Are there limits to human detachment

[Neoplatonist]

What if Satan had shown Christ not the riches of the world that could be his, but his mother or innocent children being abused in the worst ways imaginable? Similarly, what if the soldiers had scourged Mary instead, would Christ have recanted? Is there truly nothing in our worst imaginings that could have made Christ come down from the cross to stop it?

If he would have, then good for his humanity, but bad for the rest of us.

If not, then how can we really make sense out of saying he was fully human? How can we possibly relate to him as one of us, when (surely) no one among us could do the same?

 

[fhansen]

What if Satan had shown Christ not the riches of the world that could be his, but his mother or innocent children being abused in the worst ways imaginable? Similarly, what if the soldiers had scourged Mary instead, would Christ have recanted? Is there truly nothing in our worst imaginings that could have made Christ come down from the cross to stop it?

If he would have, then good for his humanity, but bad for the rest of us.

If not, then how can we really make sense out of saying he was fully human? How can we possibly relate to him as one of us, when (surely) no one among us could do the same?

I’m not sure I follow your post but we understand the atonement as God’s means of addressing sin; Jesus was put on the cross by sin and stayed there in order to triumph over sin and ultimately do away with it. The concupiscence that lures the rest of the world away from full integrity and into sin could not deter Him from that mission.

 

[rinnie]

What if Satan had shown Christ not the riches of the world that could be his, but his mother or innocent children being abused in the worst ways imaginable? Similarly, what if the soldiers had scourged Mary instead, would Christ have recanted? Is there truly nothing in our worst imaginings that could have made Christ come down from the cross to stop it?

If he would have, then good for his humanity, but bad for the rest of us.

If not, then how can we really make sense out of saying he was fully human? How can we possibly relate to him as one of us, when (surely) no one among us could do the same?

I cannot see where his Mother was not abused in the worst way imaginable, she had to see here Son hung and abused, and spit on, and die on a cross.

Did God not say the Mother of Christ would not have her heart pierced by a sword, did it not happen.

Do you not think Christ knew the Love of his Mother and what this was doing to her.

Do you not think she would have gladly taken this cross up for him if she could, and do you not know the pain in his Mothers eyes was the worst pain he could have imagined?

 

[Neoplatonist]

Wow. Great point, Rinnie.

What about the case not of Mary, then, who was amazing and the queen of saints, but that of innocent children who had not consented and were not “full of grace”, had not been spoken to by angels, and had not witnessed lives of miracles?

How could he hold to his faith so strongly in the face of that when he had broken down in the garden even without it?

That brings me to a second question, and gets at fhansen’s point. The world is still drowning in a sea of sin, so how did he abolish it? He became a gateway through which a few could escape from it’s pull, but it hardly seems “abolished.”

 

[ynotzap]

Wow. Great point, Rinnie.

What about the case not of Mary, then, who was amazing and the queen of saints, but that of innocent children who had not consented and were not “full of grace”, had not been spoken to by angels, and had not witnessed lives of miracles?

How could he hold to his faith so strongly in the face of that when he had broken down in the garden even without it?

That brings me to a second question, and gets at fhansen’s point. The world is still drowning in a sea of sin, so how did he abolish it? He became a gateway through which a few could escape from it’s pull, but it hardly seems “abolished.”

Jesus is God, His mission was to redeem mankind from sin and to give them eternal life. By His death which He desired because He said no-one takes His life from Him, but that He give it up willingly. Since the sin of Adam, we inherited original sin and it’s effects. Every person that is born into this world inherits this sin. So every one has to be born-again to be freed from this sin. To be born again is to turn from sin and turn to Jesus for salvation, this is accomplished by the reception of Baptism then we receive the Holy Spirit who makes us adopted children of God. This gift of Salvation is available to everyone who accepts Jesus for who He is, the Son of God, God-man and redeemer. Unless this is done, original sin remains in the person. So sin was conquered by Jesus, and He becomes the Way, the Gate through which we must go to eliminate it. The reason there is so much sin in the world, is that people have not turned to Christ, and Satan rules their lives through the effects of original sin, and sin itself. This is why evangelization is critical ,spreading the Good News that Jesus Christ is God-man, Savior and Redeemer Man after the fall of Adam could not redeem himself. Contact with God was no longer possible, Heaven was closed to man. By assuming human nature, Jesus united human nature to divine nature, then Jesus once again established contact with the Father for mankind and gave man all the means he needs to avoid sin. Knowing that we are weak He also established the Sacraments which are continually used to regain the state of grace we received in the Sacrament of Baptism. As St. Peter stated “Jesus came to redeem us from the works of Satan” by giving us the Holy Spirit who makes it possible to conquer Satan and all evil, super-natural grace, amazing grace, sanctifying grace.

