RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] The Passion

["Ross, Matthew" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> 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?

It takes a great strength of will to survive it as long as he did. Were it me, I think I'd have found a way to commit suicide long before it got to the cross.

Also, as Stephen mentioned, he had the power to call legions of angels, heal his own wounds, get down off the cross, etc.  He chose not to.

> 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.

Could be that he did or could have turned up his pain tolerance. I doubt it, but to me it wouldn't really matter if he did. He took on the life of a human and allowed himself to be killed and tortured -for our salvation-. The fact that he bothered is enough for me.

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

Again, if it was, so what? The God who created all things and whom I owe everything -bothered- to make a sacrifice for my sins. I'm more than satisfied.

> 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.

The problem with Pascal's wager (and why I put the sarcastic smiley) is that you're obviously not a believer if you're just taking it from the perspective of "which has the better fire insurance policy". I don't think you can get in without faith, but if you don't question your faith, you can too easily be lead astray. I believe on faith, but not on blind faith. It is mentioned in the epistles that you have to realize for yourself what is right and what is wrong. The in-context examples included weather it was right to marry, or weather it was right to eat food that had been offered as sacrifice to pagan idols.

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