what is finite pain to an infinite being? - The Passion of the Christ (2004) Discussion

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

yupppp.

or why did god have to send himself, to sacrifice to himself, to act as a loophole to get around something he created

you didn't miss anything. Christianity, like most religions are incredibly dumb

reply

[–] MadCy12 (15) a year ago

"I don't understand something and have no intention to even learn about it, so it has to be dumb."

This is a textbook strawman you're presenting.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) a year ago

This is a textbook strawman you're presenting

I don't know what textbook YOU're reading, but that's not what "strawman" means. Fortunately for you, I'm an educator by instinct if not trade and am very happy to enlighten you.

A "straw man" is an opposing position that's mischaracterized to make it easier to argue against.

There's no mischaracterization here. Every version of this myth is the same: Jesus "rises on the third day."

Back in the old days, they used to call that a "Blockbuster weekend," because Jesus could've rented a video Friday and returned it on Sunday without accruing late charges.

Nope, no "straw man" here. Just a completely accurate and fair description of a clear contradiction: Jesus "sacrifices his life" yet also "rises on the third day."

reply

[–] Hydracubus (662) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) 2 years ago

Growing up, the whole thing with Jesus's sacrifice seemed like they were trying to guilt-trip me. "Jesus died for your sins so you could be forgiven." That never made sense to me. "Couldn't God just forgive me anyway, without killing anyone?" I never got an answer to that.

Also, in essence, Jesus went to heaven for our sins. But Judas went to hell for our sins, or so the NT implies. Whose was the greater sacrifice?

reply

[–] Hydracubus (662) a year ago

Yeah but Judas was just in it for the money. Jesus was in it to rescue the people. It's kinda like Die Hard. Judas was like the Harry Ellis guy who sold the hero out to Hans Gruber (satan). Jesus was the John McClain style hero who got Himself cut up and shot at to save the hostages.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) a year ago

Judas was Jesus's star disciple. And he hanged himself out of remorse, after having thrown the money back to the priests.

reply

[–] Hydracubus (662) a year ago

Peter was the star guy. Judas was the double crosser.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1451) a year ago

Your reply has no relevance to what I wrote. Sure, Jesus was the "star guy", but Judas was his star disciple.

reply

[–] Hydracubus (662) a year ago

Your reply had no relevance to what I originally responded or what your original post was. And that's not what I said.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6323) 2 years ago

All correct.
But let's see it the realistic way.
A very intelligent, generous man shares his innovative message of love with the people he meets.
He is then brutally tortured and murdered by a conspiracy of betrayers, false accusators and sadists, only because he was charismatic and kept his convinction in this message of love.
How is that for "suffering injustice"?

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 2 years ago

Such "injustice" pales next to spending infinity ruling the universe

If I knew I would rise again on the third day and go on to rule the universe ... I'd suffer that injustice in a heartbeat

I'd suffer it twice. Three times, even.

It's the "infinity" part that christians seem unable to grasp

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6323) 2 years ago

I think you missed my second line.
Realistically, the infinite afterlife is an unknown.

Jesus DID spread his message in the real world, and at that point that is what he got for it, a brutal punishment that will ultimately kill him.
Even if he believed in God and in his own place in the universe, he still was, at that moment, a man, suffering incredible torments, only because he said "love your neighbour".

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 2 years ago

It wasn't an unknown, if you believe the Bible, wherein Jesus foretold his own resurrection

As you say, it was only a "moment [your own choice of words, no less]" preceding a known resurrection and return to heaven

Realistically, infinity > moment

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6323) 2 years ago

Realistically, a REAL moment you are deep involved in> possible future of happiness.

You sound like a mommy telling her son before he undergoes a dentist operation "think about Santa Claus". Try it, see if that works.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 2 years ago

So you're saying heaven and god and Jesus are like Santa Claus?

Or that Jesus, a supposedly infinite being (ask any Christian), is like a child going to the dentist?

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6323) 2 years ago

No, I am saying that YOU sound like that.
Can you read?

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 2 years ago

Indeed I can read, thank you very much.

I enjoyed reading the part where you liken Jesus to a child going to the dentist.

I particularly enjoyed reading your replacement of “eternity in heaven” with “Santa Claus.” It’s a comparison I’ve made myself on many occasions.

Whether you attribute those comparisons to me or to some hypothetical mommy is of far less import than the fact that you made those comparisons at all.

True, you were making those comparisons in the hopes of mocking me, but it's nonetheless fascinating that you came up with them, not I.

We agree much more than you’d like to admit

reply

[–] seagal72 (1831) 2 years ago

Because he was God made flesh.....his flesh had to suffer.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 2 years ago

You're answering the question: "why dd he do it?"

My question is, "why does it matter?"

As in: why is finite suffering considered a "sacrifice" when the reward was infinite power thereafter?

It'd be like Bill Gates "sacrificing" a penny (and getting it back on the third day)

reply

[–] cyguration (3845) 2 years ago

My question is, "why does it matter?"

Because he had to set an example: redemption through suffering, suffering for the cause, and resurrection through sacrifice.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7406) 2 years ago

I'll tell you why it matters! Because he took on the punishment all humans deserve so that we could be with him in heaven! You should be grateful!

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 2 years ago

"he took on the punishment all humans deserve"

Wow! That sounds awfully big! ALL the punishment? That's HUGE!

So why does he make such a teeny tiny sacrifice for such a big payout?

Like I said, it's akin to Bill Gates loaning you a penny for three days, then taking it back. THAT's enough to pay for "the punishment all humans deserve"?

Seems lopsided to me.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7406) 2 years ago

Frankly you strike me as someone who is ignorant, never studied the bible, hates that anyone worships God/Jesus, and loves getting rises out of anyone who does worship him. It is a shame hardcore athiests like you are incapable of seeing a Christian's point of view.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) 2 years ago

Well, I am trying to understand, although your personal attacks are admittedly off-putting.

I am asking a legitimate question that goes to the heart of the christian mythology, pointing out a conundrum that none have yet been able to resolve or even properly address.

Sadly, the typical reaction is ultimately just like yours, full of anger and ad hominem.

Of course, the fact that you all avoid the question and resort to personal attacks is itself an answer of sorts.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7406) 2 years ago

Sorry. It's just you insist Jesus didn't feel all that pain he went through and I'd argue he did. He was human. He felt the emotions and pain we all go through.

Him going through getting rejected, him getting spat on, him getting whipped several times, him getting kicked and punched, him having to carry his cross, him then getting his hands and feet nailed to that large piece of wood, and still being mocked and rejected by most everyone around him, he felt the excruciating pain as well as emotional pain. He went through a lot to satisfy the wrath of God that had existed since Adam and Eve sinned in the garden.

He lived the perfect life none of us could live. To put it plainly, Jesus said if you've ever been very angry at anyone you've committed murder in your heart. He also said if you see something someone else has and think, "I want that." you've committed the act of stealing in your heart." He also said if you've ever looked at someone you don't even know and thought, "I want to see that person naked and have sex with them." you have committed the act of adultry in your heart.

And he's not just saying that to teach people morals. He's pointing out how flawed humanity is and also saying we should all act better. But it goes without saying. All humans that ever lived are guilty of those things whether they want to admit it or not. That's why Jesus/God in human form died a horrible agonizing death. To pay for all our sins. You may not want to accept this but I am telling you it's the truth.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) a year ago

You may not want to accept this but I am telling you it's the truth

That's what you all say, and I believe that YOU believe it's "the truth."

I'm just telling you why I find it unpersuasive, even self-defeating.

Here's the central problem: When you claim that Jesus did this "To pay for all our sins," you're ADDING to the self-contradiction. You're INCREASING the payoff and, what's more, trivializing the "sacrifice."

Instead of "paying for sins," consider this: suppose I have the power to end child starvation forever. Just starvation, not disease or death, just starvation. But to exercise that power, I have to go through what Jesus did INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY the part where I rise from the dead on the third day.

I wouldn't even get to rule in heaven for eternity. I just suffer and "die," but come back and live out my normal life.

But no child ever goes hungry.

Wouldn't I have to be some kind of selfish, wimpy prick to refuse such pain, compared to the payoff?

I feel pretty confident that, if ANY of us had that power, nearly ALL of us would make the trade.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7406) a year ago

Frankly the problem is you are looking at it from today's world and today's standards. You reject what I consider the truth cause you can't accept that all humans are guilty of sinning and deserve to go to Hell. You defy God and what he did because you think you know better.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) a year ago

Frankly the problem is that I posed a very direct question, and you won't answer it.

