"Deus, qualem Paulus creavit, des negatio."

A week or so ago, there was a post that addressed the influence of Paul on "Christianity." It was an interesting thread, and it made me think about how Nietzsche's saying (quoted above), that "God, as Paul created him, is the negation of God."

Last weekend, as I was driving my daughters to a store, my vehicle was rear-ended by a teen-aged fellow who insisted that he never saw me. As I've laid around, attempting to recover from this fellow's strange perception of the world around him, I pulled out "The Portable Nietzsche," and pulled together the following four paragraphs.

In the actual text, these paragraphs are not found in this order. I've skipped around a bit. But I think that together, they show that even those who find the organized church unappealing, can still find the individual human being Jesus an important figure.

Nietzsche focuses on the significance of Jesus's life, rather than his death. He connects Jesus's life's teachings with those of the Buddha, and points out what he sees as the serious errors that come from Paul's focus on death. In this manner, I think that Nietzsche comes close to Proverbs 14:12 ("There is a way that seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death."), as well as Deuteronomy 30:19 ("I set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore, choose life, so that you and your children may live.")

I am curious what others make of these four paragraphs:

"This 'bringer of glad tidings' died as he had lived, as he taught -- not to 'redeem men' but to show how one must live. This practice is his legacy to mankind: his behavior before the judges, before the catchpoles, before the accusers and all kinds of slander and scorn -- his behavior on the cross. He does not resist, he does not defend his right, he takes no step which might ward off the worst; on the contrary, he provokes it. And he begs, he suffers, he loves with those, in those, who do him evil. Not to resist, not to be angry, not to hold responsible -- but to resist not even the evil one -- to love him." (35)

"I go back, I tell the genuine history of Christianity. The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding: in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The 'evangel' died on the cross. What has been called 'evangel' from that moment was actually the opposite of that which he had lived: 'ill tidings,' a dysangel. It is false to the point of nonsense to find the mark of the Christian in 'faith,' for instance, in the faith of redemption through Christ: only Christian practice, a life such as he lived who died on the cross, is Christian." (39)

"Evidently the small community did not understand the main point, the exemplary character of this kind of death, the freedom, the superiority over feeling any ressentiment: a token of how little they understood him altogether! After all, Jesus could not intend anything with his death except to publicly give the strongest exhibition, the proof of his doctrine. But his disciples were far from forgiving this death -- which would have been evangelical in the highest sense -- or even from offering themselves for a like death in gentle and lovely repose of the heart. Precisely the most unevangelical feeling, revenge, came to the fore again. The matter could not possibly be finished with this death: 'retribution' was needed, 'judgement' (and what could be more unevangelical than 'retribution,' 'punishment,' 'sitting in judgement'!). Once more the popular expectation came to the foreground; a historic moment was envisaged: the 'kingdom of God' becomes as a judgement over his enemies." (40)

"It is plain what was finished with the death on the cross: a new, an entirely original basis for a Buddhistic peace movement, an actual, not merely promised, happiness on earth. For this, as I have already emphasized, remains the fundamental difference between the two religions of decadence: Buddhism does not promise, but fulfills; Christianity promises everything but fulfills nothing. On the heels of the 'glad tidings' came the very worst: those of Paul. In Paul was embodied the opposite to that of the 'bringer of glad tidings'; the genius in hatred, in the vision of hatred, in the inexorable logic of hatred. How much this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the Redeemer: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the doctrine, the death, the meaning and the right of the entire evangel -- nothing remained once this hate-inspired counterfeiter realized what alone he could use. Not the reality, not the historic truth! And once more the priestly instinct .... committed the same great crime against history -- he simply crossed out the yesterday of Christianity and its day before yesterday; he invented his own history of earliest Christianity. Still further: he falsified the history of Israel once more so that it might appear as the history of his deed: all the prophets spoke of his 'Redeemer.' Later the church even falsified the history of mankind into the prehistory of Christianity." (42)

These quotes come from his book "The AntiChrist," which many have taken to mean "the anti-christian." I suspect that he may have been referring to the organization of Paul.

"God is a concept ......"

