slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (09/15/86)
>> Christ's sacrafice wasn't His life-- it was going through the pain of >> death. And crucifixion is a *very* painful death indeed. Big hairy deal. How many millions of people have died? Everyone who isn't still living--that's how many. And how painful were those deaths? Well think of someone dying of lung cancer--unable to draw a painless breath for *months*. Read an account of some of the tortures your religion practiced during the Inquisition. And you think your god is so great to go through one moderately quick, simple death? Once again, big hairy deal. -- Sue Brezden (HASA member) ihnp4!drutx!slb 1C33, x83829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. You're invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal. -Bob Dylan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hydar@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Hydar) (09/17/86)
In article <221@dione.rice.EDU> scorpion@titan.UUCP (Vernon Lee) writes: >>>> What's the big deal about "dying" to prove your love when you know you can >>>> come back from the grave at will? >>> Christ's sacrafice wasn't His life-- it was going through the pain of >>> death. And crucifixion is a *very* painful death indeed. >>For human beings. Trivial for an omnipotent God. >> Scott McEwan Trivial if and only if He MAKES it trivial for Himself. (I am assuming that you are not taking the crucifiction as being some elaborate hoax put on by the Supreme Being -- if this is the case, it's just a matter of "faith" for you and there's no point in going back and forth on this ... ) In fact, I think it's pretty obvious that it would be MORE difficult to endure that kind of suffering if you are used to NO suffering at all. (Not to mention reducing yourself from an infinite being to an extremely finite human being..) >If God is omnipotent, why should ANYTHING be difficult >for him? Omnipotent people can do ANYTHING, just A N Y T H I N G! ... including experiencing human pain and weakness first hand? >People who claim God (god, Gods, gods, whatever) is incomprehensibly >big and huge and powerful who also claim he thinks or suffers or shares >any human weaknesses whatsoever are making two contradictory assumptions. > scorpion This seemingly contradicts your first statement -- given that God is omnipotent, He must therefore be able to take on human limitations if He were to so chose. Your statement ONLY makes sense if you assume that the Diety in question would not CHOSE to do so. |Dan| "Just browsing in the K-mart of ideas"
dhk@ptsfa.UUCP (David Krause) (09/17/86)
In article <32500078@uiucdcsb>, mcewan@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > >>>What's the big deal about "dying" to prove your love when you know you can > >>>come back from the grave at will? [ Lines deleted in interest of space ] > > I have a colleague who had two root canal jobs performed with no anesthesia > > (Suffice it to say that they were done in a communist bloc country and he is > > a member of an ethnic minority which is not favored.) He was not killed; the > > bruises have healed on his body and limbs (where he strained against the straps > > holding him so that he couldn't run from the pain. > > > > The procedure was, overall, a good thing. So what would be the big deal of > > going through with it? > That isn't a good analogy, since the person you're responding to isn't (I > assume) a god. A better analogy is "would you be willing to spend 1/100th > of a second as an ant experiencing something that is very painful to the > ant?" This still isn't a perfect analogy, since the 1/100 second is a much > longer period (compared to total span of existence) than Jesus' time on > the cross, and the difference between human and ant is much less than that > between human and God, but you get the idea. > > Scott McEwan > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan > Scott, If span of existence is inversely related to sensitivity to pain, then my dentist should able to predict how long people are going to live by how much drilling they can take before they shout for the novocaine! Here's another analogy for you to consider. My wife's delivery of our youngest son was (like her earlier child deliveries) was one of the most excruciatingly painful experiences of her life. Yet, when I was accompanying her out of the delivery room afterwards, she remarked that the whole experience suddenly seemed like something in the distant past. She forgot her recent anguish in the joy that a little boy was brought into the world. Likewise, the Biblical record (in Hebrews 12:2) is that Jesus "endured the cross, despising the shame", "for the joy that was set before him"-- the joy of redeeming from the slave-markets of sin the likes of you and me. David
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (09/18/86)
