A Fallacious Tear-Jerking Scenario
jg.griffin jg.griffin@mci2000.com
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:00:25 -0400 (00873961225, 01INHPC82WBQ9KM66P@MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET)
> 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.
>
> GINGER
> This "you don't know because you're not a Christian" line
> is beginning to wear very thin, Mr. Bell. According to you,
> the atheists on this list don't know what inspiration is, or
> what the sufferings of Christ involved -- or much of anything
> else about Christianity, for that matter.
>
> May I remind you that Mr. Till spent many years as an ordained
> minister? And many of the atheists on this list (myself included) were
> once firm Christian believers. So who are you to tell us that we
> don't know what Christians believe?
>
> Your arrogance does you no credit, and tends to further undercut
> your already pitifully weak and strained arguments.
>
> MATT
> Please note my correction and amendment to reflect what I should have
said
> on this.
GINGER
Yes, I saw your follow-up post on this topic. It was down to
your usual standards.
MATT
> That Till spent 'many years as an ordained minister' makes him
> comments all the more ridiculous as they reflect a shallow understanding
of
> the biblical teaching on what allegedly occurred in the sufferings of
> Christ.
GINGER
Well, I agree with Till, so you must consider my
understanding "shallow" too.
Why does all the nonsense you posted about "spiritual
suffering" make a bit of difference? The point is that
Jesus's "suffering" was phony, period. You're just
playing a pea-and-shell game.
MATT
What an omni-max could/can do and what he did/does
do are two different things.
GINGER
This just makes the whole scenario more ridiculous,
doesn't it? If God could have prevented his own
suffering but didn't, why should I get all dewy eyed
over his "misery"? I don't waste time on omnimax
deities with masochistic streaks.
The whole "suffering" scenario is a major logical
problem for Christianity, as you well know. Till is
certainly not the first one to bring it up, and he
won't be the last. Insulting him (or me) won't make
the issue go away.