Jesus on the cross

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The main reason you can't understand is that you insist on viewing pain as something that is primarily physical.

Are you purposely misunderstanding me ?

I said "All emotions and feelings are human concepts and can be explained biologically and chemically. Love, hate, anger, sadness, happiness, pleasure, pain are all just a matter of chemicals so I assume when you say Jesus suffered, you mean some other kind of suffering which we are incapable of experiening ? Which again, makes the very idea irrelevant."

So lets keep this simple.

- The physical suffering Jesus experienced on the cross is irrelevant as outlined by my last post.
- Any psychological pain Jesus experienced on the cross is also irrelevant for mostly the same reasons but I will now expand further.

wikipedia wrote:

Psychological pain, also called sometimes psychalgia, is any mental, or mind, or non physical suffering. Emotional pain is a particular kind of psychological pain, more closely related to emotions. Another kind that is commonly found is spiritual or soul pain.
In recent years there has been some prominence to quite controversial lawsuits in which the plaintiff seeks redress for pain and suffering that are not physical at all but purely psychological.[citation needed]
Recent research in neuroscience suggests that physical pain and psychological pain may share some underlying neurological mechanisms

The fact is that emotional pain can be far worse.

Yes it most certainly can and I never said otherwise and I in fact agree with you on this point so much because I myself fear psychological pain much more then I fear any physical torment.

I had, on one occasion, the skin burnt off both my lower legs and feet by boiling water. On another occasion I saw my young daughter die. I can assure you that the second incident was infinitely more painful than the first.

You have my condolences.

On the Cross the primary suffering endured by Jesus was spiritual rather than physical.

Now hang on a second,you've gone from emotional to spiritual. Which is it ?

Monosharp, you are incapable of understanding spiritual pain since, according to the Bible, your spirit is dead in sin. You don't understand the concept of atonement, and you never will unless your spirit is regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

PDN, I can make just as much a case against emotional (non physical) pain as I can against physical pain. Its entirely scientific and can be explained relatively easily. It can also be controlled by individuals just as physical pain can be and I can give you some more examples like the burning monk except with psychological pain substituted for being burned alive if you want.

As for this spiritual pain, unless its the same as psychological pain, which according to Wikipedia it is (strangely, I think thats a mistake is it ?) then I cannot make any argument against it which also makes it completely irrelevant at the same time.

You are telling me Christ suffered for us in a way that I cannot even comprehend, and yet for all other 'kinds' of suffering we see in this world, physical and psychological, we have perfectly valid scientific explanations for them and I have shown these types of suffering to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If the other types of suffering are irrelevant then why would 'spiritual' suffering be the exception ?

If Jesus suffered some way I can't even comprehend then how or why should I care ? I have no idea what kind of suffering it was, I have no idea how strong it way, I have nothing real to measure it against. Maybe his suffering was the equivalent of a bee sting.

So my point again.

Suffering is a human concept and as a human concept its completely subjective. I have shown you that physical and psychological pain are completely irrelevant so you have come up with another kind of pain which you claim I can't understand.

So Jesus was a man and a god who 'suffered' in some way that most people cannot comprehend. Its not even right to use the word suffer here anymore is it ?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

We should also remember that upon hearing that Lazarus died, Jesus wept, just as most emotionally attached people would.

Which proves ... ?

Even though He was able to, and did, raise Lazarus from the dead, He could not help but express His sadness over the event.

Which is again, a human concept. The sadness over a death is natural but it is also magnified by the type of society we have evolved into since hunter-gatherer times.

Monkeys/dogs/cats etc all experience emotional and physical pain the same as we do.

Pain, emotional or physical is highly controllable and subjective.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Are you purposely misunderstanding me ?

I said "All emotions and feelings are human concepts and can be explained biologically and chemically. Love, hate, anger, sadness, happiness, pleasure, pain are all just a matter of chemicals so I assume when you say Jesus suffered, you mean some other kind of suffering which we are incapable of experiening ? Which again, makes the very idea irrelevant."

So lets keep this simple.

- The physical suffering Jesus experienced on the cross is irrelevant as outlined by my last post.
- Any psychological pain Jesus experienced on the cross is also irrelevant for mostly the same reasons but I will now expand further.





Yes it most certainly can and I never said otherwise and I in fact agree with you on this point so much because I myself fear psychological pain much more then I fear any physical torment.



You have my condolences.



Now hang on a second,you've gone from emotional to spiritual. Which is it ?



PDN, I can make just as much a case against emotional (non physical) pain as I can against physical pain. Its entirely scientific and can be explained relatively easily. It can also be controlled by individuals just as physical pain can be and I can give you some more examples like the burning monk except with psychological pain substituted for being burned alive if you want.

As for this spiritual pain, unless its the same as psychological pain, which according to Wikipedia it is (strangely, I think thats a mistake is it ?) then I cannot make any argument against it which also makes it completely irrelevant at the same time.

