Arising from the aforegoing
Apr. 29th, 2010 11:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerQuote 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
Date: 2010-05-02 01:19 am (UTC)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.