Christianity is Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roscoe_Turner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was just talking to someone at a party and we got on the subject of religion. He laid out his theory of Christianity being MSbP. I thought it was interesting and didn’t have much of a response to it. Just seeing what others thought.

One question he asked that stuck with me was, If Adam’s destructive act of disobedience saddled the whole human race with original sin, why didn’t the redemptive act also free all humans from original sin and return us to a state of grace? Why was the redemptive act not as complete as the destructive one?

I didn’t know.
He was trying to sound smart. The analogy clearly doesn’t work. He was also trying to say something to the effect that the Church is a destructive social force.

Given that he came up with the idea, it likely reflects some psychological dynamic within him. He is clearly as ignorant as the rest of us and may feel belittled by that reality. So he beats up on a tradition which aspires to communicate and live out the ultimate eternal Truth, himself getting some attention and a modicum of at least self-adulation in the process.

When trying to engage in a constructive discussion, it is important to know that the other person is interested in doing the same.

The response I have to his second question is essentially that it is a mystery. What is a greater mystery to me is why the Incarnation? Why not leave us in a hopeless misery of ignorance and pain?

I would be interested in understanding how your friend understands why suffering? I do not believe he has yet realized its depths. It demands a response and none is trivial except that which ignores it.
 
I was just talking to someone at a party and we got on the subject of religion. He laid out his theory of Christianity being MSbP. I thought it was interesting and didn’t have much of a response to it. Just seeing what others thought.

One question he asked that stuck with me was, If Adam’s destructive act of disobedience saddled the whole human race with original sin, why didn’t the redemptive act also free all humans from original sin and return us to a state of grace? Why was the redemptive act not as complete as the destructive one?

I didn’t know.
Ever notce that if you break something and then fix it, it never is quite the same? A broken and repaired vase still has little lines and possibly beads of glue, a torn and repaired paper has scotch tape on it, a broken and healed bone still shows scarring.
 
**Roscoe

One question he asked that stuck with me was, If Adam’s destructive act of disobedience saddled the whole human race with original sin, why didn’t the redemptive act also free all humans from original sin and return us to a state of grace? Why was the redemptive act not as complete as the destructive one? **

Because until we live out our lives we have not proven we deserve to be redeemed.
What have we done to be born in sin?

The point as I understood it was that a damage was done by Adam that affected all of mankind. We down the line didn’t play any part in it. Jesus’ act didn’t affect all of mankind in the same way, it just offered an opportunity at redemption, it didn’t correct the problem and put us back into grace. So we down the line aren’t passive recipients as we are with the damage.
 
Adam is the perfect representative of humanity. Every one of us would make the same choice again.
 
I was just talking to someone at a party and we got on the subject of religion. He laid out his theory of Christianity being MSbP. I thought it was interesting and didn’t have much of a response to it. Just seeing what others thought.

One question he asked that stuck with me was, If Adam’s destructive act of disobedience saddled the whole human race with original sin, why didn’t the redemptive act also free all humans from original sin and return us to a state of grace? Why was the redemptive act not as complete as the destructive one?

I didn’t know.
I have thought about this too, and in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans he marks the universality of both Adam’s sin but also the consequence of the life and death of the Lord. Both had universal consequnces or effects.

I think one universal aspect of the Lord’s redeeming death is the ressurection and the objective possibility for everyone now to enjoy the beatific vision of enter into heaven: the former is absolutely universal (we will rise from the dead with our bodies’ nature radically renewed) but we will not all, necessary at least, enter into heaven or enjoy the beatific vision; just as, perhaps, Adam’s sin meant we all lost the state of holiness and justice and had to suffer bodily death, but not all necessarily were doomed to be truly mortal sinners (and remember mortal sin usually requires knowledge); it was, however, an objective possibility.

So the absolute universal consequence for everyone of our first father’s sin was bodily death without exception; the absolute universal consequence of our Lord’s life and death is bodily life everlasting without exception.
 
What have we done to be born in sin?

The point as I understood it was that a damage was done by Adam that affected all of mankind. We down the line didn’t play any part in it. Jesus’ act didn’t affect all of mankind in the same way, it just offered an opportunity at redemption, it didn’t correct the problem and put us back into grace. So we down the line aren’t passive recipients as we are with the damage.
Original sin is not an “actual” sin! It is not itself punishable as such; no one is going to be positively punished for having been born in original sin* or even being in the state or condition of original sin. Original sin is a state or condition: it just means not-having or not-being in the state of justice and holiness: it is a deprivation, like being born blind. That is indeed its own punishment, so to speak, though no guilt arises on account of it; and moreover it is affected by ignorance, because we do not realize exactly what it is we lost and don’t have anymore. That itself might be a mercy: the person who was raised in a wealthy royal household and suddenly plunged into slavery and made to suffer the worst indignities might find that life almost unbearable. We can think of the depression that ex-celebrities are noted for or those who have seen their day and how sometimes sadly they slip into nostalgia and are consequently unhappy or somewhat deluded.

*Now you can argue that someone could merit punishment by deliberately choosing to remain in such a state; and perhaps the punishment would simply be just to so remain in that condition.