You are telling me Christ suffered for us in a way that I cannot even comprehend, and yet for all other 'kinds' of suffering we see in this world, physical and psychological, we have perfectly valid scientific explanations for them and I have shown these types of suffering to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If the other types of suffering are irrelevant then why would 'spiritual' suffering be the exception ?

If Jesus suffered some way I can't even comprehend then how or why should I care ? I have no idea what kind of suffering it was, I have no idea how strong it way, I have nothing real to measure it against. Maybe his suffering was the equivalent of a bee sting.

So my point again.

Suffering is a human concept and as a human concept its completely subjective. I have shown you that physical and psychological pain are completely irrelevant so you have come up with another kind of pain which you claim I can't understand.

So Jesus was a man and a god who 'suffered' in some way that most people cannot comprehend. Its not even right to use the word suffer here anymore is it ?

The pain Jesus suffered on the Cross was physical, emotional and spiritual. Three different kinds of pain affecting his body, soul, and spirit. But the biggest concentration of suffering was undoubtedly spiritual.

You are unable to understand the concept of spiritual pain, but that does not make it irrelevant. The reality or relevance of something does not depend on monosharp being able to understand it (unless you think you are God?)

I don't think suffering is a purely human concept, but hang on, I'll just go and check it out: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Yep, my dog howled when I kicked him so I'm pretty sure suffering is NOT just a subjective human concept.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The pain Jesus suffered on the Cross was physical, emotional and spiritual. Three different kinds of pain affecting his body, soul, and spirit. But the biggest concentration of suffering was undoubtedly spiritual.

Physical pain - irrelevant.
Emotional pain - irrelevant.
Spiritual pain - I don't know what this is, I can't experience it.

What is spiritual suffering ? Are Christians the only ones who know what spiritual suffering is ? Do I have to accept Jesus first before I can understand it ?

You are saying the biggest concentration of suffering was spiritual because you want it to be. Whereas in the past when people were less knowledgeable they emphasized the physical pain.

You are claiming spiritual pain and leaving me no possible way to argue against it.

You are unable to understand the concept of spiritual pain, but that does not make it irrelevant. The reality or relevance of something does not depend on monosharp being able to understand it (unless you think you are God?)

Well it certainly makes it it irrelevant to me and irrelevant to all the other non-Christians in the world.

Jesus suffered a special kind of suffering which I can't understand or experience unless I accept Jesus as my savoir, thats absolutely meaningless.

Its like me saying to you "My X is so sore, I whamambled it last night".
Do you really think I care Jesus 'suffered' X when I can't understand it ?

I don't think suffering is a purely human concept, but hang on, I'll just go and check it out:

Yep, my dog howled when I kicked him so I'm pretty sure suffering is NOT just a subjective human concept.

How much suffering did your dog just have compared to 12 people being burned alive ?

Suffering is a subjective human concept. Physical and psychological pain are completely natural biological processes.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Physical pain - irrelevant.
Emotional pain - irrelevant.
Spiritual pain - I don't know what this is, I can't experience it.

What is spiritual suffering ? Are Christians the only ones who know what spiritual suffering is ? Do I have to accept Jesus first before I can understand it ?

Probably. The biblical teaching is that our spirits are dead in transgressions and sins and do not come alive until we are in Christ. So you lack the capacity to appreciate spiritual truth.

You are saying the biggest concentration of suffering was spiritual because you want it to be. Whereas in the past when people were less knowledgeable they emphasized the physical pain.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The writings of the early Church Fathers state repeatedly that Christ suffered spiritually. In fact, some of the Church Fathers (eg Origen and Gregory of Nyassa) went further and argued that hell would similarly consist of spiritual rather than physical pain.

You are claiming spiritual pain and leaving me no possible way to argue against it.

And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why you keep falling foul of the moderators on this forum. You don't understand something, but you still want to argue against it. You think this forum should provide people like you with a platform to argues against stuff you don't understand, rather than a place where people can discuss and learn.

You, sir, by your own words, have just demonstrated that you are a troll.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

Which proves ... ?



Which is again, a human concept. The sadness over a death is natural but it is also magnified by the type of society we have evolved into since hunter-gatherer times.

Monkeys/dogs/cats etc all experience emotional and physical pain the same as we do.

Pain, emotional or physical is highly controllable and subjective.

I wasn't even talking to you. I'm just discussing Jesus' human nature, not arguing with someone who thinks Jesus' emotions are the result of millions of years of evolution.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Physical pain - irrelevant.
Emotional pain - irrelevant.
Spiritual pain - I don't know what this is, I can't experience it.

I've never heard anyone describe physical and emotional pain of this magnitude as irrelevant - whatever the context. We spend billions each year in trying to relieve ourselves of pain.

And with this in mind, I find it rather bizarre that you post a picture of Lâm Văn Tức and try to draw some close parallels with another form of death. Has anyone here claimed that it is impossible to suppress pain? Nope! We just haven't hypothesised that Jesus went into some 7 hour trance while on the cross. The accounts of his crucifixion certainly suggest otherwise - that he was fully concious and in considerable physical pain.

