Jesus Christ, how lame is that?

[Insp. Clue!So?]

It is (bizzarely) claimed that the god-man Jesus had to die on a cross in order to fulfill certain requirements from the uber-god. The chosen method, hanging upon a cross, is described as an unspeakable horror to endure and there can be no doubting it would be a terrible trial for any human.

But it's hardly the worst possible fate even the your average everyday torturer might dream up. I'd say it's pretty middlin' as far as awful fates go. There's nothing in the crucifiction story that me and Dick Cheney couldn't outdo in about 15 minutes over a few beers. I am informed that the Romans, for example, had a method of capital punishment which involved putting the offender in a sack together with a snake, a monkey, a dog and perhaps a few insects, and then throwing the whole party into a river. No doubt others more expert in torture could elaborate on still nastier historical solutions. But clearly, mere crucifiction is only a "5" on the cruel-o-meter.

So this man-god, having full knowledge that this suffering was temporary anyway, did not in fact endure the ultimate in human suffering, just something that was sorta bad.

Well, that's not very impressive.

Though it is very...mysterious.

But only if your dogmas demand...it fits much better with the idea that it was all a non-event like other such religious stories, myth-based and/or spun to meet the needs of the believers and/or the powers that be.

[Lestat]

But crucifixion was a common form of punishment in those days. So why wouldn't it stand to reason that Jesus suffered this form of persecution?

I guess I'm not sure what your point is.

[Silent A]

OP seems to be suggesting that a key componet of the story is that Jesus suffer more than any human in history. I know some lazy Christians make claims like this, and it should be obvious that people have suffered far more than anything described in the NT, but I don't think this is a theologically important issue. For most Christains the idea that he suffered a lot more than the vast majority of people is more than enough.

Also, IMHO, crucifixion is quite a bit worse than "a 5 on the cruel-o-meter", and not just "sorta bad".

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
OP seems to be suggesting that a key componet of the story is that Jesus suffer more than any human in history. I know some lazy Christians make claims like this, and it should be obvious that people have suffered far more than anything described in the NT, but I don't think this is a theologically important issue. For most Christains the idea that he suffered a lot more than the vast majority of people is more than enough.

Also, IMHO, crucifixion is quite a bit worse than "a 5 on the cruel-o-meter", and not just "sorta bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

Compare it with how Caesar broke the Gallic resistance at the Battle of Alesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia) and you see where the valuation comes from.

On a scale of Roman brutality, individual crucifixion rates lower. But not by much, once you consider the desert heat and the lack of hydration.

Jesus of Nazareth suffered no more or no less than countless criminals as decided by the Empire. His sacrifice was a symbolic one. That does not devalue the significance of the message any.

We are a brutal species, and I would like to think we have softened a little since then. I'm not sure though.

[PairTheBoard]

There is Christian theology - not uniformly accepted - that the suffering of divinity in Jesus on the cross provides spriritual proof that divinity does not just observe human suffering but actually participates in it. It's the Suffering God theology whereby when we suffer, God suffers the same experience as us.

It addresses Midge's most serious and profound complaint about the existence of suffering. It's not one that satisfies Midge and it also opens up attacks on God as being masochistic. Nevertheless I find it far superior to a view of God as an observing Judge who can't have any idea what it's really like to be a human being because he's never experienced being one.

PairTheBoard

[Justin A]

Two things. As others have said it's only lazy Christians who claim he suffered more than any human.

Secondly, I think you're underestimating how much pain he went through if the story is true. Watch the Passion of the Christ and you'll see what I mean.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're underestimating how much pain he went through if the story is true. Watch the Passion of the Christ and you'll see what I mean.

[/ QUOTE ]
crucifiction's a doddle. Watch the Life of Brian and you'll see what I mean.

SMP suicide squad - attention!

chez

[Ben K]

Surely no-one makes the comment that god doesn't know what it's like to be human? Do these people not know the meaning of omniscience? (I fear I may have mis-spelt that!)

[Ben K]

Yeah but he wasn't the messiah, well according to his mum at least.

Jesus had been sent to suffer a crucixion so they probably had a special one for him.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
crucifiction's a doddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least it gets you out in the open air.

[Ben K]

And everyone knows where you are to come say goodbye. I hate it when people just leave.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus had been sent to suffer a crucixion so they probably had a special one for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, the NT account suggests he got off easy.

After all, getting stabbed is a quick death. Takes a second.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
And everyone knows where you are to come say goodbye. I hate it when people just leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've lost me.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're underestimating how much pain he went through if the story is true. Watch the Passion of the Christ and you'll see what I mean.

[/ QUOTE ]
crucifiction's a doddle. Watch the Life of Brian and you'll see what I mean.

SMP suicide squad - attention!

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol fair enough. Don't watch the movie but crucifixion is a pretty horrible way to die still. It's definitely many hours of agony.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely no-one makes the comment that god doesn't know what it's like to be human? Do these people not know the meaning of omniscience? (I fear I may have mis-spelt that!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. But there seems to be something going on with this that is not so obvious to everybody. The theology of a suffering God is rejected by a lot of people. They realize God "knows" everything. So if a man is being tortured God "knows" that man's suffering. But does God suffer in that knowing himself? Does God actually suffer? How can God "know" suffering without actually suffering?

