A Passion for Pain

A Passion for Pain

There is a peculiar aspect of all religions that glorifies and embraces pain, suffering, and torment as virtues. The glorification of suffering is certainly not missing from the Christian religion, recently and wonderfully illustrated by Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

In my criticism [Passion Prattle] of Rebecca Hagelin's praise for the film as an, "artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine," I compared the brutality of Gibson's created images to the real thing depicting the atrocities of Sadam Hussein and the Taliban to point out how the religious, revolted at images of today's sadistic murderer's excesses, are positively delighted at watching hours of much worse.

"The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism ... It shows a man being flayed alive - slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man's body. ... Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. ... We see blood spattering on the torturers' faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man's body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood."

This is how Anrew Sullivan graphically describes this, "artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine." [We do not often agree with Andrew Sullivan, but thank him for this honest description, and for having the fortitude to watch this horror in order to provide it.]

This pathological fascination with suffering in religion is not an anomaly, it is fundamental to the whole superstitious perversion which are "religious" values. Pain, suffering, and human torment are regarded as positive values, to be embraced and fostered.

I do not know Scott Holleran, but was surprised to see this astute observation in his article,"Jesus Christ Superscar" from Box Office Mojo:

"... Actors have always used celebrity to promote their principles. Redford's environmentalism – Cruise's Scientology -- animal-loving starlets (Bardot, Hedren, Novak, etc.) -- what's the point of fame if you can't use it to apply your ideals?

"In Gibson's case, that means spreading religion in its fundamental sense. The Passion of the Christ's theme is that suffering, not joy, is man's proper fate." [Emphasis added.]

Pain Lovers

This despicable inversion of values, that evil (pain and suffering) is good and good (pleasure and joy) is evil, colors the Christian's perspective on everything. H. L. Mencken once defined puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." The Christian perspective is worse than that, they are terrified by the suspicion that someone, somewhere, might not be suffering and actually enjoying their life.

Worse than Marx's perversion that based the value of things on the labor required to produce them, the Christian regards the source of value of all things, not the human pleasure they give or suffering they relieve, but very opposite; the value of a thing in the Christian value system is how much pain, suffering, and self-deprivation it requires.

Recent comments to my previous article illustrate this perverted view. "It is apparent," one commentator said, "that the writer knows absolutely nothing about Christianity or faith or sacrificial love. Parents endure pain and suffering all the time for their children - if they truly love them," as thought it were the "sacrifice," "enduring pain," and "suffering," that made the love real and valuable.

It evidently does not occur to Christians, it is not the cost of what one provides one's children that determines its value, but how much real benefit it is to the children. There is something sinisterly evil in the view that the measure of love is how much pain and suffering it costs. There is hardly any other way Christians measure the value of anything. Consider what they "value" in, The Passion of the Christ.

Pain Promoters

Another comment was this: "It's not exactly a Christian discovery that good and virtue are frequently paired with the enduring of pain and suffering. Considering the way everyone of us comes into the world, that shouldn't come as a surprise to even the most secular minded."

It is certainly no surprise that Christians are opposed to anything that relieves suffering in this world, and if Christians had there way, not even the suffering accompanying childbirth would ever be relieved.

Ronald Bruce Meyer, in "Religion v. Anesthesia" records, "The controversy over the use of anesthetics has a sad history of clerical opposition, especially when suggested for women in childbirth. The clerical prohibition issues from the Bible, Genesis 3:16, and from the very mouth of God: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children."

The article, The Under-treatment of Pain - Part I, some history records, "This divine curse [Gen. 3:16] was taken so literally by religious fanatics that in 1591 King James VI of Scotland had burned at the stake a gentlewoman named Euphanie Macalyane who secretly used a remedy to relieve her pangs of childbirth." An example of Christian "compassion" and intolerance for anything that relieves the human suffering they worship.

If you are tempted to think this hysterical hatred for anything that relieves human suffering or provides human pleasure is limited to history, remember the disaster that, the mostly Christian driven, prohibition of alcohol foisted on this country, or worse, consider the untold suffering the so-called, "war on drugs," wreaks on the innocent today. Whatever their motives, it is not concern with human suffering.

"Torture, despair, agony, and death are the symptoms of "opiophobia," a well-documented medical syndrome fed by fear, superstition, and the war on drugs," begins this article, "No Relief in Sight" from Dr. Alexander DeLuca's WEB page.