Further to this, the claim (at least from people here) isn't that Jesus was the one person who has suffered the most physically painful death in the history of agonising deaths. It seems to me that you are so desperate to prove that others have suffered more that you make silly statements like "crucifixion, relatively speaking, is not that bad"! Which leaves me wondering how you know this, and why you think it is at all relevant?

That emotional (and physical) pain or pleasure can be explained by science isn't an issue because nobody has claimed otherwise. So if you want to believe emotions like love, hate and, presumably, overarching concepts like beauty and good can ultimately be reduced to "just a matter of chemicals", I'll say good for you. But even then I'll still be left wondering how this is supposed to make emotional pain irrelevant.

As for spiritual pain, it's a difficult one to try even attempt to explain, and I'm not sure I can. I simply don't understand it other than to say it was integral to the cross. But I'll disagree with PDN here and state that non-Christians are very much capable of experiencing it. This is why I think there is so much interest in an explanation beyond the reductionism that you speak of.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've never heard anyone describe physical and emotional pain of this magnitude as irrelevant - whatever the context. We spend billions each year in trying to relieve ourselves of pain.

I have already shown you several examples of why physical and emotional pain is irrelevant. Do I need to repeat them ?

Lâm Văn Tức sat down on the street, had petrol poured over him and then set on fire. He sat perfectly still and perfectly silent for 10 minutes while his body burned away before falling over dead.

Imagine the pain he went through and yet he controlled it perfectly.

Buddhist monks are one group among many who show us that the mind controls the body and can simply ignore pain.

Similarly Buddhist monks control emotional pain, or rather see it for what it is and ignore it. Heres one example.

And Buddhist monks are just one group, ordinary people do this every day too to some extent. You, me and everyone does this at some stage of our life.

So because of Lâm Văn Tức's suffering, does that make him divine ? Or should we all worship him ? Or Buddha ?

And with this in mind, I find it rather bizarre that you post a picture of Lâm Văn Tức and try to draw some close parallels with another form of death.

Your purposely moving the argument, I made parallels with suffering and pain, not with death.

Has anyone here claimed that it is impossible to suppress pain? Nope!

So you think Lâm Văn Tức suppressed the pain ? That he didn't feel it ?

We just haven't hypothesised that Jesus went into some 7 hour trance while on the cross. The accounts of his crucifixion certainly suggest otherwise - that he was fully concious and in considerable physical pain.

And you think Lâm Văn Tức went into a 'trance' which meant he didn't feel the pain ?

You think people cannot control their pain while conscious ?

Further to this, the claim (at least from people here) isn't that Jesus was the one person who has suffered the most physically painful death in the history of agonising deaths.

I never said it was. I said I didn't understand WHY Jesus 'suffering' for us is supposed to mean something to me. Maybe you don't use it but Christians use it all the time. 'Christ suffered for you', what does that mean ? What is it supposed to mean to me ?

If you said 'Christ drank beer for you' or 'Christ took a nap for you' it would get the same reaction from me.

If someone suffers for me I should worship them ? I should worship the person who suffers the most for me ?

PDN said "That would only be possible if His capacity for pain was infinitely greater than that of ordinary men."

Just why is that important ?

Very simply, my point is, Jesus suffered on the cross. So what ? I suffered this morning from all the alcohol I drank last night.

Its meaningless.

It seems to me that you are so desperate to prove that others have suffered more that you make silly statements like "crucifixion, relatively speaking, is not that bad"! Which leaves me wondering how you know this, and why you think it is at all relevant?

I am not desperate to prove others have suffered more, I made the point that pain and suffering are subjective.

That emotional (and physical) pain or pleasure can be explained by science isn't an issue because nobody has claimed otherwise. So if you want to believe emotions like love, hate and, presumably, overarching concepts like beauty and good can ultimately be reduced to "just a matter of chemicals", I'll say good for you. But even then I'll still be left wondering how this is supposed to make emotional pain irrelevant.

Because you can control/ignore it. People do it every day.

Its irrelevant to any claim of divinity.

As for spiritual pain, it's a difficult one to try even attempt to explain, and I'm not sure I can. I simply don't understand it other than to say it was integral to the cross. But I'll disagree with PDN here and state that non-Christians are very much capable of experiencing it. This is why I think there is so much interest in an explanation beyond the reductionism that you speak of.

So if I get you an example of a happy Muslim/Jew or buddhist that is happy and in the case of the buddhist, can control his pain, emotional and physical, is that proof that they are not in fact suffering from spiritual pain ?

Why whole point is WHY Christians talk about Jesus' suffering at all. It proves nothing, it means nothing.

edit: While we were talking about Lâm Văn Tức I want to show people his last words.

Lâm Văn T&#7913 wrote: »

Before closing my eyes and moving towards the vision of the Buddha, I respectfully plead to President Ngo Dinh Diem to take a mind of compassion towards the people of the nation and implement religious equality to maintain the strength of the homeland eternally. I call the venerables, reverends, members of the sangha and the lay Buddhists to organise in solidarity to make sacrifices to protect Buddhism.

