Crucifixion

[callistahogan]

As you can probably imagine, I had to do a post on this topic eventually.

As you all know--or all should know--yesterday is the day commonly associated with Jesus's resurrection, and last Friday the date commonly known as Good Friday, the day Jesus died on the cross for our sins. As such, there were apparently quite a few shows on the Bible and the events written in the Bible on the Discovery Channel last night, and I caught this show on the crucifixion.

And they were vicious.

There were apparently many ways of crucifixion during the Ancient Roman times, whether it was by the cross (which is the most universally-known form of crucifixion) or by simply running them through with a spear, sticking the spear in the ground and leaving them to die... in plain sight. The Ancient Romans were all about power and torture, and making themselves out to be the biggest bullies in the playground, to use a metaphor.

It was scary, seeing what they did. It seemed like crucifixion was purely made to prolong the process of death as long as possible, and that's exactly what it was for, according to the show I watched. It was absolutely scary, seeing them impale people through their stomachs, leaving them to bleed to death, and seeing men and even woman get scourged and then hung on a cross to die, nails driven into the hands and feet so that they could hardly even move. Not to mention the fact that they had to carry their cross beams to the crucifixion site which, more often that not, was more than a mile away from the city.

In my Christian point of view, the fact that Jesus had to go through this type of torture just makes it all the worse, not that it wasn't absolutely terrible before.

I mean, during one of the Jewish revolts in... 4 A.D., I believe, the Ancient Romans crucified over six thousand men and woman along the roads. One person is bad enough, three people is absolutely terrible, but six thousand? I don't understand why people would ever want to cause so much harm to another human being, I really don't. It's absolutely terrible.

I'm still reeling from what I saw, frankly. It was terribly bloodthirsty. I am glad that, for all intents and purposes, we've gotten out of that crucifixion stage, even though there are terrible ways to kill nowadays. I just can't believe that Jesus went through all that torture, and not because He did anything wrong, either--He was betrayed, and He died on the cross for our sins. He willingly went through all of that torture... for us. And I find it terrible that we don't recognize that sacrifice...

But I'll stop this post now, considering it's gotten fairly long winded. It just goes to show how much I can ramble on and on about a topic if it interests me enough, doesn't it?

Comments

[alexseanchai]

This all fits on one screen on my flist (more on your journal, but your text column's narrower). That ain't rambly.

And many of those who "don't recognize that sacrifice" wonder why a loving God would require it.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

Perhaps because it is the only way for the majority of humankind to even have a chance to be forgiven from their sins?

God was willing to sacrifice His own son so that humanity had a chance of redemption and forgiveness. I can't see anything quite more loving than that.

And I'm glad to hear it's not rambly. Because I'll probably make more rambly posts on Christian topics nowadays.

[alexseanchai]

No, no, you misunderstand me--yay for Jesus being willing to die for us, boo for God setting up the universe in such a way as to require a death by torture to set things right.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

But he didn't set it up that way.

It was only after the first sin entered the world that God realized that he would have to sacrifice His son to give humankind a chance. If anyone's to blame for Jesus's death and the sad state of the world now, it's Satan.

/me thinks you're slightly underestimating the power of Satan.

[alexseanchai]

And God, being presumably omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent, didn't see this coming from the start and couldn't avert it? You're making it sound like Satan's more powerful than God.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

He could possibly have avoided it, yes, and this is where things get fuzzy even for me. After all, even I don't understand why there are so many bad things in the world, but I'll be sure to look this up, and ask my dad about it, and get back to you, if you'd like me to.

Because I'm sure there's an answer to this somewhere.

[alexseanchai]

You do that, if you like. I'm pretty sure there's no answer, though.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

There is an answer, or as much as an answer as us humans can understand. I remember hearing something about this, but can't remember what they said.

And besides, we infinitesimally small humans can't even fathom the idea of a God, let alone understand why he allows certain things to happen. All I can do is give you what I think, and I can understand if you don't agree with me.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

The reason for that,I think, is because us as humans are given free choice. And human nature being sinful, most fall victim to Satan instead of following God. Of course, God knows what we're going to choose in the end, but I think He wants us to have the choice to listen to Him and follow His plans or not instead of making the choice for us. The simple fact that Jesus triumphed over death is proof enough that God is so much more powerful than Satan.

[alexseanchai]

Assuming he did, which Christians believe but nobody else does. And you're still talking like there's no way an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could arrange things so that one could follow God's plan or turn away from it without hurting anyone else in the process.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

God gave us free will, and the ability to use it. Occasionally we may use it in the wrong way but in the end, God can't really impact our free will. He leaves us to make our own choices, but he makes sure that there *is* a good choice, that there is a chance for redemption. If they choose not to take it, he cannot force them to. He might be all-knowing and all-powerful, but that does not necessarily mean he would abuse his power to bring all of us to Him outside of our own free will.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

Sin is in our nature, our instincts and desires. There's no way people won't get hurt unless everyone are reflections of Christ. And it bothers me that you, among many others, assume that just because God is a benevolent and loving God, He has to work according to your rules. Here's the fact: *we do NOT matter*. We're less than a grain of sand compared to Him. And He has every right to just kill us all in a flash because sins, no matter how great or small in our eyes, are all equally abhorrent in His eyes. But He didn't. He so loved us that He gave His only son to die for us. And, sometimes we need to go through hard times to grow closer to him, if only because we won't listen otherwise.