Eternal life -life in the fullest as even we in this fallen state know it or can be aware of it - is not our due. We are creatures: we do not have life of ourselves, we are through and through generated and caused and sustained.

Now the classical philosophers would probably be aware that -even if their is an intrinsically and necessarily immortal quality about the soul, such that it “naturally” continues living even after death (i.e. it would require God to intervene to prevent the soul’s continued existence) still he (the classic pagan philosopher) would tell you that such a state or existence is a vastly reduced one.

For example, anyone who has experienced a long lucid dream knows that after a while you start to want to experience objective reality again and the novelty of the wonderland you have created for yourself -with all of its fun possibilities, like the fun of being able to fly around like superman - starts to wear out and off: you start to crave again a word where relationship is possible. Oddly, you start to crave “the real world” exactly because it isn’t a product of your whim and has its own intrinsic existence; I mean, it’s the very difficulties and frustrations - more like challenges really - that objective reality offers that you start to desire: it’s in part the fact that usually annoys us about the real world, that it doesn’t coform to our expectations and anticipations, that makes it strangely desirable or interesting and a more or less worthy object of our intellect. So the ancient philosophers were not far off when they began to realize later that there’s something about the human soul that craves bodily existence and hence developed theories based on the idea of reincarnation (Plato).

Now, with the ressurection we can and will experience an after life that will be bodily though, of course, we can’t really imagine what this will be like mostly because our bodily state or existence will be radically different from what it is now; no doubt, however, this will still be better than the reduced state the soul would be in of its own accord, which no doubt without the interference of God would become, we imagine, quite miserable or unhappy indeed: at the very least there would be a constant craving for return to bodily life and existence without any hope or knowledge of this even being possible.

Original sin by its nature is a deprivation that is a consequence of the loss of original justice and holiness, one; two, it admits of a death that, if left to itself, would be most unhappy - not simply the fear of absolute non-existence, but even a continued existence that would - if it lasted for eternity - only be a further and constant cause of misery. But those souls that “rest in hope” would be much happier, at least because they can hope to return to something like the state they desire or one that is at least more desirable than the present one. And it is the redemption of Christ -of the Messiah and the Saviour- who opens up this possibility and gives us this hope. Thus it is truly good news - especially if you are dead lol, so no doubt they rejoiced in hades - in hell, as the Creed says - in the limbo of the fathers at the proclamation of the Gospel.
 
Ever notce that if you break something and then fix it, it never is quite the same? A broken and repaired vase still has little lines and possibly beads of glue, a torn and repaired paper has scotch tape on it, a broken and healed bone still shows scarring.
We aren’t omnipotient beings. I don’t think God is encumbered in the same way as we are and our fixes.
 
Original sin by its nature is a deprivation that is a consequence of the loss of original justice and holiness, one; two, it admits of a death that, if left to itself, would be most unhappy - not simply the fear of absolute non-existence, but even a continued existence that would - if it lasted for eternity - only be a further and constant cause of misery. But those souls that “rest in hope” would be much happier, at least because they can hope to return to something like the state they desire or one that is at least more desirable than the present one. And it is the redemption of Christ -of the Messiah and the Saviour- who opens up this possibility and gives us this hope. Thus it is truly good news - especially if you are dead lol, so no doubt they rejoiced in hades - in hell, as the Creed says - in the limbo of the fathers at the proclamation of the Gospel.
Epicurus statement comes to mind:

“When I am, death is not, and when death is, I am not”

Non existence isn’t something you can experience. There is no you to experience.
 
Bobby Jim:
Catholicism also teaches that God desires the salvation of mankind…
If God would “WANT” and not just “desire” to “save us”, then all he would need to do is “want” it, and it would happen. Just like “let there be light”, “let them be saved”. Remember, it is all magic.

Do you deny that the fundamental teaching is that we are all sinners? That we all deserve eternal damnation? That we are incapable of earning our way to heaven? That even the “sacrifice” of Jesus did nothing to “save” us, merely made our “salvation” possible? That we all must obey the church?

It is all about being guilty, being inadequate; the necessity to give up our desires for obedience. The basic teaching is not about “love”, it is obedience. The whole story of the “fall” was about obedience. There was nothing wrong about “eating that imaginary apple”; the actual sin was disobedience. And as soon you buy into this concept, and you start to see yourself as undeserving and sinful, then the “game is over”. You will obey, because you want to avoid eternal damnation, and you want to achieve everlasting joy. Once the Münchhausen Syndrome is accepted, your freedom is over. But that is ok, because you are also convinced that to be a slave for Jesus is a good thing. And even the door of the cell is open, a truly obedient slave would never want to leave that prison. 🙂
 
If God would “WANT” and not just “desire” to “save us”, then all he would need to do is “want” it, and it would happen. Just like “let there be light”, “let them be saved”. Remember, it is all magic.

Do you deny that the fundamental teaching is that we are all sinners? That we all deserve eternal damnation? That we are incapable of earning our way to heaven? That even the “sacrifice” of Jesus did nothing to “save” us, merely made our “salvation” possible? That we all must obey the church?