He didn't cry out to the Buddha asking him "Why have you forsaken me". Maybe Buddha took better care of him then God did with Jesus ?

This whole action, for people who don't know, was because of aggressive Christian evangelism which continues to do its utmost to push down all other religions in all of Asia and push its way into everyones life.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I wasn't even talking to you. I'm just discussing Jesus' human nature, not arguing with someone who thinks Jesus' emotions are the result of millions of years of evolution.

Which proves what ? He was human ?

This is what I don't understand. Yes he was crucified, yes he suffered, yes he was recorded in the Bible as been a great loving man.

But so what ? I could give you 100 more examples of people who have acted the same in similar circumstances.

Whats the meaning behind it ?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Probably. The biblical teaching is that our spirits are dead in transgressions and sins and do not come alive until we are in Christ. So you lack the capacity to appreciate spiritual truth.

Which makes claims of spiritual suffering completely irrelevant.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The writings of the early Church Fathers state repeatedly that Christ suffered spiritually. In fact, some of the Church Fathers (eg Origen and Gregory of Nyassa) went further and argued that hell would similarly consist of spiritual rather than physical pain.

I didn't say they said he didn't suffer spiritually, I said they emphasized the physical suffering. Crown of thorns, whipping etc

And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why you keep falling foul of the moderators on this forum. You don't understand something, but you still want to argue against it. You think this forum should provide people like you with a platform to argues against stuff you don't understand, rather than a place where people can discuss and learn.

Because I WANT to understand it.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

This whole action, for people who don't know, was because of aggressive Christian evangelism which continues to do its utmost to push down all other religions in all of Asia and push its way into everyones life.

That is patently dishonest.

This guy committed suicide because the President of South Vietnam of the day was a Roman Catholic, and as such he was perpetuating the privileged position that Roman Catholicism had enjoyed under French colonialism.

You have, monosharp, in previous threads in this forum, made loud claims about how aggressive evangelicals are in some parts of Asia (and, in contrast, how reasonable Roman Catholicism is). Now you are dishonestly trying to link this sad person's suicide 46 years ago with "aggressive Christian evangelism" today.

I am heartily sick of such dishonesty and trolling. If you cannot discuss Christian issues in this forum without resorting to such antics then you will be banned. Please consider this as your final warning.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

That is patently dishonest.

This guy committed suicide because the President of South Vietnam of the day was a Roman Catholic, and as such he was perpetuating the privileged position that Roman Catholicism had enjoyed under French colonialism.

Ok I did actually make a mistake but you are diluting that to a ridiculous degree.

'Privileged position', sounds almost OK when you put it like that.

The president and government made Buddhists (and anyone else of another religion) third class citizens.

wikipedia wrote:

In a country where surveys of the religious composition at the time estimated the Buddhist majority to be between 70 and 90 percent,[5][6][7][8] President Ngô Đình Diệm was a member of the Catholic Vietnamese minority, and pursued policies widely regarded by historians as biased. Specifically, the government was regarded as favoring Roman Catholics for public service and military promotions, as well as in the allocation of land, business arrangements and tax concessions.[9] Diệm once told a high-ranking officer, forgetting that he was a Buddhist, "Put your Catholic officers in sensitive places. They can be trusted."[10] Many officers in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam converted to Roman Catholicism in the belief that their military prospects depended on it.[10] Additionally, the distribution of firearms to village self-defense militias saw weapons only given to Roman Catholics, with some Buddhists in the army being denied promotion if they refused to convert to Roman Catholicism.[11] Some Roman Catholic priests ran their own private armies,[12] and there were forced conversions and looting, shelling and demolition of pagodas in some areas, to which the government turned a blind eye.[13] Some Buddhist villages converted en masse to receive aid or avoid being forcibly resettled by Diệm's regime.[14] The "private" status that was imposed on Buddhism by the French, which required official permission to be obtained by those wishing to conduct public Buddhist activities, was not repealed by Diệm.[15] Roman Catholics were also de facto exempt from the corvée labor that the government obliged all citizens to perform, and U.S. aid was disproportionately distributed to Roman Catholic majority villages by Diệm's regime.[16] The Roman Catholic Church was the largest landowner in the country and enjoyed special exemptions in property acquisition, and land owned by the Roman Catholic Church was exempt from land reform.[17] The white and gold Vatican flag was regularly flown at all major public events in South Vietnam,[18] and Diệm dedicated his country to the Virgin Mary in 1959.[16]

Buddhist discontent erupted following a ban in early May on flying the Buddhist flag on Vesak, the birthday of Gautama Buddha. Just days before, Roman Catholics had been allowed to fly the Vatican flag at a celebration for Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc of Hue, Diệm's brother. A large crowd of Buddhists protested against the ban, defying the government by flying Buddhist flags on Vesak and marching on the government broadcasting station. Government forces fired into the crowd of protesters, killing nine people. Diem's refusal to take responsibility—he blamed the Vietcong for the deaths—led to further Buddhist protests and calls for religious equality.[19] As Diệm remained unwilling to comply with Buddhist demands, the frequency and size of the protests increased.

