Hunting The Muse

Jesus didn't die willingly.. even the Bible has him saying, "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?!" Does that sound like someone who intended to die that way?

But, if he did indeed want to die that way and only had a brief moment of doubt on the cross, does that make Jesus suicidal then, to die for our sins? And isn't suicide a sin according to the Bible... granted, he didn't kill himself but allowed himself to be killed?

Shouldn't they just say Jesus was murdered?

It's merely convenient of the Church to say this was all planned, was all meant to happen from the beginning so that they come out looking good. Think about it- otherwise, the Church would have to admit that, "Well, something went very wrong.. here was our Lord and Savior and something went drastically wrong and he ended up being killed." The Church either has to say that something went wrong and Jesus died prematurely or that it was all meant to happen... and so therefore better give a damn good reason for it all being "meant to happen." Guilting people into why Jesus had to die ('for YOUR sin!") is one way to shut people up quick. Let's just make it everybody's fault that Jesus died. Then we can forget what really happened in history. Guilt is the primary tool the Church uses to keep people "in line."

The problem here, Curt, is that by nature of Christianity, you aren't supposed to ask these questions. You're just supposed to memorize and repeat whether it makes sense or not. So by merely asking the question, you have already sinned.

Here's some things to sort out:

If God sent Jesus to us to die for our sins, then He knew it would happen. But did Jesus know it was going to happen? Did Jesus know he was here to die for our sins? Since he shouted out on the cross about God foraking him, it appears maybe he didn't know. But perhaps the Church believes he did? So if Jesus was going to die for our sins, no matter what, God had to have *somebody* kill him, right? Because dying of natural causes wouldn't quite do the trick... or maybe God didn't plan for the Jews to kill Jesus.. if God really is omniscient and all that, He would have HAD to have known and allowed it all to happen. This kind of leaves us with the question that either God doesn't have 100% total control over everything that happens on Earth or He does. Or maybe it's a mixture of the two? The problem with someone's argument as you have presented above is that if God meant for the Jews to kill Jesus, then how could it be wrong for them to do it? If God didn't mean for it to happen, then something went wrong in His plan.

In a nutshell, the thinking of the Chuch is illogical and more importantly, their points and beliefs cannot be reconciled. When a person's or institutions beliefs and creeds cannot be reconciled and integrated, something fishy is going on.

I don't understand what's so horrible about saying/believing, "Jesus was sent to teach us. He was well received in some ways but not in others. Unfortunately, a lot of the people weren't ready for his teachings and he stirred up quite a controversy. Because he was so threatening to some, he lost his life." I don't think it would make Christianity less valid if it wasn't in God's plan for Jesus to die that way. Personally, I believe that there are some things that even God can't change, fix or control.

The way I'm reading the above comments makes "the Church" sound pretty over-generalized. The problem lies in the fact that Catholic faith is, at it's root, literalist. "So, it is written, so it has been done," and the like. It's true, it's a holy crutch used by those who were taught so by their parents and their communities and by the parents and communities before them. But there's another reading of the bible that's growing in credibility; it's a transition from literalist to parablist.

Maybe, Jesus was a great man. Maybe he was doing the right things as he saw them, and maybe he got all the things he did right. Maybe he was sent by God to do just that, and help those in need in some small part. Maybe he was doing what he was supposed to do.

And maybe those in power saw what he was doing and were scared of it -- of him. They pushed him and were scared again when he didn't push back. He was killed for it. As we define sin, those who killed him performed the highest.

Was it pre-ordained? No, come on. It's a story. It's a story to teach us that what comes of sin is most often bad: bad feeling, bad outcomes, bad relationships, bad politics. Maybe Jesus didn't die "for" our sins, rather he died "because of" our sins. In my belief system, there's room for that. Further, by that logic, there's an interesting cycle that's born: everyone who's been put to death by another's hand has died because of our sins. And yet, we've sinned by killing again, and again, and again. This is the point where "An eye for an eye" and "Though Shalt Not Kill" collide.

As a community of spiritual people, whatever that looks like, it seems to me that the highest need is to move beyond the arguments of Catholic Rhetoric and move toward an understanding that sin equates to a line that shouldn't be crossed: it's our job to define what that line looks and feels like for those who come after. The tools we'll use to do it? The Bible... "The Passion of the Christ" ... The Bagadva Gita ... The Matrix ... The Talmud ... The Quaran ... "The Last Temptation of Christ" ... "Ben Hur" ... and the list goes on.

It's more than about wondering if we can live together in peace and harmony. This is about doing and saying the things that make us ask the big questions, pose the future in the form of small tweaks and tectonic shifts in how we live.

I don't want to see the Passion, only because I don't want to subject myself to that imagery on the big screen. But I feel I should see it -- as a movie fan, if for no other reason -- and it's on my NetFlix queue for whenever that will be. ...

I'd add "Schindler's List" to the previous list. And isn't it ironic that Mel Gibson's dad doesn't believe the Holocaust happened?? Different strokes...

