RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] The Passion

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Ross, Matthew wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
> > But just for 12 hours, right?  I know this is a religious thing and I
> > can't expect dispassionate discussion, but wouldn't a lot of people
> > suffer very terribly for 12 hours in order to open the gates of heaven
> > to all humanity and to take their place at the right hand of God in an
> > eternal paradise?  I think so.  There was a lot at stake.
>
> Do you think you really could go through with it with the scourging and
> the pain of crucifixion?

Sure.  I think most men could go through something like that in order to,
for example, save their families from being tortured and murdered.
Saving humanity should be an even greater value, but you'd have to really
believe it was going to work!  Also, I don't think he had a lot of choice
once things got going.  Was he allowed to stop at any time and say "OK, I
give up, let's call it quits."?  I don't think so.  This wasn't Fear
Factor!  Since he wasn't allowed to stop, how impressive was his
persistence?


> Besides, the whole issue was that he, being the Son of God, is the only
> sufficient sacrifice for all our sins.

Right, but he did have some magical powers, didn't he?  I mean, he could
turn water into wine, etc., so maybe he could turn his pain tolerance up a
notch.  In fact, I know it isn't the usual Christian belief, but maybe it
was *easy* for someone with his extraordinary powers to be beaten and
crucified.  After all, he didn't seem to have a strong negative emotional
reaction.  This is often attributed to strength of will, but maybe he just
didn't find it to be that great of a challenge.


> > Supposedly, Jesus was part man, part God, so didn't that give him an
> > advantage and make his achievement a little less impressive?  I mean,
> > kinda like a weightlifting champion on steroids.  I don't know though
> > -- maybe being half God makes it harder to tolerate torture.
>
> It wasn't so much an achievement, but a sacrifice made for us.

I'm just suggesting that it might have been easy for a half-God kinda guy
to pull it off.


> > These aren't the kinds of questions you'll hear in Sunday school!
>
> Questioning your faith is healthy. If you're not doing that, you could
> wind up like Koresh's followers.

Thanks.  That is encouraging and I mean it.


> > I'm hoping he'll forgive me for not believing this story, if I'm
> > wrong. Maybe God and Jesus will congratulate me as one of the few
> > people who stood up to social pressure and asked probing questions.
>
> I'm having trouble finding the scripture that says asking probing
> questions gets you into the kingdom of heaven. I can't remember whose
> "gamble" this was, but it's something to consider. If you're right, what
> do you gain? If you're wrong, what do you lose? ;-)

Pascal's wager.  It is just the opposite of what I'm proposing.  Pascal
said that if you don't believe in God, you risk eternal damnation, but if
you believe, there is no great cost in that.  I suggest that Pascal had no
idea how much cost there could be.  What if there is a God and he doesn't
like people 'believing' because they think it will be profitable?  Maybe
He prefers an honest skeptic to a credulous believer.

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion