Jesus of Nazareth, known as "J-dogg" by some

[gashonthenail]

"Blood magic" is different from redemptive suffering. The suffering of the person or animal being sacrificed isn't your own suffering. This is why Nietzsche admired ancient Judaism: he liked the idea of a proud, conquering people, impervious to taking pity on others, seizing the land by violence and calling it their own as a gift from their god. I have little doubt he would equally admire modern Israel (or, Israel: The Reboot). Palestinians? Lebanese? F*ck them; they don't matter because they're not you. Might makes right, law of the jungle, king of the heap. You're special. You're chosen.

In The Antichrist, Nietzsche admitted that the Christian view of suffering comes from Judaism—but it came from what he considered a degenerate form. In Judaism it used to be that if you were prospering, it meant God liked you. If you were suffering, God was displeased with you. This is why Job and his friends were so confused about Job's plight. They couldn't possibly know that it was God acting on a friendly wager with the devil. You could even have a shitty life full of suffering simply because God was angry at your parents or grandparents (Exodus 20:5). It was only later, when the Jewish kingdom fell, that the Jews, now the trod-upon victims of military supremacy, first under the Seleucid and then the Roman boot, revised their attitude according to their misfortune.

From this came the Messianic fervor and a collective delight in revenge fantasies. Their sufferings were now righteous: the birth pangs of a glorious new age, when Jewish supremacy would reign over the Gentiles. Suffering becomes redemptive; it manifests the works of God. John chapter 9 expresses it completely, where Jesus overturns the traditional view. Because both Jesus and Paul were caught up in this stuff (which Nietzsche considered a decadent, late Judaism) he referred to them as "superlative little Jews." Which is pretty rich, because what is Romans 5:3-4 but a formulation of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger?" It's a very Christian aphorism. Schopenhauer held the sentiment of a refined pagan: that it is ignoble and unseemly to suffer overmuch. Good taste rebukes the sufferings of the world; you should quit while you're ahead, and certainly have the decency to not bring any innocents into this seething whirl. You know the Larkin poem.

I don't think it is different. The Abraham and Isaac story is often seen as a metaphor for civilisation's evolution from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. In the story Isaac is replaced by a ram. The story effectively created Judaism and Temple sacrifice. Muslims to this day still slaughter an animal, or pay for one to be slaughtered, on Eid al-Adha, in memory of the Abraham / Isaac myth. Just as an animal replaced human sacrifice, Jesus then replaced Temple sacrifice in what Christians view as the ultimate act of sacrifice. In the crucifixion story, of course, there is much about the redemptive power of suffering. But that idea is also very old and predates the crucifixion. Just as the idea of a god coming back from the dead is a very ancient, pagan myth. I perhaps may use a word you might have respect for - jihad. The idea that 'struggle' is redemptive and good for the soul is not just a Christian one.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I don't think it is different. The Abraham and Isaac story is often seen as a metaphor for civilisation's evolution from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. In the story Isaac is replaced by a ram. The story effectively created Judaism and Temple sacrifice. Muslims to this day still slaughter an animal, or pay for one to be slaughtered, on Eid al-Adha, in memory of the Abraham / Isaac myth. Just as an animal replaced human sacrifice, Jesus then replaced Temple sacrifice in what Christians view as the ultimate act of sacrifice. In the crucifixion story, of course, there is much about the redemptive power of suffering. But that idea is also very old and predates the crucifixion. Just as the idea of a god coming back from the dead is a very ancient, pagan myth. I perhaps may use a word you might have respect for - jihad. The idea that 'struggle' is redemptive and good for the soul is not just a Christian one.

Islam is partly derived from Christianity, so it's not surprising to find redemptive suffering there. The animal sacrifice in the Jewish temple is just that—an animal, whose suffering was not a concern. One of Christianity's most important breaks from Judaism is the sacrifice of the God-man on the cross, which is extended to the Christian as an individual: "take up your cross and follow me." There's nothing like that in Judaism. Suffering simply meant that God was punishing you for a sin, or a sin of one of your ancestors. It wasn't going to merit you anything. You accepted your suffering, even if it seemed unjust or you didn't understand it. That is the whole moral of Job: "though he should slay me, yet I will trust in him." You kept the law, trusted in God, and hoped for the best.