The parablist interpretation of the Bible is wonderfully explored by John Shelby Spong. I highly, highly recommed his books, especially, "Saving the Bible from Fundamentalism." I have read many of them, my father was an expert in this area having been a Methodist minister turned sociologist but even after delving into this throughout my life, I don't see that this interpreation of the Bible has much power or influence in society at present, nor much visibility, unfortunately. How *we* personally choose to interpret Jesus and his life is important but the 'Jesus, etc" entry to me is addressing those fundamentlist and Right Wing views- the ones that are trying to change and influence laws and restrict people's rights. I think it's very important that we examine that way of thinking and that literal interpreation of the Bible and challenge it. Undoubtedly, the point is that those that take the Bible literally aren't seeing the logic flaws in their tight way of looking at morals, sin and judgement.

However, I'm also not convinced that it's possible to argue with that viewpoint; with all my experience over the years with Baptist relatives and watching my dad publicly debate Catholic priests about what the Bible really means and what it suggests, I can't honestly say that I expect the Church to ease off on the core beliefs anytime soon... although the Pope's statements about the holocaust gave some reason to hope for continued open-mindedness and change. So, in the end, I think it's good to challenge thought processes like "Jesus, etc" and yet, to not make it one's life work to change people's minds about it.

I always like it when the pope says/does something inclusive. Then he goes off and says that gay marriage "degrades" marriage or whatever.

I wrote a bit more about how to try and reach conservatives on my gay marriage thread two threads upstream. Ultimately I think pointing out their logic flaws to them just pisses them off. But I get pissed off too. So I get caught between urges to expose them as creeps, where pointing out the flaws works, and actually trying to soften their opposition, which takes an entirely different technique. Because I think some can't be reached but some can. I think being a good example and living right is fine (I heard a radio report calling that something like "indirect evangelism"), but I like the process of fashioning direct appeals, too.

I want to add that it's no wonder that this is such a sensitive subject and it's no wonder why views on Jesus are very controversial, no matter if they're right or left wing or somewhere in between... because these are entire world views we're talking about- someone's way of understanding, interpreting and making sense of the world around them, someone's moral compass of how to live their life and how to interpret that age-old question, the meaning of life. Some view points are built and woven with more ability to be flexible and open.. some aren't. The more restrictive and absolutist a viewpoint is, the higher the chances that tugging at one thread will mean the unravelling of the entire quilt. Picking at the Jesus thread could potentially unravel and entire world view, so whether some people who intepret the Bible literally do so out of an offensive agenda vs. a defensive agenda (pushing their views onto others who 'don't realize they're sinning,' who aren't 'saved' yet, vs. just using their beliefs to explain their life questions) it's likely that the question will encounter a rigid response. To me, I'd have no problem with those that interpret the Bible as a literal set of moral rules as long as they weren't trying to control, overpower, restrict or deny others. The right wing does do that and so I have a very, very big problem with it. But hell, this is has been going on since the Crusades. At least I'm not going to get burned at the stake for these comments.

Correction: the Spong book that I mentioned is "Rescuing" not "Saving" "the Bible from Fundamentalism."

Two others I highly recommended are "This Hebrew Lord: A Bishop's Search for the Authentic Jesus" and "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile"

i think its great to see free thinkers on this site. i just had some one tell me that my statements of "we are our own god" and "we find the god within" are from the satanic bible of which ive never read. i suppose he sees this as satans thread being weaved into my head before i even know it..........despite the fact that i find the above statements to be divine in nature and beautiful. i have believed for years now that jesus died "because" of our sins and not for it. it makes no sense that god creates us in his image (which happens to look like a human) and we are born of a sinful nature..like all children are, then a man is sent to save us from the very condemnation that god was plannint to unleash for making us in such a way that we have a choice to sin or not.......he is condemning us from waht, his own design? or is that the design? make a species........let them run around, send a savior and who ever CHOOSES to believe is saved and the others get to burn in hell fire for eternity for being that way that we were allowed to be?
its a riddle i will tell you that.
thats why it hasnt been answered.
Angels and god are aliens.......who artificially inseminated Mary (put her in a deep sleep) who had a child named Jesus who had mord of this alien DNA than we did. He could do things we couldnt because he was many steps genetically closer to the angels (men with wings who fly into the clouds magically) angels being aliens who were much more genetically advanced than us but looked similar. so jesus was sent to show us a new way and the plan went WRONG. If he was sent to save everyone it sure hasnt worked. Its created war, debate, angst and negative emotion. I believe Jesus really did what he had to do and got fucked over big time. He was following god.....and who do we think this god was? Jesus talked to the clouds? No , god was his creator as is ours. One day we will be creators. We will be able to take dna from anything and mix it with anything. Now if we went to a planet and found a mammal resembling us.......and mixed our dna with them, and created that race, they would need a "father" to keep them in line. Would we not be god then? How could we give a god to a species we created unless it was a false story? If we can genetically engineer dna then one day we will create another species and they will need a god.....and a savior if their nature isnt as divine and good as ours is. Maybe this all sounds nuts but to me it makes more sense than the stories of the bible do.