"Superstition," is the author's kind word for religion. Here are the stories of real living human beings with chronic intractable pain, suffering continually and unnecessarily, many driven to suicide, by the grace of the Christian driven WOD. This is real horror, not a movie creation.

Virtue is What Virtue Does

While the Christians talk about compassion and, "real love," they promote the very policies that punish those who are actually doing something about human suffering. Katherine Eban Finkelstein, in "Deadly Morals", subtitled, "The DEA is Busting Doctors for Prescribing Drugs - and Patients are Dying in Pain," describes the persecution and prosecution of those truly compassionate doctors who risk their professions and freedom to help those suffering chronic and debilitating pain. Include in that number of persecuted, Dr. Bruce W. Wilkin, a rural physician in Nevada, whose ordeal I noted in my article, "Doctor Faces License Revocation."

All this human suffering and persecution of the innocent is the direct result of that ideology that glorifies suffering and hates human happiness, that psychology that can watch hours of crafted unspeakable horror which they call "uplifting," and "inspiring."

Evil is What Evil Does

While Mel Gibson's film may be shocking to some and bewildering to others, who cannot understand how Christians, who claim the moral high-ground and concern for the welfare of others, can take such delight in such horrid depictions of gratuitous bloody and sadistic cruelty, it should not be surprising at all.

My mother used to say, "if you want to know what people really believe and truly love, don't listen to what they say, watch where they spend their time and money." Those who really believe in human happiness and truly love what is good and wholesome and benevolent will not be wasting their time and money on that glorification of torment and suffering called The Passion of Christ. You know who will.

—Reginald Firehammer (2/26/04)

ahadams2,

The sinful nature doctrine was the invention of Augustine, not found in any of the early church fathers before his sycretistic inclusion of those neo-Platonic and Manichean pagan ideas.

The doctrine cannot be found in Scripture without wholesale corruption of the plain meaning of all those passages which are used to support it. Having dominated the doctrinal teaching of Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, for so many centuries, there is hardly a Christian today who can read the Bible and understand it.

I do not have time to address the passage in Romans 7, which has nothing to do with a sinful nature, and only with the experience of one who has, "sold themselves into slavery to sin," (See John 8:34, Rom. 6:16) by choice.

Nor do I have time to address the great harm the sinful nature heresy does to the doctrines of the nature of sin itelf, the atonement, and salvation.

Since you mentioned the nature of Christ, another doctrine perverted by this heresy, I have addressed that issue directly by including part of a much earlier discussion I had about this question.

I have no intention of convincing you, only of demonstrating, I do not come by My opinions lightly.

Jesus' Nature

(From an early and agreeable online debate.)

I contended that the Bible teaches that Jesus had exactly the same kind of nature that we have, which would mean, if we have a sinful nature, Jesus had a sinful nature, which flatly contradicts Bible teaching.

My opponent made the following remark:

"After all, if He is exactly like you and He lived without sin it would mean you too could live a sinless life had you chosen right?"

The following is my response to that remark:

I did not say He was exactly like you or me. I said his human nature was exactly like all other human nature, because that is exactly what the Bible teaches.

Before I explain how this is true from the Scriptures, however, I want to say something about your contention that if our nature were exactly the same as Jesus' nature, it would mean we could live without sin. This, I believe is true. The Bible says, "all have sinned," but it does not say all are "made to sin," or, "caused to sin," (by their nature or anything else) because, in fact, if something "made" or "caused" someone to do anything, it would not be sin. The Bible always represents sin as something chosen, not caused or the result of something not chosen, like nature.

Christians falsely assume, if human beings did not have a sinful nature, they would not sin, and, furthermore, that they could save themselves. There is no reason to believe that, and the evidence is all to the contrary. Neither Adam or Eve were not born with a sinful nature. They both sinned without benefit of it. Neither Adam or Eve could save themselves, even though they were not born with a sinful nature. They sinned for the same reason and in the same way that every human being sins, they chose to, freely, and that is why they were guilty of it.

The point of Jesus having the very same kind of nature all human beings have and being tempted in exactly the same way all other human beings are is to prove the man could live without sin, but absolutely none will.

Now for the Scriptural proof:

Jesus All Man

Jesus was all man and all God. Any other view is considered heresy.

If His human nature, then, must be exactly the same as any other human being's nature. If it is not, he is not all man.

