lamb doesn't want to die--but this is where I start having ethical problems with the whole thing.)

3) People equate Jesus with the lamb. If you can right the scales of justice by punishing a lamb for someone else's sin, why not a human?

It is not the case that a person has to be stupid to fail to think about something. In fact one of the best ways to make a smart person do something stupid is to get her emotions involved and encourage her to view a situation in a (single) metaphorical way.

I do understand that your beliefs about God and Christ are pretty different from the mainstream, and I have no problem with that, and, yes, I have to this point been making observations about mainstream beliefs, just as I was in the original post.

If you want to come right out and postulate a God not significantly more powerful and knowledgeable than Albert Einstein, who has to satisfy a superior who demanded God abandon his child in the presence of torturers while God knew perfectly well what would happen, I'm okay with that, but I can think about the moral implications of that a little better if you state the parameters in a more straightforward way.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

In fact one of the best ways to make a smart person do something stupid is to get her emotions involved and encourage her to view a situation in a (single) metaphorical way.

An example of which might be repeatedly to use the words "child" and "torture" in close proximity, as if Christ had been six years old at the time of the crucifixion and not at very least an adult human being with the full capacity for self-determination. Quite apart from the issue of whose religion we're talking about, that's a pretty determined attempt to keep the thumb firmly on the emotional button there and make it look as if I'm excusing the torture of a child.

And I think your step two is mythical. There is the concept of the "scapegoat," but that was a separate thing from the sacrificial lamb, though also linked symbolically to the--I reiterate once more--self-sacrifice of Jesus.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Sigh.

Never mind.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

On second thought I want to have one more try.

I don't see the authority over God as being evil, any more than bureaucrats who run research institutions in our world are evil.

So--a bureaucrat insists a scientist abandon a family member to people who will torture him to death. Luckily, the scientist has a family member who is willing. You're okay with the bureaucrat who demands this? You're okay with the scientist who agrees?

And again, if you seriously believe that God Is Not Really In Charge--the Bureaucrat Can Yank His Funding At Any Time, I'm okay with that, and if you seriously believe that words like evil and cruel can't apply to God (because God is amoral, like volcanoes, maybe?), and if you seriously believe that God is more on a level with Albert Einstein as regards knowledge and power, okay. This are some fairly nonstandard beliefs about God, but I can hardly argue that you *don't* believe these things, and it's not like there's any way to settle the question.

And of course arguing about God is more like arguing about fairies than arguing about pigeons. If we have a disagreement over how strong a pigeon is, that can be settled to everyone's complete satisfaction. If we have an argument over how strong God is, not so much.

So I'm not sure where to go from here, except to say that all I know about God are the stories people tell me. And from most of the stories--if you look at what he actually does, and has people do--he's one unpleasant entity. And the more I watch the intellectual gyrations required to turn things around and make him look good, the more I wonder, why all the effort? It's like people are afraid he'll smash them if they don't butter him up.

Which wouldn't be consistent with a good entity.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

So--a bureaucrat insists a scientist abandon a family member to people who will torture him to death.

Didn't actually say that. In my story it was God's idea, and a pretty desperate one at that.

God Is Not Really In Charge

Or that. God is in charge of our world, and accountable for everything he does. He just doesn't have control in his world.

words like evil and cruel can't apply to God

Or that. I pointed out that you were using them rather a lot.

I'll try and restate my position again in a little while, in the hope I can somehow make it clearer.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

So--a bureaucrat insists a scientist abandon a family member to people who will torture him to death.

Didn't actually say that. In my story it was God's idea, and a pretty desperate one at that.

Okay. Now we're back to this being God's idea, and God bearing moral responsibility for initiating it and carrying it out.

I'm cool with this--believing it was God's idea; His best solution to pressures I don't understand but that did not actually *require* killing anyone--but now I feel fully justified in holding God responsible.

Even someone with Einstein's human intellect, given 13.7 billion years to think about the problem, ought to be able to come up with "If I'm not going to punish repentant perpetrators, maybe there's no need to punish anybody--and certainly not someone who had nothing to do with the offenses."

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

The free will part is good. But you could look at little closer at the saves us from sin part. It's a lot more that platitude, What if justice and mercy both have to be kept in balance. What if Jesus volunteered to pay that price because he was going to be also be able to pay the price our our sins. So that Justice was satisfied. God can forgive, but Justice to come to play as well. SO it's kids of a Twofer. Gethemane first, where the price of the sins was paid then Calvary where the actual Physical death came. And free will still comes into it, Jesus Still vounteered, and we still have the free will to say no not interested. In the first part any way. The Second part was a gift. As to Why Jesus Volunteered? He loved, sorry Loves us.

My head is a little wibbily this morning, I tried a new sleeping combo last night, And it worked. I hope the above a reasonably clear. Yes I'm a Christian, I hope I can be awake enough to participate in this one.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I did say it wasn't a platitude.

But thank you so much for being here.

