The Heretic
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
If we are by nature sinful, degenerate, then no amount of suffering can ever relieve us of our debt. Therefore, according to Christianity, God loves us, He sent someone to die in our place, someone who is worthy.
Yet, this is a trick. Our debt of sin has been paid by someone else, but now we are in debt again, since a "Divine sacrifice" has been done on our part. This is precisely a psychological debt that establishes a certain frame of mind in a person.
Christianity encourages people to believe that they owe a debt, because of their depraved nature, owed to God, which was paid to God by God having been tortured and killed off by the very same debtors. If there is no possible way to be punished for the default crime and once someone else is punished for that crime, neither is there any possible way to show the appropriate gratitude.
The idea of suffering containing a transactional value is the basis of traditional orthodox Christian soteriology. Since man is a sinful beast, he deserves eternal punishment in Hell. Yet God doesn’t want this, because he so loves humanity, he sent his Son to suffer and die in our place – paying off the cosmic debt. This means the suffering and death of one individual is sufficient to replace the suffering of an entire species. Therefore, suffering includes a transactional value – something that can be traded for other things that has transactional value. Such valuation can only be the case if one values suffering because they despise the other person and wishes them ill. Having someone else suffer in my place and deriving pleasure from such suffering in exchange for a debt is exactly what a sadist is, who enjoys the suffering of a random person. I cannot imagine having anyone else suffer in my place unless I took pleasure in it. Therefore, for suffering to have a value, it is for sadists only. What does that say about a God who required somebody to suffer to pay off a debt I owe?
Since the sacrifice was conceptually so extreme, only the most perverse egotist would scoff at the idea. Only an insensitive and emotionally obdurate person wouldn’t be moved by the emotive story of the Passion. It takes the mental cruelty of a person to engage in psychological self-flagellation. Such cruelty contains a psychological drive: the desire to judge oneself guilty, something so despicable that cannot be excused for existence; the desire for punishment, of which there is no possible punishment for such a crime; the desire to crap on the fundamental issues with the problem of guilt which also shuts off all possible alternatives; the desire to invent an idol and also includes the conviction of one’s own worthlessness. If people decide that they cannot be physically punished for the crime of sin, and someone else is punished for them, then there is no possible way to say “thanks.” They are in psychological debt for eternity. That inspires guilt and shame, which lies at the bottom of Christianity.
Such insidious guilt entails feelings of worthlessness and aborted byproducts of the herd. Once we deny the innate depraveness of humanity, and identify the "degenerate" to be a god who is satisfied by blood and suffering to absolve sin - especially a god who approves the suffering of an innocent as a tool for the guilty to be freed - we can reject Christianity wholesale.
Yet, this is a trick. Our debt of sin has been paid by someone else, but now we are in debt again, since a "Divine sacrifice" has been done on our part. This is precisely a psychological debt that establishes a certain frame of mind in a person.
Christianity encourages people to believe that they owe a debt, because of their depraved nature, owed to God, which was paid to God by God having been tortured and killed off by the very same debtors. If there is no possible way to be punished for the default crime and once someone else is punished for that crime, neither is there any possible way to show the appropriate gratitude.
The idea of suffering containing a transactional value is the basis of traditional orthodox Christian soteriology. Since man is a sinful beast, he deserves eternal punishment in Hell. Yet God doesn’t want this, because he so loves humanity, he sent his Son to suffer and die in our place – paying off the cosmic debt. This means the suffering and death of one individual is sufficient to replace the suffering of an entire species. Therefore, suffering includes a transactional value – something that can be traded for other things that has transactional value. Such valuation can only be the case if one values suffering because they despise the other person and wishes them ill. Having someone else suffer in my place and deriving pleasure from such suffering in exchange for a debt is exactly what a sadist is, who enjoys the suffering of a random person. I cannot imagine having anyone else suffer in my place unless I took pleasure in it. Therefore, for suffering to have a value, it is for sadists only. What does that say about a God who required somebody to suffer to pay off a debt I owe?
Since the sacrifice was conceptually so extreme, only the most perverse egotist would scoff at the idea. Only an insensitive and emotionally obdurate person wouldn’t be moved by the emotive story of the Passion. It takes the mental cruelty of a person to engage in psychological self-flagellation. Such cruelty contains a psychological drive: the desire to judge oneself guilty, something so despicable that cannot be excused for existence; the desire for punishment, of which there is no possible punishment for such a crime; the desire to crap on the fundamental issues with the problem of guilt which also shuts off all possible alternatives; the desire to invent an idol and also includes the conviction of one’s own worthlessness. If people decide that they cannot be physically punished for the crime of sin, and someone else is punished for them, then there is no possible way to say “thanks.” They are in psychological debt for eternity. That inspires guilt and shame, which lies at the bottom of Christianity.
Such insidious guilt entails feelings of worthlessness and aborted byproducts of the herd. Once we deny the innate depraveness of humanity, and identify the "degenerate" to be a god who is satisfied by blood and suffering to absolve sin - especially a god who approves the suffering of an innocent as a tool for the guilty to be freed - we can reject Christianity wholesale.
I agree that Heretic has a gifted way of putting things-- and that he has a candor that I admire.
My critique is an immanent one that does not import foreign criteria and distort the subject. 