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) says: >>> Christ's sacrafice wasn't His life-- it was going through the pain of >>> death. And crucifixion is a *very* painful death indeed. > >Big hairy deal. > >How many millions of people have died? Everyone who isn't still >living--that's how many. > >And how painful were those deaths? Well think of someone dying >of lung cancer--unable to draw a painless breath for *months*. >Read an account of some of the tortures your religion practiced >during the Inquisition. > >And you think your god is so great to go through one moderately >quick, simple death? > >Once again, big hairy deal. Yes, big hairy deal, Sue. The way I see it the real pain involved here, the real sacrifice, was Jesus Christ taking upon himself the sins of the world. That means yours, mine, and every other human being who ever walked the face of this earth. That is a heck of a lot of pain, agony and torment. I have enough trouble just trying to face up to what I consider my ``sins'' to be. I would hate to be faced with the guilt of a Hitler coupled with Manson, Jack the Ripper, and the vast number of other beastly types there have been over the centuries. He suffered all the torments associated with those kinds of sins as well as all the others, so much so that in the Garden of Gethsemane he was sweating blood. Big Hairy Deal, Sue. -- _______________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- without a Terry Grevstad ECNALG Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry _______________________________________________________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
waynec@tekcrl.UUCP (Wayne Cook) (09/18/86)
In article <1795@ihlpa.UUCP> nikbek@ihlpa.UUCP (Moseley) writes: >> >>What's the big deal about "dying" to prove your love when you know you can >> >>come back from the grave at will? >> > Getting nailed to a large block of wood is FUN? (I'd be curious >> > how you spend your weekends ...) >> >> "Yeah, that's it. An' you get... uh..." >> "Some six-penny nails?" >> "Yeah! An' you drive the nails right through your palms... > >I recall some studies which indicate that nails through the palms of >a person's hands will not support the person's weight. The nails >were actually driven through the wrists, which will support a person's >weight. I also believe that posts were actually used. I'm not sure where >the idea of a cross came from. > R. C. Moseley This is an interesting discussion about the pain of crucifiction. The people who feel that there are other people who have suffered about as much physical pain as hanging on a cross are probably right. The main suffering and taking on the sins of the world was done in the Garden of Gethsemane. There Jesus bled from every pore because of the pain (and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down on the ground - Luke 22:44). No other human or animal has been able to survive the pain that causes blood to come from every pore. He did. I am sure the crucifiction was not easy, and it was an important part of the overall plan, but it was probably not the most painful.
gibson@trwrb.UUCP (Gregory S. Gibson) (09/19/86)
>>>> Christ's sacrafice wasn't His life-- it was going through the pain of >>>> death. And crucifixion is a *very* painful death indeed. >> > >The way I see it the real pain involved here, the real sacrifice, was >Jesus Christ taking upon himself the sins of the world. That means >yours, mine, and every other human being who ever walked the face of Not true. Jesus Christ died on the cross because he didn't have the power to prevent the Romans from crucifing him. This "sacrafice" ideal was created to "cover" up his dishonable death. The "resurrection" theory is part of the same "cover" up. Of course, I don't expect you to believe me. Sacrifice to open the "Gates of Heaven" or for the sins of others makes little sense. Every individual must answer for his/hers own sins. I can not answer for my brother's sins. Why would God NEED/require such a sacrifice? Greg
griffith@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Cutter John) (09/21/86)
In article <1024@tekcrl.UUCP> waynec@tekcrl.UUCP (Wayne Cook) writes: >This is an interesting discussion about the pain of crucifiction. The people . . . . etc. It sure is interesting, but does it belong in net.jokes? Jim Griffith griffith@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/21/86)
In article <711@nrcvax.UUCP> terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) writes: > The way I see it the real pain involved here, the real sacrifice, was > Jesus Christ taking upon himself the sins of the world... Oh Yea!? Well, Whoopy Franquezi (note the Asolipidarian spelling), the one true son of Ubizmo, took on the sins of the entire universe, not just the pre-ChristianEra sins of our solitary planet. So there! > He suffered all the > torments associated with those kinds of sins as well as all the > others, so much so that in the Garden of Gethsemane he was sweating > blood. The beloved Whoopy suffered even worse, because he sweated feces! If you think it's rough sweating blood, which at least FLOWS through pores, imagine the torments of porous constipation! Still, Whoopie casually deprecated his own suffering (Book of Toadying, Chapter VI, verse 8.3) with a comment to the effect of "I've had worse hangovers: [expletive], that's what being god is good for." Now, isn't he a great guy!? Bow down your head(s) in worship! -- A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
showard@udenva.UUCP (Steve "Blore" Howard) (09/22/86)
Please keep this religious bullhonk out of net.jokes.
