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
? 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.
no subject
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.
no subject
Never mind.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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."