Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Jesus' resurrection Message-ID: Date: 2 Nov 90 08:37:15 GMT Sender: hedrick@porthos.rutgers.edu Organization: /home/fsf/mib/.organization Lines: 60 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >Hmm. I hope that my Lord, who consented to being killed by people who >truly hated him, and still asked for them to be forgiven, would not >react so hastily when people make small jokes. My Lord just isn't >damaged that easily. On the other hand, laughing *with* the people >telling the jokes can, and has, resulted in them coming to know the >Lord. Interesting concept, living *with* the "evil"...almost smacks >of that revolutionary Jew who lived with lepers and ate with tax >collecters. What *is* the world coming to, indeed? This is not at all correct! Jesus did not "consent" to being killed. He stood in silence when faced with the hostility of his accusers. And He specifically said on the cross: "...for they know not what they do!" He refused to flee from His death, for the sake of mankind, whom after all He had come in the first place to help. If indeed Jesus had chosen to flee to safety, then would not have doubts about the validity of His Mission and Message inevitably have arisen in the minds of mankind? By refusing to flee, by courageously facing the torment and murder that awaited Him, Jesus therewith set an unbreakable seal of conviction upon the Message He had given to mankind. If he refused to flee, then he allowed himself to be killed. That is "consent". He did *not* object. He did *not* protest. He did *not* resist. That's what I mean by consent. To allow something to happen you could have stopped. I'm sorry if you thought I meant something else. As for laughing *with* people about things concerning one's own faith, this sounds like nothing but simple cowardice to me! If something is not sacred to you (as evidenced by your *deeds*) then how on earth can you expect it to become sacred to someone else? Even if it's too hard to try to speak up at a particular time, one can perhaps then just walk away! Oh, come on. It's not that I want to say something but I'm ashamed I'm a Christian. It's that I don't think they are being sacreligious. God is sacred, but words about God are not. How can someone "defame" the God they don't know? Blasphemy is a sin which can only be committed by a believer. I think that Jesus offered His help to those who truly sought in their hearts for it, and not otherwise. He did not humor fools, as evidenced, for instance, in His replys to those who sought to "trick" him with their questions, or with His driving the "money-changers" out of the holy Temple. Would Jesus have stayed with someone who did not respect Him? I don't think so! Not all meanings of the word "humor" are the same. I'm sure he laughed will all kinds of people. He certainly did everything else with them. Note that Jesus was willing to eat with detested people, *including* the Pharisees, and some who were unwilling to accept him. -- Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!