Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chauvinism?
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:33:59 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <fTF31xn@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.173049.20817@advtech.uswest.com> 
> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>> = (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>> Appearing, maybe, but I think Occam's Razor cuts the other way.  I'm
>>>> told that Jesus was a very unusual kind of human being, as testified
>>>> by a lot of stories about him, and therefore I try not to assume that
>>>> he shared much with the rest of mankind.
>>>The whole point of his coming was to share EVERYTHING, including death,
>>>with the rest of mankind.
>>Gee, what a generous guy.  Sounds rather macabre to me.
>>This makes no sense, Forgach.  Even if Jesus WAS a god, why should
>>anyone care that he could fake being agonizingly tortured to death?
>>Do you REALLY think an "all-powerful god" would be actually affected by
>>some bizarre human "son" being killed?  
> 
> This is the central paradox of Christianity. We are told that Jesus died
> an agonizing death on the cross for our "supposed" sins. If Jesus was a
> man or prophet, as Moslems believe, then this would certainly be a great
> deed, one worth taking notice of.

   Hmmm...I'd never thought of that before in the context of this
question, but I think that is right on the mark.  Either one or the
other, Jesus being a prophet chosen to die for our sins or a Godly
man, would make sense (in a religious context that is, not a rational
one); but both together simply do not make sense even with allowances
made for existance of miracles.

   On the other hand, having only one or the other probably wouldn't 
be enough to start a new religion; after all, you don't see many 
followers of Elijah around today.

> But, Christianity goes to great
> lengths to try to prove that Jesus was a God or Son of God, thus
> confusing monotheism with duotheism or tritheism and negating the "deed"
> of dying for our sins.

   Of course, this introduces the other contradiction of maintaining
monotheism with three gods.

> How can a God or Son of God die, let alone die an
> agonizing death? Was this all a cheap stunt to try to gain converts? Did
> Paul make this stuff up to generate a good story?

   Possibly.  Paul wasn't known for keeping faithful to what Jesus
actually said (or at least was reputed to say).

> Apparently the only
> answer is that Jesus was sometimes a man, when that was convenient and
> sometimes a God when that was convenient and sometimes a Son of God when
> that was convenient. Few Christians care to discuss this problem because
> there is no valid solution. The solution lies in assuming the Bible to
> be mythical and thus the myth of Jesus is seen in a metaphorical light.

   Yes, but even myths and metaphors are usually internally consistent.
When you change things around (God, the Son of God, then man) it messes
up the whole story and it loses its strength.

> Metaphorically, what is going on is that man is wrestling with the
> notion of God and man being one and the same. The paradoxes inherint in
> such a theory are difficult to solve.

   I think this might be stretching it a bit far.  I don't see 
anything indicating a struggle with the notions of a God/man;
in the story people have trouble accepting the concept but with
a few miracles they endorse it wholeheartedly.  I don't see how
you can translate the metaphorical meaning of that into one of
struggling with paradoxes when those paradoxes aren't even 
addressed in the original story.

> Paleolithic humans saw animal
> gods, because animals were seen as more powerfull. Neolithic humans
> began to see female goddesses because as humans began to take control of
> nature, to domesticate nature, women were seen as closer to the gods.
> Then the patriarchal gods assume control, as can be seen in Genesis. Eve
> is born FROM Adam, thus reversing reality and man asserts his right to a
> male God, but the Lord of the Hebrew scriptures is distant and brooding.
> He doesn't even have a name, He says, "I am that I am", thus remaining
> transcendent of the human being. Then we read of Jesus, who presumably
> IS GOD, with a human name and a human (male) form. And now we have a
> delicate situation, one we are still uncomfortable with today. Are we
> God? Are we in charge? Are we all there is? Is there no greater being
> than us? When we insult God, do we insult ourselves? When we insult
> ourselves, do we insult God?

   Well, this is starting to come around to the "God is existence"
stuff and redefining God.  I think I'll leave that to the philosophers
(read - bullshit artists).

> God created man in His image, man and woman He created thus, and ...
> will we return the favor?

   I think we already did :-)

Karl
------
"By the cold and religious we were taken in hand,
 Shown how to feel good, and told to feel bad."