You have, monosharp, in previous threads in this forum, made loud claims about how aggressive evangelicals are in some parts of Asia (and, in contrast, how reasonable Roman Catholicism is). Now you are dishonestly trying to link this sad person's suicide 46 years ago with "aggressive Christian evangelism" today.

PDN I think you know me well enough to know I would never lie about something like that because I know one google will correct it and I know you would have known of this situation already because of your Asian travels.

I apologize, I honestly remembered it incorrectly. You were right, it was Roman Catholicism which was being pushed on the people.

I am heartily sick of such dishonesty and trolling. If you cannot discuss Christian issues in this forum without resorting to such antics then you will be banned. Please consider this as your final warning.

Oh come on, you are not actually giving me a warning for that ?
What is this warning for ?

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

Which proves what ? He was human ?

This is what I don't understand. Yes he was crucified, yes he suffered, yes he was recorded in the Bible as been a great loving man.

But so what ? I could give you 100 more examples of people who have acted the same in similar circumstances.

Whats the meaning behind it ?

Personally, I don't dwell specifically on the suffering of Christ. To me, His greatest impact was being "the overcomer" of sin. Christ suceeded where Adam failed. Christ showed that a Spirit-filled man can follow God and withstand the attacks of Satan. He showed that while a sinful man cannot be victorious, a man born again and empowered by the Spirit of God, can be.

He became the bridge between fallen man and a Holy God. His resurrection was more important than His crucifixion. Christ overcame death. He basically showed us what we can do as fleshly beings, and what we can expect out of this life and the afterlife. His entire life and death are the template for the reconciled Spirit-born man. Because of Christ, I have hope, and the means to overcome the inevitable death of my sinful flesh. Because of Christ, I know what type of life I should live, and the relationship God expects me to have with Him and my fellow brothers and sisters on Earth. Just as God is a Spirit of love, Jesus Christ was a man of love. I think of it like "if love became a being of flesh." He lived a life of pure love. He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Personally, I don't dwell specifically on the suffering of Christ. To me, His greatest impact was being "the overcomer" of sin. Christ suceeded where Adam failed. Christ showed that a Spirit-filled man can follow God and withstand the attacks of Satan. He showed that while a sinful man cannot be victorious, a man born again and empowered by the Spirit of God, can be.

And therein lies my biggest problem with Christianity.

What Jesus did was frankly not that impressive. Jesus as depicted in the Bible is a great man, he does great things and there are great lessons to be learned from his actions but so was Buddha, so was many other people. I'd actually consider Buddha's teachings/examples to be 'better' (subjective I know) then Jesus'.

Your telling me that Jesus' greatest impact was acting good when I can think of hundreds of other examples of people like this.

I'm not trying to be rude here but why is that worthy of worship ?

He became the bridge between fallen man and a Holy God.

How/Why ?

His resurrection was more important than His crucifixion.

But even if the resurrection was true, I still don't see why this is an act of a divine being.

Because of Christ, I have hope, and the means to overcome the inevitable death of my sinful flesh.

How/Why ?

Because of Christ, I know what type of life I should live, and the relationship God expects me to have with Him and my fellow brothers and sisters on Earth.

But people who follow the Buddha or Allah or X can live just as good a life as any Christian.

Just as God is a Spirit of love, Jesus Christ was a man of love. I think of it like "if love became a being of flesh." He lived a life of pure love. He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

Yes but what does that mean ?

Jecus Christ was a man of love. The Buddha was a man of love.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

And therein lies my biggest problem with Christianity.

What Jesus did was frankly not that impressive. Jesus as depicted in the Bible is a great man, he does great things and there are great lessons to be learned from his actions but so was Buddha, so was many other people. I'd actually consider Buddha's teachings/examples to be 'better' (subjective I know) then Jesus'.

Your telling me that Jesus' greatest impact was acting good when I can think of hundreds of other examples of people like this.

I'm not trying to be rude here but why is that worthy of worship ?

I don't really care what impresses you. The fact is that the God of the universe became a man and gave us a new life.

How/Why ?

Jesus reconciled man with God by removing the barrier of sin and the fallen condition of man. Jesus died to pay the price of sin, and allowed us to share a bit of His holy nature, thereby bringing us into a relationship with God. Only a Spirit-born man who has cast away his previous self will accept God as God and allow God to change his nature and conform to the perfect nature of Christ. Only a Spirit-born man will see that God's way is the best way, and our own selfish desires only result in sin and death. Jesus makes God approachable. Only through Him are we able to walk with God.

Obviously if you don't believe in the Christian God or the resurrection of Christ, this means nothing to you. You're only trolling.

But even if the resurrection was true, I still don't see why this is an act of a divine being.

Ok.

How/Why ?

I have hope because Jesus showed that we can be victorious over sin. Because of the Holy Spirit, I can walk in the Spirit, and not in the flesh. God empowers us to do the things we could not otherwise do. Instead of me dying in this body of flesh and sin, I can be made new, and be raised incorruptible to live with my Lord and Savior. All I must do is accept Jesus Christ's gift of salvation and be transformed into a man that loves God and accepts His authority as my Creator. I will follow Him all the days of my life.