The notion that he actually "suffers" himself is a theology a lot of people reject. Why do they reject it? I think it's because there at least appears to them to be some kind of difference between God "knowing" the suffering and God actually Doing the Suffering. Whether or not there actually is a difference is not as important in my view as how people perceive it. If they perceive it as different then it might be helpful to them to be allowed to believe that God actually does the suffering. I see Divinity suffering on the cross as a way for them to come to that belief.

PairTheBoard

[Ben K]

I think this is another of the tautologies about god, and another reason for doubting the validity of the whole thing.

The question "does god suffer?" is pretty unanswerable. Partly because we can't even settle the issue of there being a being that could suffer, and partly because, if there was, we don't have any way of gaining a verifiable response from it/him/she.

2,000 years of theology has done a very good job of identifying all the parts people find unsatisfactory and providing some explanation. The very fact that a lot of these explanations are fundamentally answers to yes/no type questions undermines any reasoned approach to christianity as a whole. Each seems to be a dodge (if it helps to believe god suffers, you go for it) and more likely the answer of someone making it up than the answer of someone who knows.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The question "does god suffer?" is pretty unanswerable. Partly because we can't even settle the issue of there being a being that could suffer, and partly because, if there was, we don't have any way of gaining a verifiable response from it/him/she.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course from the point of view of an Atheist or even Agnostic this is like an Angels dancing on the head of a pin question. But to a Christian, your observation, "The question "does god suffer?" is pretty unanswerable", does have a possible answer in his view of the Cross. That's the point I'm making. The Christian believes Jesus is divine. He believes Jesus suffered on the cross. It's reasonable from a spiritual perspective for him to interpret that as divinity, or God, suffering on the cross. So with that perspective, Christianity provides a view of God actually suffering.

As far as your comments on theology not being able to give us yes/no type descriptions, I invite you to read a copy of a post I made on another thread provided below. In summary it makes the case that anything we say about God necessarily is limited and therefore can only act as pointers to the beyond. By the nature of the statements they cannot work like our everyday yes/no, accurate/inaccurate, correct/incorrect constructs. We cannot construct God with our language.

Something that goes along with this is the misunderstanding of the word "Faith". People think it is something that allows us to believe yes/no, accurate/inaccurate, correct/incorrect constructs that we could not ordinarily believe. That's not how Faith is working either. Faith is more like an "Attitude" towards the Spiritual, or God if you will. These theologies act as pointers for an Attitude toward God which people experience with a resonance of validity.


-------------------------
In my "God" debate with Andy Fox on SMP about 2 years ago - sponsered by David Sklansky with charitable contributions to medical research - I made it a point to demure from any imposition of terms like "entity" or "being". I imagine people thought I was being an evasive nit with that position. It's for exactly reasons like the OP that I take that stand. Those words immediately put God in a Box. Once you do that you can't help but ask about what's outside the Box.

Of course anything we say about God really amounts to putting him in a Box. That's why I avoid terms like "All Knowing" or "All Powerful". Whatever "Knowing" God is about is a kind of "Knowing" which our understanding of the word does not capture. If it did capture it, God would be captured in that Box of our understanding of the word. Same with Power.

The least restrictive term I've been able to come up with is, "Source of Existence". That seems to me a simple answer for our ultimate question, "Why not Nothing?". But even that can Box God in. A lot of mystical writing amounts to mystical expansion after mystical expansion of God Boxes. This is why I say that Religious interpretations should not be treated as "correct" or "incorrect", "accurate" or "inaccurate". They are automatically limited by virtue of our speaking them. The best they can do is act as pointers to something beyond them. However, this does not mean we cannot use Personification as a pointer and an aid for our relationship experience with the divine.
------------------------------



PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

You couldn't be more wrong that having the flesh torn from your body and being nailed to a cross in the middle of a desert is sorta bad.

But as has been picked up already, you're missing the point. The reason why Jesus Christ's suffering is so powerful in the mind of the believer is that this was the 'darling of heaven' as in the most beautiful thing in all creation.

I suppose if your child was to be put through the same torture you may object a little more than if it were just sorta bad.

[godBoy]

Midge has never said one thing profound.

[Prodigy54321]

I like the one where they put a pot on a person stomach, put some type rats or something inside..then heat the pot to make them burrow into your stomach

but I don't think a silver chain with that image of Jesus on it would be very popular /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Lestat]

Thanks A. I wasn't aware of any biblical implication that Jesus suffered more than anyone else in history. If so, that I guess there is a point. Still...

You've have to be a blithering idiot to think what Jesus went through does not fall under the catagory of extreme suffering.

[Lestat]

Thanks for the link. I found it real interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus of Nazareth suffered no more or no less than countless criminals as decided by the Empire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't Jesus' suffering different than most criminals in that it was magnified by the crown of thorns and being nailed to the cross (instead of just being hung)?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the link. I found it real interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome.

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus of Nazareth suffered no more or no less than countless criminals as decided by the Empire.