 

[weller2]

What if Satan had shown Christ not the riches of the world that could be his, but his mother or innocent children being abused in the worst ways imaginable?

Why would he? That wouldn’t achieve anything.

What was the point of Jesus’ excursion to the desert and fasting? The point was denial of the self (ego). Jesus does that by denying himself food, comfort, and power.

Who (or what) is Satan? Some say that Satan is a projection of Jesus’ ego. Others say that he is God’s agent provocateur, whose job is to test Jesus (see Book of Job) – check if Jesus will act out of selfish motives (desire for food, comfort, power). Yet others say that he is an agent of the opposite faction trying to get Jesus to change his allegiance. Ultimately the nature of Satan does not matter. What matters is that he is trying to get Jesus to act on a selfish motive.

So while Satan could get Jesus to bow to him by exploiting Jesus’ compassion for abused children etc., that would achieve nothing, as Jesus’ motive would still be selfless, i.e. his action would be directed at the benefit of others, and not himself. Remember that Jesus’ mission involved letting himself be killed – and that requires the ultimate denial of the self. So the trick you propose ultimately gives Satan nothing.

 

[Neoplatonist]

So while Satan could get Jesus to bow to him by exploiting Jesus’ compassion for abused children etc., that would achieve nothing, as Jesus’ motive would still be selfless, i.e. his action would be directed at the benefit of others, and not himself. Remember that Jesus’ mission involved letting himself be killed – and that requires the ultimate denial of the self. So the trick you propose ultimately gives Satan nothing.

Interesting point. That, then, makes me wonder: why not, then, if acting to put an end to all possible child rape and abuse would give Satan nothing, why did Christ not do away with them with a wave of his hand?

 

[fhansen]

Interesting point. That, then, makes me wonder: why not, then, if acting to put an end to all possible child rape and abuse would give Satan nothing, why did Christ not do away with them with a wave of his hand?

Why didn’t God prevent Adam from sinning to begin with? He covets our decision, our opting for the right choice. So He* draws,* rather than forces us. He conquers sin by refusing to participate, turning the other cheek,showing us how to do so and asking us to follow, then triumphing over sin and death by rising again from the death that sin strove to accomplish. Sin wants God dead. God won’t obstruct it; He’ll only call us to the light, to a higher way that He proves exists.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Why didn’t God prevent Adam from sinning to begin with? He covets our decision, our opting for the right choice. So He* draws,* rather than forces us. He conquers sin by refusing to participate, turning the other cheek,showing us how to do so and asking us to follow, then triumphing over sin and death by rising again from the death that sin strove to accomplish. Sin wants God dead. God won’t obstruct it; He’ll only call us to the light, to a higher way that He proves exists.

God did not prevent Adam from having sin because you as a Catholic believe in free will?

 

[fhansen]

God did not prevent Adam from having sin because you as a Catholic believe in free will?

Yes. He wants us to decide.

 

[weller2]

Interesting point. That, then, makes me wonder: why not, then, if acting to put an end to all possible child rape and abuse would give Satan nothing, why did Christ not do away with them with a wave of his hand?

What tells you that Christ has such power to begin with? And if he had, again, what would be the point?

Let me use an analogy. Have you ever played GTA V? If you haven’t, just go to youtube, put in “GTA V” in the search box, watch some gameplay videos, and come back.