I wonder why.

Instead, you presume to tell me all about myself and what I think and what I accept, when I've only been asking questions.

Is this how you evangelize? To react to honest questions with hostility?

I honestly wonder what drives you to do this when I've done nothing of the sort to you or anyone else on this thread.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7406) a year ago

I did answer your question. You just rejected what I said. You reject what the bible says. You seem to think Jesus having to die for our sins is bullcrap and nothing I say is going to change that. Good Day, Sir!

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) a year ago

Well, "nothing I say is going to change that" is certainly true when all you do is resort to insults and putting words in my mouth.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7406) a year ago

All you seem to be doing is nitpicking all the core things Christians believe and I am annoyed by it. There is nothing else to say.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 2 years ago

Non- religious people discussing religion 🍿

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

In a bigger picture sense, you can say extreme equalled extreme gain in his situation. But that doesn't really negate what he went through because that's not how pain works. It's not like his pain wasn't painful just because there was a reward at the end. Think of it this way. Many religious people who get tortured believe there's an eternal reward at the end of their life - whether that reward is real or whether they will in fact be a recipient remains to be seen. But how does that trivialize or lessen the pain of torture while they are alive?

If you let me punch you for fifty bucks, the punch will still hurt whether you end up with the money or not. Saying it was worth it is entirely subjective and it's kind up to the person who experiences the pain to decide that, not someone outside of that who hasn't experienced the pain.

And just as an aside, the reward was promised to him regardless, so the added torture as validation for receiving that reward seems sadistic and pointless imo.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) a year ago

If you let me punch you for fifty bucks, the punch will still hurt whether you end up with the money or not

This isn't a punch for fifty bucks. We're comparing horrible, agonizing pain that lasted a few hours to eternity in heaven.

The price is steep, but the payoff is off-the-charts. However horrible the pain of crucifixion (and I have acknowledged and still agree that it was truly horrific), it ended. And was followed by an infinity in heaven. Oh, and humanity's salvation is also earned thereby.

Here's what I think might be a better analogy: You get to punch me as hard as you can, but your punch will do no permanent damage and will stop hurting after three days, guaranteed.

But instead of $50, we get to end poverty. Everyone gets a basic living income.

If you're strong, and I have no reason to believe you aren't, your punch may well hurt a lot.

But it'd still be sorta childish for me to refuse in light of the payoff.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Newsflash, Idiot OP: GOD DOESN'T EXIST, NEITHER DID JESUS!

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) a year ago

Newsflash, Idiot OP: GOD DOESN'T EXIST, NEITHER DID JESUS!

Hahaha, you think that's a newsflash to my original post?

Read it again, then rethink your life.

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) a year ago

Gibson's theology is messed up. He seemed to think that what men did to Him was salvic. In the Bible, it's actually what happened in the three hours of darkness -- when God placed all our sins on Him and He paid the full price for them (which only a perfect, infinite being could do) -- that saved all who trusted in that finished work on Calvary.

The whole point is His purchasing our pardon, if we accept it. NOT His working His way to ruling the universe.

Gibson's misunderstanding of the Bible and his portrayal of this absolute hash of theology has had more people utterly confused both here and on IMDb. This was supposed to be Gibson's equivalent of the Duke who raped and pillaged, then built a church and thought that would square things. Poor guy.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2750) a year ago

Reminds of that old meme:

Jesus was meant to save humanity from all sin.

Odin was meant to save humanity from the ice giants.

I don't see many ice giants around.

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) a year ago

Christ's sacrifice is a pardon, purchased in full. You can reject a pardon. Most people reject the pardon Christ offers.

There are those who say they've accepted it, but haven't. They act like they haven't, so people who reject the pardon Christ offers point to them as their reason not to believe it. They sin like any unsaved person.

The few who have accepted Christ's pardon are usually dismissed as "prudes." I get called a prude all the time. Christians should get called prudes. To us, it means we don't share the values of the world.

Your post reminds me of a meme I just saw tonight.
Boss: So what do you do?
Applicant: I'm a ghost hunter.
Boss: This place isn't haunted.
Applicant: You're welcome.

Getting rid of ice giants or ghosts that never existed, then taking credit for it is a pretty good grift. Sin exists. Pardon for sin exists. One has to accept it, just like any other gift.

reply