But people who follow the Buddha or Allah or X can live just as good a life as any Christian.

Are you God? Don't claim to know what type of lives people really live.

Yes but what does that mean ?

Jecus Christ was a man of love. The Buddha was a man of love.

You purposely miss my point? I didn't just say Jesus was a man of love. Just as God is love, Jesus is the physical equivalent. There is none like Him.
Buddha was a great man, but he cannot save anyone. Only Christ has the power to save. Jesus shed His blood for our sins. Whether or not you think this is impressive is between you and God.

Think less about how "impressive" Jesus' suffering and death was, and more about the "unmerited favor" you have been given. It's up to you if you accept this gift from God. Perhaps you are too proud? The choice is yours, and you can't complain about that, can you?

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

I have already shown you several examples of why physical and emotional pain is irrelevant. Do I need to repeat them ?

Lâm Văn Tức sat down on the street, had petrol poured over him and then set on fire. He sat perfectly still and perfectly silent for 10 minutes while his body burned away before falling over dead.

Irrelevant! Dear Lord. What an appalling thing to say. There are no parallels with Lâm Văn Tức - certainly not in the manner you are suggesting - because we aren't claiming that it is impossible to suppress pain. Why can't you grasp this? However - and this is very important, monosharp - we aren't suggesting that Jesus went into a 7-hour trance whilst being crucified - not to mention the scourging that went on before this. Reading the Gospel accounts one would have to conclude that deep meditation into a state of irrelevance certainly wasn't the case. Indeed, it isn't a practice that is often associate with Christianity.

Beside, you have absolutely no idea how much pain this Buddhist monk suffered during or even prior to his self-immolation, so it is pointless to hold him up as an example of the irrelevance of pain. Indeed, it is also true to say that you have no idea at what stage he died during his self-immolation - only that his body toppled over after 10 minutes, where upon it was determined that he was dead.

But if you still think that pain is irrelevant, that it has no value, I'm sure that next time you hit your finger with a hammer you will slip serenely into contemplation of the lilies. All pain is dew evaporating in the morning, eh!

monosharp wrote: »

Your purposely moving the argument, I made parallels with suffering and pain, not with death.

I'm not shifting the argument. I'm attempting to highlight that you cant compare the individuals involved. Again, there is no suggestion that Jesus went into a trance, nor are their manners of death comparable - for obvious reasons crucifixion is not the same as self-immolation.

monosharp wrote: »

So you think Lâm Văn Tức suppressed the pain ? That he didn't feel it ?

I would imagine that he felt something before his death, and I'm quite sure that prior to his death, the process of reaching the decision to die cause him great conflict and emotional and physical suffering. Besides, I seem to remember that pain is irrelevant, right?

monosharp wrote: »

And you think Lâm Văn Tức went into a 'trance' which meant he didn't feel the pain ? You think people cannot control their pain while conscious ?

Did you read anything I said? I haven't claimed that people can't control pain. I just so happen not to be of the opinion that this somehow makes pain irrelevant. I also (and this this the 3rd time I'll have repeated it on this post) don't see the relevance to Jesus on the cross. Maybe you should read the accounts of his death if you haven't already.

monosharp wrote: »

I never said it was. I said I didn't understand WHY Jesus 'suffering' for us is supposed to mean something to me. Maybe you don't use it but Christians use it all the time. 'Christ suffered for you', what does that mean ? What is it supposed to mean to me ?

Why don't you think about it! I'll even give you a helping had. I'm not a Christian because a chap called Jesus died a particularly nasty death. I'm a Christian because of his resurrection and what this means for the for you, me and the entire cosmos. Please read the blog I linked to below for a little more on this.

monosharp wrote: »

If someone suffers for me I should worship them ? I should worship the person who suffers the most for me ?

If someone suffered for you I would hope that you would at least honour them. However, I just can't see how you think that this is the point of the cross. A Christian worships Christ because he is God. Further to this, the point of the cross and the resurrection is atonement and that it is the moment in time and space where God conquered death and the work of new creation finally began. If you want to read about this from a personal perspective, have a look at this short blog entry entitled Death, Thou Shalt Die. It's a eulogy from a son about his recently deceased father, and it briefly (but poetically) expands on the Christian hope for him - and all of us - in Christ.

monosharp wrote: »

This whole action, for people who don't know, was because of aggreessive Christian evangelism which continues to do its utmost to push down all other religions in all of Asia and push its way into everyones life.

I'm really, really growing tired of this anti-Christian drum you keep beating. Whether it's a complaint about what rules those Christians make you follow for going to their colleges or whatever, it's all so tedious reading your bitter rants. It is actually counter-productive approaching us in the manner you do.