It is all about being guilty, being inadequate; the necessity to give up our desires for obedience. The basic teaching is not about “love”, it is obedience. The whole story of the “fall” was about obedience. There was nothing wrong about “eating that imaginary apple”; the actual sin was disobedience. And as soon you buy into this concept, and you start to see yourself as undeserving and sinful, then the “game is over”. You will obey, because you want to avoid eternal damnation, and you want to achieve everlasting joy. Once the Münchhausen Syndrome is accepted, your freedom is over. But that is ok, because you are also convinced that to be a slave for Jesus is a good thing. And even the door of the cell is open, a truly obedient slave would never want to leave that prison. 🙂
What is more ironic in Christianity is the conflict between absolute love and eternal punishment at the end of time which apparently never comes true.
 
If God would “WANT” and not just “desire” to “save us”, then all he would need to do is “want” it, and it would happen. Just like “let there be light”, “let them be saved”. Remember, it is all magic.

Do you deny that the fundamental teaching is that we are all sinners? That we all deserve eternal damnation? That we are incapable of earning our way to heaven? That even the “sacrifice” of Jesus did nothing to “save” us, merely made our “salvation” possible? That we all must obey the church?

It is all about being guilty, being inadequate; the necessity to give up our desires for obedience. The basic teaching is not about “love”, it is obedience. The whole story of the “fall” was about obedience. There was nothing wrong about “eating that imaginary apple”; the actual sin was disobedience. And as soon you buy into this concept, and you start to see yourself as undeserving and sinful, then the “game is over”. You will obey, because you want to avoid eternal damnation, and you want to achieve everlasting joy. Once the Münchhausen Syndrome is accepted, your freedom is over. But that is ok, because you are also convinced that to be a slave for Jesus is a good thing. And even the door of the cell is open, a truly obedient slave would never want to leave that prison. 🙂
Witches used to sell love potions to young women to force a man to marry her. http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj184/befje/smileys0/bf-witch.gif
 
40.png
Bahman:
What is more ironic in Christianity is the conflict between absolute love and eternal punishment at the end of time which apparently never comes true.
With “love” like that, who needs hate?

One strike and you are out. No second chance. No forgiveness. Giving a “test” that the test-giver already knows that the tested will fail. And then “curse” the tested for failing… and not just the tested one, but also all his descendants (with one alleged exception). And that is called “love”? Sheesh…
 
**Bagheera

One strike and you are out. No second chance. No forgiveness. Giving a “test” that the test-giver already knows that the tested will fail. And then “curse” the tested for failing… and not just the tested one, but also all his descendants (with one alleged exception). And that is called “love”? Sheesh…**

Yes, because he did not ask us to suffer any more than he was willing to suffer for us on the cross.

Death is not a curse if everlasting life is the aftermath. To an atheist, of course, it is a blind curse of Nature upon our human nature. To an atheist, death is the endless curse.
 
It seems that this discussion has evolved beyond the Münchausen syndrome by proxy analogy so maybe me saying this is irrelevant but Christianity does not analogize to Münchausen’s at all. (BTW- the correct term now is Factitious Disorder imposed by another)

Is the analogy- parent hurts child to get attention from others therefore God hurts Christ to get attention from us?

Because God did not kill Jesus. People crucified Jesus. God allowed it to happen but that is because God gave his people free will.

Or is the analogy, God keeps us sick so that we will turn to him for healing? Because FD imposed by another is more about getting attention from other family members and medical personnel rather than the goal being the abused child seeks healing from the abuser.

As much as we’d like to not take the blame, we can’t blame God for our own sinfulness, or even Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve did not have Original Sin but they still sinned. Mary did not have Original Sin and she did not sin. If I were born without Original Sin, I would have still sinned (sorry to scandalize you). This is not official church dogma but it is a common traditional belief that Joseph was born with Original Sin but did not commit sin during his life. In other words, we are sinners. We have freely chosen to turn against God and we can also freely choose to turn back to him and accept salvation.
 
Or is the analogy, God keeps us sick so that we will turn to him for healing? Because FD imposed by another is more about getting attention from other family members and medical personnel rather than the goal being the abused child seeks healing from the abuser.
This was what I think he was talking about. We are led to believe that we are sick so we seek a cure from God through the Church. Our cure comes from God so he gets the praise.
 
**Bagheera

One strike and you are out. No second chance. No forgiveness. Giving a “test” that the test-giver already knows that the tested will fail. And then “curse” the tested for failing… and not just the tested one, but also all his descendants (with one alleged exception). And that is called “love”? Sheesh…**

Yes, because he did not ask us to suffer any more than he was willing to suffer for us on the cross.

Death is not a curse if everlasting life is the aftermath. To an atheist, of course, it is a blind curse of Nature upon our human nature. To an atheist, death is the endless curse.
How can it be a curse if there is no “you” to experience it?
 
**Roscoe

How can it be a curse if there is no “you” to experience it? **

:confused:
 
**Roscoe

How can it be a curse if there is no “you” to experience it? **

:confused:
If death means “non existence” how can a person be cursed by that? You can’t curse something that doesn’t exist. You’d be cursing “nothing”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top