Calvinists are very close to holding the heresy that says Jesus was not really a man. But the Bible makes it clear that as a man, he had exactly the same nature we have.

Heb. 2:10-18 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Consider:

"For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one..." All one what? Why, one nature, of course, as is explained.

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." The same what? Why, the same flesh and blood with the same nature, because if it had a different nature, it would not be the same flesh and blood.

"he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. See, he's talking about nature here and plainly states that nature is the nature inherited from the seed of Abraham. Some Christians make much of the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin, and since he had no human father, did not "inherit" the sinful nature. But this produces the peculiar idea that, somehow, the sinful nature is genetically, "sex-linked," which is absurd on the face of it, but denied in any case by the Scripture that specifically states the nature of Jesus was inherited from the "seed of Abraham," a male.

"in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." That's all things, including their nature, or it is not all things. If it did not include their nature, He would only have made like his brethren in "some" things.

This is exactly what is taught throughout Scripture. For example:

Rom. 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Now compare this to:

Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

Here are two very interesting verses. They say Jesus was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and "in the likeness of men." Now you might want to get out of admitting the Bible teaches Jesus had the same kind of "sinful flesh" all other men have by claiming it says Jesus flesh was only "like" sinful flesh, but not really sinful flesh because is says "in the likeness of." If you do that, however, you are also going to have to say Jesus was only "like" a man, but not really a man because it says, "in the likeness of men." But of course you won't do that, because you know Jesus was a man and had exactly the same kind of nature all men have.

(Added note: The expression, "sinful flesh," does not mean that flesh, itself, is sinful, in its nature. If it did, Paul could not have used "love of flesh" as a picture of a man's love for his wife, or Christ's love for the church in Eph. 5:28-29, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church. The words "carnal" and "flesh" refer to the fact that sin is yielding to temptation that comes from the physical desires. They that yield to desires against what they know is right are "carnally minded." Rom 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" and, Rom. 8:5 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.")

This is the whole point of Jesus temptation. If he was not tempted in exactly the same way we are, then it was a fake and meaningless. The point of His temptation was to demonstrate that we are guilty and have no excuse for sin, such as a sinful nature that makes us sin, or temptation being "too great" for us to resist which Scripture plainly denies: (1 Cor. 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.)

Heb. 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jas. 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

First, something about the word "lust." The word means "desire" and nothing more. It does not mean, as is commonly supposed, "sinful desire." It is the very same word used in Luke 22:15, "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer," and could have been correctly translated, "... with lust I have lusted to eat this passover with you...." The word used by James and translated "lust" is the very same word translated as "desire" in Luke 22.

With that understanding, we can see James is describing how all men are tempted. It begins with desire, not sinful or evil desire, but perfectly natural God-given desires like the desire for food, or beauty, or comfort. Now these are the source of temptation, but not always, and even when they are, they are not sin in themselves. It is not a sin to be tempted. Jesus was tempted.

The God-given natural desires for food, for beauty, for knowledge, and for pleasure were all desires Adam and Eve freely indulged and enjoyed in all the blessings of paradise without sin, nevertheless those same desires became the source of temptation when their object was the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Was there anything "sinful" about the desires for the food, beauty and wisdom the fruit of the tree offered? Of course not. Then how could indulging them be sin? Because indulging them required disobedience. The temptation consisted entirely of this: there was a perfectly natural desire for an object, there was the knowledge that particular object was forbidden, (and, therefore, that it would be wrong to fulfill that desire), and they had the ability to choose. It was temptation because, to not sin they had to choose what they knew was right against what they desired and wanted.

James explains that this is always how temptation works. Nothing has changed. All desires spring from our natural God-given desires. (We only here refer to the natural passions, not "intellectual" desire based on values and goals. In themselves, these can never alone be the source of temptation, that is, if there is no accompanying desire in the "feeling" sense.)

When the object of those perfectly natural God-given desires are those things which one may rightly enjoy, fulfilling them is not sin, and is in fact their purpose. When the object of those same natural desires is for something forbidden, fulfilling the very same desire becomes sin. It is not the desire that makes it sin, but the object, and the fact that it is forbidden. (Sexual desire within marriage and outside of marriage is a typical example. The very same desire fulfilled within marriage is blessed, outside of marriage is sin.)