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

For my part, as best I understand it, the unifying point and central mystery of Christianity is that a powerful, knowledgeable entity deliberately had its own child tortured to death to right wrong(s) committed by somebody else."


Why don't I try from my beginning. This is what I believe,

Imagine if you will that we existed before we were born. As souls. Our souls were born to our parents. Lets call them Heavenly Father (God) and Heavenly Mother. Eventually we had progressed as far as we could as souls. We wanted more, we wanted to become more like our parents. Eventually we were presented with a plan, yes we could do that we could go on to the next step. This mean getting a body and learning all about looking after it, it also meant leaving "home" we were told of all the problems we would find along the way, we would not be able to see Mother and Father at all we would have to learn to walk by faith. Some of us would be lost. Some us would never return home. Father and Mother were pained by this. We knew that no unclean thing, that is anything that had sinned, could live with them. We were worried about never seeing them. One person stepped forward. it was Jesus. he had been the first born of all of us. He said that he would go down and that he would pay for the price of all of our sins, so that if we repented, justice and mercy would be satisfied and also through his death all who lived would be resurrected. And that all the glory for this plan would go to his father, At this point another Man stepped forward, he said, I have a better plan, under my plan, no one would be lost, because he would make every one do the right thing, and that he wanted all the glory. A battle of wills followed. 1/3 of the souls followed the second man, they were cast out and roam free on earth today, we call the leader Lucifer, son of the Evening. The rest of us, finished our first estate and came to earth, we have a body and we learn to be human.

Why did Jesus's parents allow him to do that? Because they loved all of their children. Why did Jesus offer his life? Because he loves us. Trust me on this one I have don't think I will ever truly understand the depth of that love, I talk in the beginning about a Heavenly Mother, because in our church we believe she exists, it's not something many people talk about for a number of reasons. Mostly because a lot of people don't really "get it" And secondly It's bad enough sitting on the train or the bus listening to people take the Lords name in vain we'd rather not add to the that list.

about at your comment above, yes. Jesus came to fulfill the law. After him there was no need for further sacrifices, because before him those sacrifices were actually a representation of Jesus.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, this certainly is an interesting take on it. Again, certain aspects of it seem to depart markedly from what I thought Christianity was. I'm okay with that, of course.

I do have some questions though. Note that I'm not demanding that you answer them--I understand that faith is not always something that works well with logical analysis.

I'm just saying these are the kinds of questions that occur to me that hinder me from seeing this central Mystery as inspiring and uplifting, the way many people seem to.

1) Why is it that nothing that had ever sinned could return to Heaven? Who made this rule? Was it Someone with more power than the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother put together? Or did the Father and Mother make the rule and then refuse to change it?

2) If it is possible to pay the price for sins and thus be able to return to the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother, why couldn't people pay their own prices? Also, given the nature of the price we're talking about, it seems a little odd to connect "justice" and "mercy" with this. Justice would seem to require that each person get their deserving, and this plan is apparently intended specifically to thwart that. Mercy involves people being treated better than they arguably deserve, and while one could argue that Jesus is showing mercy to everyone else, there's a certain lack of mercy shown *to* Jesus in this scenario.

2a) Who sets the price for sins? Why is it not possible to adjust that price to something less draconian?

2b) How is it even possible for person A to pay the price for person B's sins? This is actually the central issue for me--suppose you steal an apple from me; should I scold Judith and be done with it? I don't see how this would "work" even if Judith agreed to be scolded for you.

3) Given Jesus's immense offer--why should the glory for that go, not to Jesus, but to the Heavenly Father? Wouldn't it be more fair for the glory to go to the person actually paying the price?

3a) And where is the Heavenly Mother in all this--supposing everyone agrees to go along with thanking the Father instead of Jesus, why the Father but not the Mother too?

4) I'm a little confused about why physical representations for Jesus (animal sacrifices) were necessary before Jesus came, but not after. I had the impression God was thought to live outside of time? So that for God, Jesus has always been sacrificed,/is always being sacrificed/will always be sacrificed? So I don't understand why the date a sinner repents would matter regarding what measures the sinner should take to get right with God?

[jahura.livejournal.com]

I think it falls back to Genesis 22. Abraham was called to sacrifice his then only son to prove that he loved God more. On the way up the mountain, Isaac asked, "where is the lamb for the sacrifice" and was answered by his father, "God will provide one for us". In those times, the act of slaughtering of a prized animal was believed to be the one way to channel God's attention to gain God's blessing.
Suppose God was watching this going on as Abraham and Isaac were walking up the slope, and gets an Idea. Up until that moment, God was going to let Abraham go through with it, but now the notion of providing a lamb for man in the same way man provided for It seemed absolutely brilliant.

And so God provided his then only son up for sacrifice and went through with it to prove that It loved man more than It loved Itself in a way that man could understand at the time. Much like Quetzalcoaltl as I mentioned in a previous rant, "after this, no more". Man no longer needed to make barbaric sacrifices to get God's attention. God proved we already have it.