Judaism is more about correct practice; Christianity is more about correct belief. It's why the gospels have Jesus calling the Pharisees "whited sepulchres." If you're all about outward practice and observance you become spiritually dead inside. Christianity makes it about personal transformation, self-sacrifice, and spiritual purification through suffering and faith. Jesus is the model. Colossians 2:12 and all that.

 

[gashonthenail]

Islam is partly derived from Christianity, so it's not surprising to find redemptive suffering there. The animal sacrifice in the Jewish temple is just that—an animal, whose suffering was not a concern. One of Christianity's most important breaks from Judaism is the sacrifice of the God-man on the cross, which is extended to the Christian as an individual: "take up your cross and follow me." There's nothing like that in Judaism. Suffering simply meant that God was punishing you for a sin, or a sin of one of your ancestors. It wasn't going to merit you anything. You accepted your suffering, even if it seemed unjust or you didn't understand it. That is the whole moral of Job: "though he should slay me, yet I will trust in him." You kept the law, trusted in God, and hoped for the best.

I think you're incorrect in that statement. Don't forget about the concept of the 'scapegoat' - where a pair of kid-goats are considered to take on the sins of the community, one is sacrificed and the other is released into the wilderness. It is first described in the Book of Leviticus, but scholars think its origins are much older. That is the origin of the Jesus story right there - behold the lamb of God who takes onto himself the sins of the world.
I think it is wrong too to view animal sacrifice as a mere act of suffering. Fundamentally animal sacrifice was intended to be an act of 'magic(k)' - in other words, it was intended to bring about some form of change. Whether that be atonement, redemption, or the pleasure of the gods to ensure a good harvest etc. It is based on the idea that suffering is purposeful, and perhaps even that suffering is a way of communicating with the divine. I think that explains why suffering is viewed as beneficial across cultures. It's not specific to Christianity. The movie A Man Called Horse, starring Richard Harris, tells the story of a white man who is eventually accepted into a native American tribe. To do so he has to be 'purified' by undergoing several rituals involving suffering and pain. The movie's tagline could have been the famous Nietzsche aphorism.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I think you're incorrect in that statement. Don't forget about the concept of the 'scapegoat' - where a pair of kid-goats are considered to take on the sins of the community, one is sacrificed and the other is released into the wilderness. It is first described in the Book of Leviticus, but scholars think its origins are much older. That is the origin of the Jesus story right there - behold the lamb of God who takes onto himself the sins of the world.
I think it is wrong too to view animal sacrifice as a mere act of suffering. Fundamentally animal sacrifice was intended to be an act of 'magic(k)' - in other words, it was intended to bring about some form of change. Whether that be atonement, redemption, or the pleasure of the gods to ensure a good harvest etc. It is based on the idea that suffering is purposeful, and perhaps even that suffering is a way of communicating with the divine. I think that explains why suffering is viewed as beneficial across cultures. It's not specific to Christianity. The movie A Man Called Horse, starring Richard Harris, tells the story of a white man who is eventually accepted into a native American tribe. To do so he has to be 'purified' by undergoing several rituals involving suffering and pain. The movie's tagline could have been the famous Nietzsche aphorism.

I don't deny that the suffering of the scapegoat has a purpose. It's vicarious redemption. The goat takes on the sins of the people and suffers in their stead. But the suffering of the animal is just that: the animal's suffering. It doesn't make anyone spiritually better or stronger. It merely pays the debt they owe to God. The debt is cleared and they can get on for another year.

Jesus on the cross is vicarious redemption too, but the scheme is changed. Christ's suffering is redemptive for every believer, with an added layer: the believer is then perfected by his or her individual suffering. "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives within me." No Jew would ever say, "I live, yet not I, but the scapegoat lives within me." That would be absurd. Suffering in Judaism is punitive; suffering in Christianity is purgative (and much closer to Nietzsche's saying).