It is necessary to make this clear if we are to understand that Jesus was tempted in every way exactly the same we are. If there is anything about our nature that makes temptation greater or different than it was before the fall, Jesus' nature must also have had this same difference, else he would not have been tempted, "in all points," and "like as we are." Since all desires spring from our natures, and all temptation is the result of desire, and Jesus was tempted in exactly the same way we are (or the whole thing is only a sham), He had to have the same kind of nature we have.

Finally we must examine this verse:

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

I usually refrain from saying this, because it is so painfully obvious, I am embarrassed to have to point it out. But, I think it is needed here.

This passage is frequently used to show that man has a sinful nature based on the idea that death is the result of sin, and since death is the result of Adam's sin, and death has passed on to all men (we are mortal), than sin must have passed on to all men as well, in what is called the "sinful nature."

On the basis of this view, every human death is, supposedly, proof of the sinful nature. (I have actually seen this statement made.) Now, the obvious and absolute refutation of this is the fact that, JESUS DIED.

To die, Jesus, had to have the same kind of nature we have, that is, not sinful, but mortal.

Final Remarks

The original has the following remarks added:

Adam and Eve, and all the angels were created sinless, and Adam and Eve, and probably 1/3 of the angels sinned without benefit of a sinful nature.

After the fall, man became "physically" depraved, mortal, and subject to disease and easily inflamed desires in a world also under the curse. If man could not keep from sinning when in perfect health, in paradise, walking daily with God, why do you suppose he would be able to keep from sinning in the imperfect state he now finds himself in? Physical depravity is not sinful depravity. The animals also grow old and die, as even the world itself does, and we do not accuse them for it of having a sinful nature.

Temptation is not sin. After the fall, temptation became much greater than before, and Jesus suffered that same temptation, proving that a man could resist it if he chose to. However, Jesus is the only man who ever did resist it, and the only one that ever will choose to do so, if the Bible is true.

When I first discovered this Bible truth, and began to question so-called authorities, I was dismayed at the outright lies and deceit used to defend this sinful nature heresy. Nothing has changed.

I do not blame any Christian for believing in the sinful nature, it is what they are taught by those they trust. I do blame the teachers.

Hank

LOL or to format that a bit better (due to my foolishness attempting to play with html):

I understand that you find this discussion frustrating, and perhaps some times, even foolish. The reason for that is because you do not have the Holy Spirit within you, and without His Presence there is no way to truly comprehend Jesus Christ.

It's really not all that strenuous though, all you have to do is surrender your life to the One Who came that we might have Life. He's calling to you, indeed He's near you even now - that uncomfortable feeling you have whenever you get into a discussion like this is that Still, Small Voice letting you know that the emptiness you so ardently defend need not remain empty forever.

Oh yes, the emptiness - I've been there myself and I know how that feels - when one finds one's self staring at the ceiling at 3 AM thinking 'is this all there is'. Indeed if you were not searching (and quite ardently, too) to fill that emptiness, you wouldn't even bother with posting to the Religion board.

The Good News is that this wretched fallen world is NOT all that exists - this is NOT 'all that there is'. There is a Loving God Who is both Willing and Able to Fill you with His Love and His Power, and all that is required is for you to accept Him, and allow Him into your life.

No it's not easy. Since being God, He demands that you meet Him on His terms, and that can take some struggle on your part since surrender to His Will by definition means letting go of your own. But He is right there next to you, even now, and He is more than Willing to Help you with that struggle - all you have to do is ask Him.

One of the amazing elements of His Love for you is that, although He Could, He will not force you to accept Him. Rather, He Waits for you to incline yourself in His direction - in fact He is the One (the only One) Who can Empower you to choose Him, and He is Willing to provide that Empowerment to you, whenever and where ever you are, right now.

Remember that neither your intellect nor your will are sufficient to deal with this issue, but God is right there, to Provide that which is needed, which you must have, in order that He might Save you. The decision is yours.

As Michael Card put it:

So come lose your life for a carpenter's son

For a 'madman who died for a dream'

And You'll have the faith His first followers had

And you'll feel the weight of the beam

So surrender the hunger to say you must know

Have the courage to say I believe

For the power of paradox opens your eyes

And blinds those who claim they can see

We in our ignorance thought we were wise

He played the fool and He opened our eyes

We in our weakness believed we were strong

He became helpless to show we were wrong

So we follow God's own Fool

For only the foolish can tell

Believe the unbelievable,

come be a fool as well

- Michael Card, "God's own Fool; or to put it more succinctly:

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

22For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.