Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!msi.umn.edu!src.honeywell.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Jesus' resurrection Message-ID: Date: 6 Nov 90 03:16:56 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 61 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >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. Sorry, but the word "consent" can only have a particular meaning, and it is to the misapplication of the word in this case that I protest! In looking in the dictionary, we can find definitions for consent along the lines of: voluntary agreement, willingness, concurrence. That fact that Jesus stood in silence should not be construed to imply that He in any way consented to the proceedings -- He was not given any choice in the matter! I would say His silence was a clear protest to it! He simply refused to betray His Mission and Message no matter what He was threatened with. He could hardly be expected to consent to what was done! Jesus had brought His Word, His Teaching, to mankind, and in accordance with God's Will, mankind was free to respond as they wished to His Mission. It was not intended by God that mankind's free will should be "stopped" at this time, for this was an offer of help from God, made out of Love! It will be different with the Mission and the Message of the Son of Man-- His Word will also bring judgment with it. Mankind's free will to choose the *wrong* paths will be taken from them during the Millenium, in order that they may at last learn to know and live the actual Will of God. >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. And I say that words about GOD are sacred. I say that GOD is the most sacred word that we have been given! Whoever debases the name, debases the concept! This is the reason we were given the Second Commandment. Taking the LORD's name in vain is a "sin" which can be committed by anyone! That just this practice is so widespread today is unfortunate, but we do not have to consent to it. We can protest it where possible. Let's try it and see! >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. Of course Jesus laughed, but not about matters concerning the Almighty! I will say it again, that Jesus demanded respect from those with whom He associated. He did not humor fools. Should we do any less? Yes, by all means, let's be "true to ourselves" and to our GOD! What else? Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801