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Islam is partly derived from Christianity, so it's not surprising to find redemptive suffering there. The animal sacrifice in the Jewish temple is just that—an animal, whose suffering was not a concern. One of Christianity's most important breaks from Judaism is the sacrifice of the God-man on the cross, which is extended to the Christian as an individual: "take up your cross and follow me." There's nothing like that in Judaism. Suffering simply meant that God was punishing you for a sin, or a sin of one of your ancestors. It wasn't going to merit you anything. You accepted your suffering, even if it seemed unjust or you didn't understand it. That is the whole moral of Job: "though he should slay me, yet I will trust in him." You kept the law, trusted in God, and hoped for the best.

Judaism is more about correct practice; Christianity is more about correct belief. It's why the gospels have Jesus calling the Pharisees "whited sepulchres." If you're all about outward practice and observance you become spiritually dead inside. Christianity makes it about personal transformation, self-sacrifice, and spiritual purification through suffering and faith. Jesus is the model. Colossians 2:12 and all that.

Audrey, I have a question for you. We all know the religion of Islam is allllll about sex in the afterlife. For men, that is. The virgins, I assume, those saliva, urine, excrement, sweat and menstruation free beings, are supplied by the afterlife. So what happens to women when they die, according to Islam? One would hope they get a taste of paradise too with 72 handsome young bucks, after all, they're the ones who had to suffer the most on earth under the thumb if their degenerate and misogynist husband's and fathers whose degenerate and misogyny is enshrined in sharia law.

 

[gashonthenail]

I don't deny that the suffering of the scapegoat has a purpose. It's vicarious redemption. The goat takes on the sins of the people and suffers in their stead. But the suffering of the animal is just that: the animal's suffering. It doesn't make anyone spiritually better or stronger. It merely pays the debt they owe to God. The debt is cleared and they can get on for another year.

Jesus on the cross is vicarious redemption too, but the scheme is changed. Christ's suffering is redemptive for every believer, with an added layer: the believer is then perfected by his or her individual suffering. "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives within me." No Jew would ever say, "I live, yet not I, but the scapegoat lives within me." That would be absurd. Suffering in Judaism is punitive; suffering in Christianity is purgative (and much closer to Nietzsche's saying).

We'll have to agree to differ on this one. I think it is also viewed as purgative in Judaism too. And in Islam. And in pretty much every culture across the world. After the flight from Egypt, for example, the Hebrews were 'tested' in the Wilderness for 40 years, until they reached the Promised Land. This is then mirrored by Jesus being 'tested' in the Wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. 40 in the Bible is used to symbolise a period of trial and suffering that leads to new wisdom. There is similar symbolism in Jewish mysticism via the Kabbalah.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Audrey, I have a question for you. We all know the religion of Islam is allllll about sex in the afterlife. For men, that is. The virgins, I assume, those saliva, urine, excrement, sweat and menstruation free beings, are supplied by the afterlife. So what happens to women when they die, according to Islam? One would hope they get a taste of paradise too with 72 handsome young bucks, after all, they're the ones who had to suffer the most on earth under the thumb if their degenerate and misogynist husband's and fathers whose degenerate and misogyny is enshrined in sharia law.

Oh my. Is that something you would like to have in Paradise? 72 handsome young bucks? Even if so, such sensual conceptions of Jannah are merely a way of grasping, with our flawed mortal imaginations, a bliss that can only truly be known by experience. As it is written, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which Allah hath prepared for them that love him."

To answer your question, faithful Muslimas can hope for more than just "a taste of paradise." The holy Qur'an says that they will go to Jannah as surely as any faithful man. "Whoso doeth good works, whether of male or female, and he or she is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date-stone" (Surah 4:124). Thank you, friend, for inquiring about the teachings of Allah, who is ever patient with those who seek his truths with a sincere and open heart. Peace be upon you.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Speaking of transferring your sins onto an animal and killing it for vicarious redemption, it's that time of year.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Oh my. Is that something you would like to have in Paradise? 72 handsome young bucks? Even if so, such sensual conceptions of Jannah are merely a way of grasping, with our flawed mortal imaginations, a bliss that can only truly be known by experience. As it is written, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which Allah hath prepared for them that love him."

