Intro: Today I cover a number of bases, including:
· The suffering of Jesus Christ
· The Bird is the Word
· Pooping in the Garden of Eden
· My Muslim companion’s lament
Question: How much, if at all, did Jesus Christ actually suffer?
That question can be asked most pointedly if this claim is true: That Jesus is God or, at least, is part of the Trinity (each part of which is coequal, therefore all of which is God).
If someone nailed such a God to a cross, would that God feel any pain? Could that God feel any pain? As to "would" - He would feel pain only if there are pain receptors in that flesh and blood body which could possibly register any kind of impression on His (shall we say?) larger "Body." As to "could" - He could, simply because what could there possibly be that God could not do - including not feeling pain if He chose not to feel it.
But I have a problem with any kind of pain which God could feel compared to any kind of pain which mortal man could feel. Our pains have meaning in that, if intense and sufficiently prolonged, we become focused exclusively on the moment and we fear death. I doubt God could have those kinds of pains. What? God fearing death? Out of His many powers, surely this is one He does not have: The "power" (i.e. ability) to fear death.
The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson
In 2004, I saw Mel Gibson's bit of indulgent pornography aka The Passion of the Christ. This isn't exactly what I'd call a date movie, unless your date loves gore galore. I suspected, even back then, its intention was to push our buttons. My fellow audience members had several thoughts:
- I don't think I could endure that kind of pain with any kind of dignity.
- Jesus didn't even say "ouch" once.
- He didn't even flinch [NOTE: That's a very guy thing.]
- Imagine! He went through all that for the sake of my salvation.
- Imagine! He had His only begotten Son go through all that for the sake of my salvation.
I remember being pissed as I watched (as much as I could stomach) of the flogging, seeing this as just another cheap propaganda ploy to make We-the-People feel low down (in comparison) and unworthy. How would the Monty Python players have worked this material? Maybe something like this: As John Cleese (playing Jesus) collapses at the feet of Graham Chapman, Chapman responds to the head-to-toe wounds on Jesus by drawing back and exclaiming, "Ewww!" To which "Jesus" Cleese motions him closer in order to whisper in his ear:
"I know it looks bad, old friend, but I can't feel a thing! You know, nerves disconnected from my brain and all that. Some kind of birth defect, I suppose. Very useful at the moment, wouldn't you say? But...don't tell anybody. That would spoil the effect."
Then there's the theme of sacrifice
Then there's the aspect of God sacrificing His son (which is really Himself), much as Abraham was asked to sacrifice his own son Isaac. But there's a difference. Abraham, as a father, would suffer the pain of separation from Isaac. But God, on the other hand, wouldn't really be sacrificing anything at all by having his "Son" be "killed" thereby effecting a reunion with God.
The Word? The Bird is the Word!
A born again friend of mine refuses to even say the name "Jesus Christ" - in reference to the Savior. Her claim is that the name "Jesus" is nothing more than a derivation of "Zeus," the name of the King of the Greek gods. It's meant as an homage to the ancient gods of mythology. I don't know (or care, actually) about any of that, but I found her next comment to be interesting. She refers to the Savior as "The Word."
When I was in high school, I heard a crazy little tune by The Trashmen called The Bird is the Word. So, whenever she mentions "The Word," I smile to myself thinking of that tune and those mindless lyrics. [Not to mention that scene in Pink Flamingos, featuring Bird being "lip" synched in an especially disgusting way.]
Her source for "The Word" comes from the Bible (John 1:1): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Naturally, I have a lot of problems with that verse, including: What is meant by "in the beginning?" If the Creational beginning is meant, then "The Word" did not exist prior to the Creation? And then there's the matter of which particular Word are we talking about? Curly is a word, as also are Moe, Shemp, and Larry.
And, furthermore, was it a Written Word? Or was it a Spoken Word which was meant to just sort of hang forever in the air? In either event, it is written that "The Word became flesh." To which I'd say, "That's quite a trick! Even better than creating Man from dust."
Pooping in the Garden of Eden
I have often wondered about these lines from the Bible (Genesis): "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." Pray tell: Why should Adam and Eve have been ashamed? Even after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge? If the capacity for shame or embarrassment had been within them, that was only because that's how God made them. For without this created capacity, no amount of (so-called) "knowledge" should have induced shame in them.
[Personally? I think Moses and the other Patriarchs were unduly weirded-out by nudity, and that served to slant our theology forever after.]
Again I invoke the Monty Python players, this time to recreate the scene of the first defecation in the Garden of Eden - that of Adam in the presence of Eve. They're strolling in the Garden, side by side, when Adam stops suddenly, feeling an urgent call of nature. He then squats, poops, and rises without shame before Eve. And she, also unashamed, looks upon the ground, then at Adam, then upon the ground once again and says, "I had no idea, from your outward appearance, that you had that in you. Do you suppose I will be similarly afflicted?"
"Why say you ‘afflicted,' woman, as if this is a bad thing? There is no sin here."
Time out [or "enough, already"]: I will leave it to Monty Python's diehard fans to flesh out this scene, if any of them so desire. Of course, developing this scene any further becomes somewhat of a moot point if none of the excretory functions had been performed in the Garden prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit.
My Muslim Companion's Lament
I buy my breakfast coffee from a Muslim man, who I think of as "my companion" - or one of them. All of us are companions to each other who are spiritual seekers struggling through this life, even though we're not of the same faith. He and I were talking about how hard it is to meet women. He's in his mid-30's and has never been married, though I could tell he is very keen to enter that stage of life with all of its blessings, including fatherhood.
Then I thought of the meaning of the word Islam: "the total surrender of oneself to God." I thought, "If this man is a Muslim and has totally surrendered himself to God, then why would he care one way or another for a wife?" That's a silly question, though, since God created Eve because it is not good for man to be alone. Though of course man was not alone and never would be - as long as he had God. But that's not the same thing, is it?
In conclusion
Much of my carrying on (above) is meant as an exercise, meant only to be an ice breaker of sorts. It's just a means to stimulate an inquiry: "What exactly do you believe in? And why?" I ask myself these very questions all the time.
While I feel that religion can be a beautiful thing, it can also be said: "It brings out the worst in us as well as the best." Much work needs to be done to minimize how it so effectively brings out the worst in us. Are there any new prophets among you who are willing to do this work?
Steven Searle, just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment