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
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
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.