As it stands, your opinions are set in stone, and I believe you have no intention of changing them. I see no further reason in trying to explain something you are determined not to even attempt to understand. And his is why I'm quite sure that you wont consider anything written here by me or others beyond what it takes to form your next argument.

lmaopml

I often wonder about the 'cup he had to drink of' that he spoke of so seriously with God the father before he was crucified. What he 'saw' in the cup, that made him speak so serously of it - I think it's pivotal to understanding his suffering... what he 'knew' was part of his sacrifice for our sins...

Did he see the sins of the world and all future and past generations, did he take them all onto himself in that moment, and was it so overwhelming for him at the time as whole man and whole God.......yet, he chose to take the 'cup' and all of those sins on board out of love for us....If he 'saw' everything, and he even knew 1/1000th of man's inhumanity to man, that history has recorded, it was some massive feat....He must have been very very sad to see some things, and equally he must have 'known' that his death and the love that would blossom for him, would make it worthwhile..


I truely believe, if there is a God, that Jesus is the risen son of God.....and he is entirely present ever since he made that sacrifice for us...

There is only one Jesus.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't really care what impresses you. The fact is that the God of the universe became a man and gave us a new life.

So what happened to people born 'before' this happened ?

Jesus reconciled man with God by removing the barrier of sin and the fallen condition of man.

By dying by a very common method of execution ? Why ? How ?

How does Jesus getting executed by the Romans save us from Gods wrath ?

Why are we fallen ? By being persuaded to eat some fruit by one of Gods creatures (snake) put there by God in the first place ?

Jesus died to pay the price of sin, and allowed us to share a bit of His holy nature, thereby bringing us into a relationship with God.

But this is what I don't understand. Why does his dying help us ? Why die ? Dying is so natural and common.

Only a Spirit-born man who has cast away his previous self will accept God as God and allow God to change his nature and conform to the perfect nature of Christ. Only a Spirit-born man will see that God's way is the best way, and our own selfish desires only result in sin and death. Jesus makes God approachable. Only through Him are we able to walk with God.

But this is meaningless, you haven't said anything there. You've just told me what every religion tells us just with a slightly different angle on it.

Obviously if you don't believe in the Christian God or the resurrection of Christ, this means nothing to you. You're only trolling.

I'm not trolling, I have entered into logical discussion here and I do it politely.

I used to be a Catholic and the reason I am no longer is because I couldn't logically understand this faith and I am trying to understand it now.

Are you God? Don't claim to know what type of lives people really live.

You claim to know how Jesus lived because of the Bible. We can pick out any religious text from any other religion and see how the main people lived. Why is it different ?

You purposely miss my point? I didn't just say Jesus was a man of love. Just as God is love, Jesus is the physical equivalent. There is none like Him.
Buddha was a great man, but he cannot save anyone. Only Christ has the power to save. Jesus shed His blood for our sins. Whether or not you think this is impressive is between you and God.

Ok but why did he have to ?

Think less about how "impressive" Jesus' suffering and death was, and more about the "unmerited favor" you have been given. It's up to you if you accept this gift from God. Perhaps you are too proud? The choice is yours, and you can't complain about that, can you?

It was PDN who originally said that Jesus' suffering and therefore his capacity for pain was greater then any ordinary man. I'm asking for proof of this.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Irrelevant! Dear Lord. What an appalling thing to say.

Why ?

There are no parallels with Lâm Văn Tức - certainly not in the manner you are suggesting - because we aren't claiming that it is impossible to suppress pain.

I didn't suggest Jesus or Lâm Văn Tức did suppress the pain.

Why can't you grasp this? However - and this is very important, monosharp - we aren't suggesting that Jesus went into a 7-hour trance whilst being crucified - not to mention the scourging that went on before this.

And neither was I. Why do you think I was ?

Beside, you have absolutely no idea how much pain this Buddhist monk suffered during or even prior to his self-immolation, so it is pointless to hold him up as an example of the irrelevance of pain.

And you have no idea how much Jesus went through. Which is my whole point.

Indeed, it is also true to say that you have no idea at what stage he died during his self-immolation - only that his body toppled over after 10 minutes, where upon it was determined that he was dead.

Wells lets agree that 2 minutes of burning alive would be unpleasant shall we ?

But if you still think that pain is irrelevant, that it has no value, I'm sure that next time you hit your finger with a hammer you will slip serenely into contemplation of the lilies. All pain is dew evaporating in the morning, eh!

Alas, I don't possess the training necessary :pac:

I'm not shifting the argument. I'm attempting to highlight that you cant compare the individuals involved. Again, there is no suggestion that Jesus went into a trance, nor are their manners of death comparable - for obvious reasons crucifixion is not the same as self-immolation.

I am not comparing their methods of death, I am using Lâm Văn Tức as an example of how physical pain can be controlled and ultimately ignored. (Not suppressed as you keep trying to suggest)

I would imagine that he felt something before his death, and I'm quite sure that prior to his death, the process of reaching the decision to die cause him great conflict and emotional and physical suffering. Besides, I seem to remember that pain is irrelevant, right?

Irrelevant for some reasons e.g > claims of divinity.