OK, as you can see, a rather popular pass-time in the GTA world is running over non-playable characters (NPCs) with cars. Now, let’s pretend that I am the game creator and I want to eliminate that. I have two options:

(1) Modify the physics code so that running over NPCs with becomes impossible. Pros: nobody gets hurt. Cons: I have just artificially constrained the world.

(2) Try to get players to behave. This can include:

(a) implementing a scoring / moderation system, so that repeat offenders are kicked and banned from the game (*). Pros: no need to recode physics and put artificial constraints on the world. Cons: administrative overhead, plus moderation still means you are tinkering with the game world manually.

(b) creating an in-game messenger character to explain the players that hurting NPCs is a Very Bad Thing ™. Pros: no need to recode physics, no policing, as the players will police themselves, the game world runs without intervention. Cons: not completely effective.

You can do (2a), (2b), or both.

If you want to be really effective in eliminating NPC suffering, then you should do (1), and in this case, pursuing (2) is redundant.

(*) i.e. not allowed to respawn, or punished in-game. See John 9:2.

 

[weller2]

(continued)

So, (2b) essentially means that the game programmer spawns his avatar, and starts wandering the game world, telling everyone to behave.

In this context, you question can be reformulated thus: why doesn’t the programmer’s avatar change the physics code, so running over other character becomes impossible?

You can immediately see that the question is nonsensical, because the avatar only exists in-game, and so it cannot change the game code; only the programmer (who is outside) can do that. On a deeper level, your question incorrectly presupposes that the programmer is his avatar. That’s obviously not the case.

And the programmer runs into another problem, which is that walking around the game world and telling people to behave is repetitive and time-consuming. So he codes some artificial intelligence into his avatar, so the avatar can execute the mission by itself. He also gives the avatar ability to make small, localized changes in the game physics – enough to impress other characters, not enough to really break anything.

But, before letting the avatar loose, he must test whether its artificial intelligence works correctly. To do this, he spawns a special character, whose job is trying to persuade the avatar into abandoning its mission. This character belongs to character class which specializes in this kind of jobs. The programmer calls this “tempter” character class The Adversary. In Hebrew, Ha-Satan.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Love the game analogy. Filled with potential. Yet, if there are no npc’s, but only active characters, then we would have to allow that a) getting run over permanently damages that character for the rest of the game and b) once you stop playing, if you ran over characters, then your real-world bank account is emptied, or some other such horrific penalty. Sadly, there is no way to ever prove to other players that the two things were causally connected, so they cannot be adequately warned.

I have thought about the video game idea before, so I’m very interested to see where this whole model might take us…

 

[ynotzap]

Why would he? That wouldn’t achieve anything.

What was the point of Jesus’ excursion to the desert and fasting? The point was denial of the self (ego). Jesus does that by denying himself food, comfort, and power.

Who (or what) is Satan? Some say that Satan is a projection of Jesus’ ego. Others say that he is God’s agent provocateur, whose job is to test Jesus (see Book of Job) – check if Jesus will act out of selfish motives (desire for food, comfort, power). Yet others say that he is an agent of the opposite faction trying to get Jesus to change his allegiance. Ultimately the nature of Satan does not matter. What matters is that he is trying to get Jesus to act on a selfish motive.

So while Satan could get Jesus to bow to him by exploiting Jesus’ compassion for abused children etc., that would achieve nothing, as Jesus’ motive would still be selfless, i.e. his action would be directed at the benefit of others, and not himself. Remember that Jesus’ mission involved letting himself be killed – and that requires the ultimate denial of the self. So the trick you propose ultimately gives Satan nothing.