[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't Jesus' suffering different than most criminals in that it was magnified by the crown of thorns and being nailed to the cross (instead of just being hung)?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps so, certainly initially. People have tolerances, and when these tolerances are exceeded, awareness is diminished. I don't know enough about physiology to make a definitive statement on whether it is better to endure a higher degree of pain over a shorter amount of time or not. He may have hit that point faster.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Midge has never said one thing profound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. I guess it's cool to attack Midge in a thread he didn't even post in. Nice going Godboy.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Midge has never said one thing profound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. I guess it's cool to attack Midge in a thread he didn't even post in. Nice going Godboy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may not have been his intent. Besides, I disagree. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
crucifiction's a doddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least it gets you out in the open air.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when done on a hill you get a view, and a rest just hanging about which is nice, especially after having to tote up a "cross".

Jesus Christ, as presented in the canonical Gospels, almost certainly did not even exist. So the Crucifixion is most probably a myth. The life of Jesus is also probably half made up and/or an amalgamation of different personages, that lived and roamed about the dusty old environs of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Indeed, even talking about this supposed crucifixion and the even more laughable resurrection borders on the silly. Almost better to discuss bent coins.

-Zeno

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ, as presented in the canonical Gospels, almost certainly did not even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your a nitwit.
Who did you hear that from?, and who did they hear it from?

This is ridiculous statement of fact.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ, as presented in the canonical Gospels, almost certainly did not even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your a nitwit.
Who did you hear that from?, and who did they hear it from?

This is ridiculous statement of fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Strange that all these supposedly miracles and resurrection are not reported by any other historians of the era, whereas Pontius Pilates and others are, albeit slightly different than in the gospels [don't trust them!]! Ah well, different horses for different courses!

[Nielsio]

OP,

It seems that you are conflating a mythology with history. Is there a reason to do so?

For example: when I see a movie, I try to look for metaphorical concepts. I don't assume that I am looking at historical fact. I'm also a bit baffled on what the meaning of such would be?

[Ben K]

Thanks for the detailed response. I did figure after that my post was betraying a blind spot towards how believers would perceive the issue. It's a blind spot I do try to illuminate when making these posts, usually... It does no good merely to state my point and ignores the perceptions of others.

I understand your post about not wanting to describe god in any firm terms because those terms neccessarily impose a restriction. However, I would suggest that the 'boxing in' of god via descriptions meaningful to us in our language is vital if we are to gain any meaning from a relationship with god.

The definition of a religion includes that statement that religions have defined dogmas. [Sidepoint - hence atheism ain't a religion.] In order to have a religion, god needs to have some characteristics which are limited.

In other words, if we were to use descriptions of god to give us an attitude towards god and faith rather than answers to yes/no, accurate/inaccurate constructs then we could not develop the domgas required to sustain and grow a religion.

I guess I'm hitting at the last sentence of your quote of your earlier post with this.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, if we were to use descriptions of god to give us an attitude towards god and faith rather than answers to yes/no, accurate/inaccurate constructs then we could not develop the domgas required to sustain and grow a religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

From a Meta-Perspective we can look at Religions and see that is exactly what they are doing. And in doing so the Religions do work. If you look closely at some of the statements of the Vatican you will see them saying something very similiar. They admit that the language we use amounts to metaphors and analogies. That some religious people don't see this doesn't mean that we shouldn't. And if we do see it, it makes a big difference in how we judge religions. It is no longer so suprising that they have so much variety.

They are all using different pointers toward the Divine. They are all forming different relationships to it. They are all forming different flavors of attitude toward it. We no longer make the mistake of criticizing them for something that is not going on. You can criticize them on other grounds that are legitimate, but you must come to see these criticisms based on the variety of beliefs in "accurate/inaccurate" Boxes for God that can't all be "accurate/inaccurate" is an unfair one.

PairTheBoard

[Ben K]

Ok. I see what you're saying and I see why this could produce the variety in religons.

However, I think the criticisms of the variety are still valid because we only get to act our lives once. When it comes to humans making decisions by exercising their free will, an attitude doesn't mean very much because it is yours but your actions are very meaningful because they involve other people. In order to have any sense of morality, one needs to judge how one's actions will affect other people. I.e. by having lots of attitudes which can give inconsistent actions as responses, there is no way for any religion to call themselves moral because their action is a result of an individuals attitude rather than a consideration of how this action will affect other people.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. I see what you're saying and I see why this could produce the variety in religons.

However, I think the criticisms of the variety are still valid because we only get to act our lives once. When it comes to humans making decisions by exercising their free will, an attitude doesn't mean very much because it is yours but your actions are very meaningful because they involve other people. In order to have any sense of morality, one needs to judge how one's actions will affect other people. I.e. by having lots of attitudes which can give inconsistent actions as responses, there is no way for any religion to call themselves moral because their action is a result of an individuals attitude rather than a consideration of how this action will affect other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the kind of legitimate criticism I was talking about. Just because a particular Religion views its morality as authoritative doesn't mean we have to. And we certainly don't have to let that Religion dictate to us the kind of morality that gets encoded into our secular laws.

PairTheBoard