avevale_intelligencer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2010-04-29 11:21 pm
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2010-04-29 11:21 pm
Arising from the aforegoing
Quote from a comment to the previous post, by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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?