 

[ynotzap]

As I understand it, the three temptation of Jesus where a) an appeal to the physical, hunger.
Satan stated If you are the Son of God (this is critical in understanding who Jesus is, and it relevance to the salvation of mankind) Satan didn’t know, if he did, the whole scene of the Crucifixion might have never happened, it was Jesus’ intent that He give up His life to prove that there is no greater love than one give his life for another) Hunger is a powerful force for humans. Jesus replied "Not by bread alone does man live " (but also by spirit) This inJesus case was not “ego” He was emphasizing the spiritual character in man’s nature.

b) the second was an appeal to self-glory, or the pride of life, to show either God’s favor, or to show if it was God. Satan was astute, but not infallible. He knew human nature. Jesus
always answered in a way that still left him confounded.

c) A promise of power, wealth, all that the world could offer, a false god to man, it wasn’t Satan’s to give (he is a liar and deceiver). Jesus reminded him, and the duties of all men toward God, to worship and serve (in love not in demand)

Jesus would never bow down to Satan, but He submitted Himself willingly to the influence Satan had over sinful men to take His life, this was His intent from the beginning. In so doing He stated, “No greater love has one than to give up his life for another” and at the same time strip Satan’s ultimate power over man, death, for he is a murderer. So I do agree with you on some points, but I have to disagree where I think I must. Sorry, I messed up the post.

 

[weller2]

Yet, if there are no npc’s, but only active characters,

After thinking about it some more I realized that difference between players and NPCs is miniscule. If the NPCs are controlled by a sufficiently advanced AI, then you have no way of telling whether the person you are interacting with is a player or an NPC. The only difference between a player and an NPC is that NPC does not exist outside of the game. So looking from the perspective of the game, the players have afterlife, and the NPCs don’t.

This has a rather interesting implication: if there is no afterlife, then we are all self-aware NPCs.

then we would have to allow that a) getting run over permanently damages that character for the rest of the game

But this is what happens to you when you get run over by a car, isn’t it?

and b) once you stop playing, if you ran over characters, then your real-world bank account is emptied, or some other such horrific penalty.

Sure. That’s the very concept behind reward/punishment in afterlife.

The twist is that the promise of “real world” reward/punishment is made to you in-game by another character, and your bank account will only be credited / cleaned after you finish your gameplay.

 

[Neoplatonist]

But this is what happens to you when you get run over by a car, isn’t it?

Right, so why would the designer permit my game to be ruined for the sake of someone else’s entertainment? (Or, worse, permit children to be abused/molested creating layers upon layers of psychological damage.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps our understanding of what sin actually is falls far short of what God sees.

While abuse of innocents is a horrific evil in the eyes of man…many spiritual writers tell us that far lesser evils (to our eyes) are far more abhorrent and wounding to God.

Does not the very fact that God permits so many horrific evils (in our eyes) mean that there are even worse evils (that we do not understand) that God is saving us from?

In the end we cannot expect to understand the problem of evil this side of heaven.
God, who permitted his own Son to experience the worst of human evil, has shown us he is with us despite all evidence to the contrary and we have to submit and trust to His Will.

It seems we are saved through evil, not from evil.
Very hard Christian truths here.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Perhaps our understanding of what sin actually is falls far short of what God sees.

In the end we cannot expect to understand the problem of evil this side of heaven.
God, who permitted his own Son to experience the worst of human evil, has shown us he is with us despite all evidence to the contrary and we have to submit and trust to His Will.

Interesting perspective. To explore your idea just a little bit, can we really hold to the idea that Christ’s betrayal and crucifixion is really the worst of human evil that we moderns can imagine? It seems to me that we can call to mind any number of soldiers and saints who have seen worse and suffered longer without the certain faith that their sacrifice would, in the end, have tangible redeeming value to those they struggled to help.

Even Mary comes to mind. Who among us would not consider watching our child crucified a hundredfold more horrifying than facing our own death?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Interesting perspective. To explore your idea just a little bit, can we really hold to the idea that Christ’s betrayal and crucifixion is really the worst of human evil that we moderns can imagine? It seems to me that we can call to mind any number of soldiers and saints who have seen worse and suffered longer without the certain faith that their sacrifice would, in the end, have tangible redeeming value to those they struggled to help.

Even Mary comes to mind. Who among us would not consider watching our child crucified a hundredfold more horrifying than facing our own death?

I think maybe you are confusing bodily and mental sufferings (which are not moral evils) with sin (which by definition is moral evil) perhaps.

While Jesus’s sufferings were very great I suppose there are others who have suffered greater bodily or mental pain for far lesser causes or no cause at all except chance misfortune. I cannot see why that is a problem?