Your viewpoint as God-as-Scientist is interesting, though. Suppose there is a multiverse of competing Gods for the Big Ribbon of Ultimate Enlightenment or whatever the divine prize is. I could then see a god that was detached but concerned in a way that a tropical fish enthusiast frets over his aquarium and introduces an ultra-rare specimen to see what happens. It would make the idea of sacrifice a question of valuable data, and to an analytical mind that gives it a sense of worth.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I may not be a scientific/analytical type myself, but I can see how someone like that could do things that would seem horrendous out of a very real and passionate love for his creation. I can see it being difficult, even painful, but him doing it anyway. This kind of God is much easier to deal with, for me at least, than the abstraction that hides behind words like "omnipotent" and "omniscient."

It's always been my view that we (by which I mean intelligent beings throughout the universe) are intended to develop to the point where we can succeed the Creator and make our own universes. Suppose there's a level even above that? Suppose Gods evolve too?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Abraham was called to sacrifice his then only son to prove that he loved God more.

I'm afraid I find this very disturbing.

If person A--say, someone I loved very much--demanded I do something to hurt (not even kill, just hurt) person B, to prove I loved person A better, I would be disgusted with person A. (Just in case anyone's planning to ask me to throw rocks at my brother to prove I love you more--don't do it; I will think worse of you.)

I would think anyone would be disgusted with person A. And they seem to, mostly. Except when person A becomes a God.

I guess the sticking point is I don't see why that should make any difference. I understand that Gods are magic--it's just that, for me, magic gets no grip on right and wrong, and asking anyone to hurt one entity to prove their love for another is wrong.

Likewise, if person A came to me and said "see, I just hurt person B on purpose to prove how much I love *you*" I would be equally revolted. I am happy to love and be loved, but hurting (or in this case killing) other people or entities does not strike me as a rational or productive way of showing it.

I would think other people would feel the same way about this--and they seem to, mostly, except when person A becomes a God.

It's that exception that baffles me.

[jahura.livejournal.com]

What may be even more disturbing then is this idea, that the road to messianism ends with a suicide. Think about it. Jesus allowed himself to be put to death. Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) ate some mushroom dish he somehow knew was infected with dysentery and wouldn't allow his attendants or his host to eat it. After, he wouldn't seek any treatment for it, just made a rope hammock and waited to die. Quetzalcoaltl offered himself for sacrifice to the sun god. Zarathustra waited for the inevitable at the temple altar while all you-know-what was breaking loose outside. This ties in with the free will point that Zander was making about it earlier. Was it sacrifice or suicide?

Oh - and while I'm on a roll, I'm thinking that what was believed then isn't what is believed now for the most part...that those were primitive times and a whole different way of thinking and custom. The idea of killing or hurting someone for the attention of an unknown invisible entity much less for anyone or any tribe of people is unconscionable now, but then as far as animals it was the norm. Putting people up on the altar was kind of scary even then. Even Abraham had his moments of "God must be out of His mind", but didn't want to cross It all the same.

This is for a God that for all we know and are taught thinks of us as primitive and interesting. Do you, for example, punish your cat for bringing you a dead critter, or do you skritch it on the head, say "good kitty" and dispose of the corpse when he's not looking, afraid to offend him for rejecting his offering? Would a divine entity be proud of those who decide of their own conscience that there must be another way to show their appreciation for their life?

[batyatoon]

(This is a slight tangent about Abraham and the Binding of Isaac. I can't really speak to how this may or may not connect to the Crucifixion.)

The best take on the Binding of Isaac I've ever heard -- in terms of why God would ask Abraham to do that -- has more to do with obedience and trust than love.

Abraham's habitual inclinations were so perfectly aligned with what God wanted, on a regular basis, that there was never any way to know whether or not he would obey God's command against his own judgment. Unless God were to demand of him something that was counter to everything he personally believed about God's will and nature.

And the thing is: Abraham was right about God's will and nature. But God gave him a command that would require him to either disobey ... or decide that he was wrong, and trust God's direct word over his own beliefs.

It is also open to debate as to whether Abraham passed this test or failed it. Or, indeed, whether it was a test that could only be passed or failed.

[howeird]

The Einstein-God analogy does not work on several levels. For one, Einstein *did* try to stop the bomb from being dropped while AFAIK God never said anything to anyone about not killing Jesus. Also, God is supposed to be omnipotent, so anything He doesn't do to stop a murder is all His fault. And then there's the fact that Jesus was being killed for personally committing a crime, while the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mostly innocent civilians being punished for the crimes their Emperor was committing.

I think a major part of what drives what you're talking about is the confusion which Christianity has created by asserting that a mortal man is/was a deity. The Son of God thing is an artifact of the old Greek/Roman/Norse legends, and really has no place in a Judaic-based religion. It turns monotheism into something else.

As for the "he died for your sins" line of talk here, I think there is a human nature aspect to it. The Noble Sacrifice goes back as far as writing does. As far as oral histories do. Christianity just blows it up all out of proportion.