--
"The king is gone but he's not forgotten.
This is the story of Johnny Rotten."
Steve "Blore" Howard, a Fun Guy from Yuggoth
{hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard
or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showardvizard@dartvax.UUCP (Todd Krein) (09/22/86)
> In article <1795@ihlpa.UUCP> nikbek@ihlpa.UUCP (Moseley) writes: > >> >>What's the big deal about "dying" to prove your love when you know you can > >> >>come back from the grave at will? > >> > Getting nailed to a large block of wood is FUN? (I'd be curious > >> > how you spend your weekends ...) > >> > >> "Yeah, that's it. An' you get... uh..." > >> "Some six-penny nails?" > >> "Yeah! An' you drive the nails right through your palms... > > > >I recall some studies which indicate that nails through the palms of > >a person's hands will not support the person's weight. The nails > >were actually driven through the wrists, which will support a person's > >weight. I also believe that posts were actually used. I'm not sure where > >the idea of a cross came from. > > R. C. Moseley In the original language (greek?) the word use to describe the area where the nails were drivin in constitues the middle fore-arm to the palm. It was mistranslated somewhere... > This is an interesting discussion about the pain of crucifiction. The people > who feel that there are other people who have suffered about as much physical > pain as hanging on a cross are probably right. The main suffering and taking > on the sins of the world was done in the Garden of Gethsemane. There Jesus > bled from every pore because of the pain (and his sweat was as it were great > drops of blood falling down on the ground - Luke 22:44). No other human or > animal has been able to survive the pain that causes blood to come from every > pore. Not true... It's an uncommon but not necessarily dangerous thing.. (As I recall, it's blood passing into the sweat glads through the capillary walls..) > He did. I am sure the crucifiction was not easy, and it was an important > part of the overall plan, but it was probably not the most painful. Somehow, the idea of asphyxiating for 10-12 hours, slowly, sounds REALLY painfull, esp. given that his only respite was to put all his weight on the nail in his foot to releave tension on his diaphram. Todd Krein vizard@dartvax
dhk@ptsfa.UUCP (David Krause) (09/24/86)
In article <5171@dartvax.UUCP>, vizard@dartvax.UUCP (Todd Krein) writes: > > In article <1795@ihlpa.UUCP> nikbek@ihlpa.UUCP (Moseley) writes: > > >> >>What's the big deal about "dying" to prove your love when . . . > Somehow, the idea of asphyxiating for 10-12 hours, slowly, sounds ... > Todd Krein > vizard@dartvax To regular readers of net.jokes from a talk.origins denizen, my apologies for the above posting from our newsgroup. To those in talk.origins and talk.religion.misc who are continuing to cross-post this topic to net.jokes (even after their repeated requests to quit doing it): *** PLEASE SHOW SOME NET ETIQUETTE AND STOP CROSS-POSTING TO NET JOKES! *** David Krause
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (09/24/86)
In article <1309@trwrb.UUCP> gibson@trwrb.UUCP (Gregory S. Gibson) writes: > >Not true. Jesus Christ died on the cross because he didn't have the power >to prevent the Romans from crucifing him. This "sacrafice" ideal was >created to "cover" up his dishonable death. The "resurrection" theory is >part of the same "cover" up. > >Of course, I don't expect you to believe me. Sacrifice to open the "Gates >of Heaven" or for the sins of others makes little sense. Every individual >must answer for his/hers own sins. I can not answer for my brother's sins. >Why would God NEED/require such a sacrifice? > I think Greg meant this to be a contradiction of Christian beliefs. However, I don't think it has to be, because "vicarious atonement" (the technical name for the doctrine Greg is denouncing) is, indeed, rather odd, and not something all Christians wish to believe in. It seems to me to make more sense -- and to be entirely compatible with what *I* consider Christian belief -- to say that Jesus died on the cross because that was the only death that was compatible with his life, human nature being what it is. You show up among Romans, Jews, Americans, Canadians and other such imperfect beings, and you lead a simple, moral and unselfish life, and you can be absolutely sure you'll end up lynched. He didn't have the power to prevent it, says Greg. No, and he didn't have the wish to do so either. Suffering seems to be logically necessary as part of a good life, and that's how Jesus conducted himself as a model for the rest of us -- none of whom have been able to lead up to it so far, although a few have come close.