Did you read anything I said? I haven't claimed that people can't control pain. I just so happen not to be of the opinion that this somehow makes pain irrelevant. I also (and this this the 3rd time I'll have repeated it on this post) don't see the relevance to Jesus on the cross. Maybe you should read the accounts of his death if you haven't already.

My personal interest is Roman history, I know more about crucifixion then you do.

Why don't you think about it! I'll even give you a helping had. I'm not a Christian because a chap called Jesus died a particularly nasty death. I'm a Christian because of his resurrection and what this means for the for you, me and the entire cosmos. Please read the blog I linked to below for a little more on this.

Ok I will thanks.

If someone suffered for you I would hope that you would at least honour them. However, I just can't see how you think that this is the point of the cross. A Christian worships Christ because he is God. Further to this, the point of the cross and the resurrection is atonement and that it is the moment in time and space where God conquered death and the work of new creation finally began.

Of course I would honour them.

But I don't understand WHY the crucifixion and resurrection is atonement. What if scientists develop some new drug/technique that can reanimate a dead person after 3 days (which is not as completely unlikely as you'd think)

What does this mean ? Is this divine ?

If you want to read about this from a personal perspective, have a look at this short blog entry entitled Death, Thou Shalt Die. It's a eulogy from a son about his recently deceased father, and it briefly (but poetically) expands on the Christian hope for him - and all of us - in Christ.

Ok.

I'm really, really growing tired of this anti-Christian drum you keep beating. Whether it's a complaint about what rules those Christians make you follow for going to their colleges or whatever, it's all so tedious reading your bitter rants. It is actually counter-productive approaching us in the manner you do.

Fanny, I know that yourself and PDN and the majority of the people here are good honest people most of the time. I am not trying to infer you guys are the same as these people.

What I am trying to show is my disgust at the way SOME Christians act and more importantly, they do this with little or no condemnation from the good Christians.

Your right though, I am very sick and tired of the way these people act, especially in my new country. I honestly believe if you and PDN actually experienced the situation here for yourselves you would agree with me, at least partly.

The situation here and in most of Asia is disgusting.

Heres one example I came across lately and you just tell me if you think this is right or wrong.

My wife was coming home the other day and a guy tried to talk to her to get her to go to his church. My wife told him no thanks and after he kept trying she told him she was Buddhist (shes not but it usually makes them go away). So again, nice and politely he told her "Ah thats OK. I was a Buddhist too because of my family but my pastor told me that its a mental* problem and now I don't associate with them anymore."

* Mental -> I don't know if this means the same as in English but its similar.

So basically he has left his family (parents/siblings) and doesn't associate with them because they are Buddhist.

Now before you answer, I KNOW this is not the norm, I KNOW this is not the christian message or faith. I KNOW this is a small minority, I am not trying to label you all with this example.

So what do you think ?

As it stands, your opinions are set in stone, and I believe you have no intention of changing them.

What opinions ? That there are lunatics here waving crosses in Christianitys name but what they do is more akin to a cult then a mainstream religion ?

me_right_one

MooseJam wrote: »

Jesus was God, he rose people from the dead, turned water into wine, fed the masses etc etc, so I am wondering when on the cross did he just switch pain off and if not why not.

I don't think anything positive could be said about anyone enduring pain that they do not have to, the only people who do so these days are well it doesn't need to be stated for fear of causing offense but I'm sure you get my drift.

Why not switch pain off - we would be none the wiser, perhaps her did as he was only human after all and thats a lot of pain to endure when you can just switch it off.

This thread is gone a country mile off topic!

OP, to simplify: Jesus was the human form of supernatural God. Jesus was only a man, and he felt pain the same as we do. When he rose people from the dead, it was supernatural God who did so through Jesus, ie at Jesus' request.

So Jesus couldn't just "Switch off" pain. He indeed wondered why supernatural God wouldn't help him on the cross, "My god, why have you forsaken me?".

And as was said before in the thread, Jesus (man) had to suffer death by cruel and unusual means, supernatural God (the father) felt the pain of "I created Earth, and these little fcukers decided to execute the mortal me! GRRRR!!!", and psychological / emotional / soulfull, and kinda supernatural aswell God (the holy spirit) felt the emotional sadness, anger, fear, hurt, of Jesus, and loss of a child of supernatural God.

This was all part of a "deal" to get as many people as possible into heaven. God made people, people gave him the finger and sided with the devil, and God said, "Well eventhough yiz are spoiled brats and I shouldnt be doin' this, I'll pay for yizzer sins's and get yiz all into heaven, cos thats just the kinda nice fella I am". So he paid for our evil deviations by sacrificing himself in his human form. Sh1t, but nescessary.

Eventually, judgement day will come around. Those who appreciate the sacrifice God made, apart from owing him a huge gratitude for giving us life in the first place, and apologise for any times we gave him the finger and sucked the devils c0ck, he will send to purgatory to pay for our sins personally. But then you get into heaven. Those who refuse to appreciate Gods deadliness, or continue to give him the fingers by not believing in him, will go to hell - simple as.