As tempted as I am to do this up McNeil/Lehrer style and just state my opinion as if it were the only obvious true response, glaze over any appeals to the contrary and move on to the next question, I think I'll refrain. But it would be damn funny. God is love, and now....

From the beginning: Yes, I was kidding about the burning things (unless you happen to have Doug's voter guide and Josh and I have some idle time to play with matches). But I was attempting to raise a half-assed theological question, and it relates to this Jesus guy too, so bear with me. If some dirty, ugly, unemployed guy who wandered around spouting propaganda came up to you today and said "follow me" and then later told you that some bread was his body and some wine was his blood, would you not think him insane? I'm not trying to be more offensive than usual. I'm just saying that if Jesus came today, I don't think he could find even twelve disciples.

Okay, here's a response to my own question about sadism and, hopefully, I'll get to all of your points. My problem with this whole thing is that many would claim that god INVENTED the moral system. This is hugely problematic for god. He could've made the utmost expression of love picking your nose and wiping it on the object of your affection. But he didn't. He made it so that someone had to die (and the more horribly, the better). Greater love has no man than this, etc.

So maybe god is just obeying "natural" laws that exist outside of his influence. Like the fact that a body in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by some outside force, maybe there are "rules" dealing with emotional content. Maybe they even have some scientific basis we don't understand, but that's irrelevant to my point. I tend to lean toward this side. It makes a so-called omnipotent god much less powerful, yes, (no, he couldn't make a stone so big he couldn't lift it) but things make much more sense in this context. For me, at least. And this is where love comes in. Maybe love is some overriding force in the universe. Maybe "god is love" because to speak of the essence of creation is to speak of love. Now, I realize this is terribly flawed because love is this hydra of things that cannot be fully grasped by anyone. But isn't that the frickin' point anyway? And maybe there is no old man in the sky, but rather he is an ancient embodiment of this principle I speak of (and it was easier for patriarchal societies to cope with this idea, though they fucked it up entirely for generations to come).

As for the blood thing, I see this as a symbol of this ultimate sacrifice. Though, to be honest, The Passion made me question what the real differences are between Christianity and, say, the Aztecs, who regularly sacrificed humans to their gods. But, if no attempt is made to make this whole story LITERALLY TRUE, then it works for me. It is a deeply romantic and awe-inspiring account of what love and sacrifice really mean. But don’t make me think about it any more than that, because it’s impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient god to send his “son” to his death for no reason other than to make some symbolic gesture.

But this still makes Jesus problematic, if he did, in fact exist in historical context (reality). Either he was frequently misquoted, his words were mistranslated, or he was insane. It’s possible that the things he said could not be understood by his followers, so they made due with the faculties they had. I could see him being very much in touch with this idea of deep, spiritual love and being unable to speak to a crowd weaned on the idea of god as this vindictive, mean-spirited ogre in the sky (read the old testament).

I like that we already have a new topic to discuss, though, and it didn’t have to come from my violent, over-the-edge rhetoric. Adam and Eve’s “choice” has always bothered me, as well. It seems that if god knew they would make the choice they did, then there is some problem with him INVENTING THE TREE IN THE FIRST PLACE. What do you do if you want someone to do something or think something? You suggest it. Don’t think about flying pink elephants. What are you thinking about? Exactly. Unless god is too powerless to stop things he knows (my belief – not that he exists as anything but an idea, but I’ll talk about metaphor as though it were real), then this situation makes god even more horrible than just being a blood-crazed psycho-killer. This is crafty, underhanded shit. He either knew that they would make the choice they did and was UNABLE TO STOP IT (he isn’t all-powerful) or he didn’t know they would make the choice they did (he isn’t all-knowing). Or he created the tree, knowing they would choose the way they did and he was unwilling to do anything to stop it. And this makes him an asshole, not because he gave humanity free-reign on their ability to choose, but because he created the scenario in the first place. If he is both all-knowing and all-powerful, as many Christians claim, then he could’ve created a system where everything was perfect all the time and there was no need to choose anything. What is wrong with this?

I want that to be my next question, actually, whether we approach it from a god-creation perspective or a natural-law perspective, I want to know why the world has to be flawed? Does it go back to that idea that love requires sacrifice and this is some immutable equation that cannot really even be discussed because it just IS?

Or, we can just keep talking about choice, because it is really a huge problem (as Jad so eloquently presents it).

- Matt @ 6:13 PM