A Fallacious Tear-Jerking Scenario
Martin Blazevich mblazevi@atsmail.gc.lucent.com
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:20:21 -0400 (00873926421, 3416BAB5.701E@atsmail.lucent.com)
Matt Bell wrote:
>
> TILL
>
> <snip>
>
> Even the suffering angle is fallacious. If Jesus was himself God, then he
> too was omniscient and omnipotent, so he had nothing to fear during his
> trial and crucifixion, because he knew that he wasn't really going to die.
> If he had all power, then he could have anesthetized himself so that he
> wouldn't feel anything, so if he suffered any pain, it was his own fault.
> Furthermore, how could a preacher know that "pain" would be the same to a
> god, whose ways are always higher than man's ways?
>
> This whole tear-jerking scenario is too ridiculous for words.
>
> MATT
>
> I could not hold off responding to this post by you any longer Till :) What
> is ridiculous is your complete misunderstanding of what is claimed happened
> to Christ on the cross, and what the sufferings of Christ involved. Suggest
> you learn what Christians believe this was as you obviously do not have a
> clue based on your above comment. Once you have educated yourself on this
> perhaps you would consider retracting the last line of your above post as
> being down to your ignorance of Christianity rather than a true
> representation of the same.
>
> Matt
Martin-
Hi Matt! No trick questions here, just a few clarification requests.
:) I thought that we are only to follow the bible, but are you saying
that we should "learn what Christians believe" before making our own
judgements? Why should we do this? Where did the previous Christians
get their knowledge?
Till's argument seems valid to me. Couldn't an omni-max (sounds like a
movie theatre stereo term) god could control all suffering, including
his own?