[alexseanchai]

I never said God has to work according to my rules. I said, I find it impossible to believe that a God who knows everything (including, presumably, how to build a world in which there is only pleasure and lack thereof, not pleasure and pain) and has the power to do anything (including, presumably, how to build said world) and wants only the best for us (and therefore presumably doesn't like seeing us hurt each other) exists, because if he did, he'd have built a world in which nobody could hurt anyone else.

[alexseanchai]

Or even if it's as impossible to have free will without the ability to hurt each other as it is to have a square circle, he could still have built a world without sociopaths, natural disasters, or nasty genetic diseases that kill toddlers.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

But he *did* create a world void of pain. He created the world perfectly. There was no evil. Yet, He created us with free will. He created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Perhaps that wasn't a wise thing to do, if you think that God was not all-knowing and all-powerful if sin was even able to enter the world in the first place. He created us with free will, Satan took control of that, and bam, sin entered the world. And I understand this is a lousy description, but I really am not good at explaining this, but am trying as hard as I can to do so.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

And he did, before our damned ancestors listened to the snake and ate the fruit God told them not to eat, and tried to cover up their sins and blame others instead of confessing and taking responsibility for them. That was when sin entered the world and the perfect world where everything coexisted peacefully ceased to be.

[alexseanchai]

Neither of you seems to realize that an omniscient God would have seen that coming and an omnipotent God could have set up the world so it couldn't happen and an omnibenevolent God would want to make sure it wouldn't happen.

Incidentally, didn't God say that on the day Adam and Eve ate the apple, they'd die? See how that didn't happen? (And you can't use the line that God meant a God-day of longer than an Earth-day without applying it to the days of the first chapter of Genesis too.) What's that called again? Oh yes, a lie. Perfect nothing.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

We realize that perfectly well. And I am not claiming to know why God *didn't* stop it from happening. *I* am not God. *I* am not the center of the universe. I, a teeny, petty, selfish little human, cannot explain what the Lord of all the universe really thinks and feels. I cannot explain why He does what He does. Only God can do that.

And it wasn't a lie. It was called *mercy*. He granted mercy on His creation, because, believe it or not (and I find it hard to believe), He loves us and wants us to be with Him.

[alexseanchai]

So you're saying he told Adam and Eve if they ate the apple they'd die that day, meaning to kill them if they ate the apple, yet knowing full well (there's that omniscience thing again) that he would be merciful and refrain from killing them?

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

They did die. Death entered the world when sin did, because sins lead to death. And He *told* them not to eat the fruits because they will surely die when they do. It's not God's fault that Eve and Adam used their free will to disobey God, just like if you touched the stove when your parents told you not to because they know if you do, you'll get burned, it's your fault, not your parents'.
...Oh, I forgot, you want a God who shelter us from all possibilities of bad things happening from the very beginning of creation even if that means we lose our free will. My bad.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

I am not sure exactly what I am saying. All I know is that God will do what He will do and we cannot understand why He do. This is only a theory, however.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve were perfect. They were not sinful. They were fully living. They were happy. I don't think any of us have ever lived as perfectly and wonderfully as Adam and Eve did in the first days on the garden. And perhaps, when they ate of it, it was not a physical death, like we so often assume, but a spiritual death. They separated themselves from God and, in my perspective--not saying you have to agree with me--that is the worst sort of death possible, because I cannot imagine being separated from God by sin in that way.

So, if we go by the fact that God meant a spiritual death, that would not contradict what He said. And, since we can never know exactly what God means when he says something, then we can't say that what He said was a lie unless we know for sure.

The Bible is a very versatile book, like I've found. It can be interpreted in so many ways.

[alexseanchai]

I fail to see how preventing the possibility of choices that cause harm to others constrains one's free will, any more than the lack of McD's in a town constrains one's ability to pick one of the eight other burger joints to get food from.

And I'm aware that Adam and Eve died. But see here, Genesis 2:16-17? "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;=but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."" In the day that you eat from it you will surely die. That same day, not the next day, not nine hundred thirty years later.

[alexseanchai]

Quote:

The Bible is a very versatile book, like I've found. It can be interpreted in so many ways.

I've noticed.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

I am not sure where you get your reasoning. If you eliminate one choice from the game, so to speak, there is only one choice left. Neutral choices would not be an option, because there would be bad sides to it and, since God keeps us from doing anything bad, there would be only good things. And if you could only do good things, would that not affect your free will? If you eliminate one entire choice, that impacts your free will.

Also, I still hold to my belief that death is separation from God. It gives you no hope to be reconciled. Sin was that death. It was the thing that separated us from God, making it so that we were able to sin, that we were able to make bad choices. Once Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they died, perhaps not physically, but spiritually. There are more ways to die than simply physically and I believe that is what God was referring to.

[alexseanchai]

The world's not black and white. The world's technicolor. I'm saying, remove the dark shades from the palette and there's still a pretty big palette. And I think if he was telling the truth, he'd have said 'you will surely be kicked out of the Garden', or words to that effect that quite clearly didn't mean physical death, rather than 'you will surely die'.