To answer your question, faithful Muslimas can hope for more than just "a taste of paradise." The holy Qur'an says that they will go to Jannah as surely as any faithful man. "Whoso doeth good works, whether of male or female, and he or she is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date-stone" (Surah 4:124). Thank you, friend, for inquiring about the teachings of Allah, who is ever patient with those who seek his truths with a sincere and open heart. Peace be upon you.

You are such a dope!

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Although 72 alain delons.....

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Although 72 alain delons.....

Do you mean 72 identical Alain Delons, or 72 different men who resemble Alain Delon? Because that would be pretty redundant either way.

 

[Rodrigo Borgia]

Most people don't realize this, but Jesus smoked a pipe, it was a major aspect of his philosophy. Kirk Hammett of Metallica owns one of the two known surviving Pipes of Christ.

 

[TheSmiths_1985]

Most people don't realize this, but Jesus smoked a pipe, it was a major aspect of his philosophy. Kirk Hammett of Metallica owns one of the two known surviving Pipes of Christ.

 

[Rodrigo Borgia]

View attachment 112971

My church has this painting in the vestibule.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Do you mean 72 identical Alain Delons, or 72 different men who resemble Alain Delon? Because that would be pretty redundant either way.

Alain delon could never be redundant....

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Alain delon could never be redundant....

Understood, but that was my point. If Alain Delon could never be redundant, then all you need is Alain Delon. Alain Delon nos. 2-72 would be redundant, or superfluous, or unnecessary. Unless we are talking about, um ... multiple partners at the same time in heaven. I confess I do not know what the Islamic theological consensus is on that.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Understood, but that was my point. If Alain Delon could never be redundant, then all you need is Alain Delon. Alain Delon nos. 2-72 would be redundant, or superfluous, or unnecessary. Unless we are talking about, um ... multiple partners at the same time in heaven. I confess I do not know what the Islamic theological consensus is on that.

Why did you post that horrible noise?!

You're assuming that 72 males in general isn't redundant? You assume that the "variety" is what makes them not redundant? HONEY.

72 Alains means Alains essence times 72! You would be saturated in it!

It's like you don't understand the most basic things, audrey!

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Why did you post that horrible noise?!

You're assuming that 72 males in general isn't redundant? You assume that the "variety" is what makes them not redundant? HONEY.

72 Alains means Alains essence times 72! You would be saturated in it!

It's like you don't understand the most basic things, audrey!

I posted the video for the "multiple partners at the same time" theme. In it, Maynard James Keenan, in his youth, gives a model boat to a trio of girls at a hotel pool, and then in his adulthood he stays at the same hotel to write a letter. The three women come to his room, get into bed with him, and he mystically emerges from an amniotic sac in the pool and they all intertwine. It's a bunch of Jungian nonsense but it had the theme.

Anyway, I'm not comprehending how this essence d'Alain Delon thing works. Are you saying that in an Islamic-style paradise where you have 72 people of your choice to keep you company, you would be happiest basking in the "essence" of 72 replicas of the same person? How would that work? It can't be conversation, because 72 people speaking to you at the same time is a cacophony. 72 sexual partners at the same time is unmanageable. Even if essence is something like charisma, being surrounded by 72 people and basking in their charisma wouldn't work because you can't behold them all at once. In any situation I can think of, it seems like there would be a redundancy. Wouldn't you give a few of those 72 slots to one of your sex gods, like Russell Brand or Jesus?

 

[caramel sea salt]

One Alain Delon vs 72 Alain Delons is THE best conversation on here at the moment!!!

Personally, I'd go for 72 Alain Delons. It's true what Audrey says that you can't sleep with all 72 of them at the same time, but two or three would be manageable. The remaining 69 Alain Delons could just bake, work in the vineyard and play with kittens!

 

[nicky wire's legs]

One Alain Delon vs 72 Alain Delons is THE best conversation on here at the moment!!!

Personally, I'd go for 72 Alain Delons. It's true what Audrey says that you can't sleep with all 72 of them at the same time, but two or three would be manageable. The remaining 69 Alain Delons could just bake, work in the vineyard and play with kittens!

It truly is!!

It's a little frustrating though, because as usual audrey just doesn't understand!

Like why does it need to be explained why 72 alains are better than one?!

I want one of my 72 alains sole purpose to be to open my mail with his cheekbones!!