(1) "God is a concept by which we measure our pain." -- John Lennon

I read a thread on the relationship between suffering and redemption this morning. It is an interesting topic, and I'd like to approach it from a different angle. This is a topic that should be of interest to people from a variety of different belief systems, and I hope that this may offer people the opportunity to discuss suffering as having the potential to bring about good.

The topic should be as important to atheists as theists. I do not think that opinions on religion need to play a defining role. Yet I recognize that there is a division between some DUers from the various schools of thought, and so in an offer to find a position of mutual respect, I am not going to butt in on the other thread.

(2) "Unearned suffering is redemptive." -- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.The concept of "unearned suffering's" redemptive power is closely associated with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. For many Americans, it was during his "I Have a Dream" speech that they first heard this revolutionary preacher state, "...You have been veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

"King was clearly referring to a specific type of suffering. And while some may take offense in his use of the word "faith," it is important that we keep in mind that Rev. King was struggling to free all people from a perverted interpretation of the gospel. His efforts were not geared to simply help black people, or Christians, but all people .... including those who had the essence of their being contaminated with bitterness and hatred.

In his 1960 essay "Suffering and Faith," Rev. King wrote of his personal struggle to keep from becoming bitter as a black man in America. It led him to recognize that "unearned suffering is redemptive." He notes that if suffering is not properly channeled, it leads to bitterness and destruction. Clearly, King recognizes that redemption is not the only potential result of unearned suffering, but rather is the best one. Those who admire Rev. King -- theist and atheist alike -- marvel not only at King's insight, but his dedication to putting his belief system to the test.

Rev. King learned much of this doctrine of non-violence from Mohandas K. Gandhi. In his essay "An Experiment in Love," King quotes the Mahatma: "Things of fundamental importance to people are not secured by reason alone, but have to be purchased by their suffering. Suffering is infinitely more powerful than the law of the jungle for converting the opponent and opening his ears which are otherwise shut to the voice of reason." It is worth noting that Gandhi identified himself at times as an atheist; at other times as a theist; and frequently as both. Like King, his goal was not to promote a religion to power: it was to create social justice for all.

Thus, in "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience," King states that, "unearned suffering is redemptive, and that suffering may serve to transform the social situation." Further, in his account of the Montgomery experience, Rev. King states that black Americans could not afford to allow unearned suffering to cause them to become bitter, and that "(t)o suffer in a righteous cause is to grow to our humanities' full stature. It is becoming clear that the Negro is in for a season of suffering."

(3) "Bitterness contaminates the vessel which contains it." -- Rubin Carter

Surely not all suffering is experienced as part of a noble cause. Yet because there is some suffering in every individual's life, it is worthwhile to examine unearned suffering on the individual level. The other thread which I read this morning reminded me, in a curious manner, of a book that a friend of mine is writing.

The book has to do with what I think is the ultimate in unearned suffering: child abuse. The author, a PhD who teaches at a local university, examines the power of forgiveness. It is important to remember that Gandhi and King both promoted forgiveness as a necessary part of movements to transform a sick society. The author of this book was considering the power of forgiveness in the context of adult survivors of severe abuse.

One of the people she interviewed was Rubin Carter, who had marched with King in 1963 in Washington, DC. He stated that she "raises an interesting question. Like pain is pain, suffering is suffering -- whether from being wrongly imprisoned, wrongly placed in a concentration camp, or wrongly abused as a child. But pain is a component of suffering, not suffering itself. There are no degrees of suffering."

Carter told the author how being wrongly imprisoned had made him bitter, and how that bitterness ate away at all of his other qualities. And then one day, when being taken for a physical exam after 30 days in the darkness of solitary confinement, he saw his reflection in a mirror. He describes it as seeing a "grotesque image. I saw the face of hatred, a monster, and that monster was me. I realized I was not hurting them (those who railroaded him, taking him away from his wife and daughter). They were hurting me. .... How could I forgive them?"

Carter spoke of the influence of the writings of Vicktor Frankl, a holocaust survivor. Frankl was able to survive the terrors of the concentration camp in large part by his insights on the power of unearned suffering. His redemption was not as a result of the concentration camp, but in spite of it. He did not allow the experience to make him bitter and hateful.

In "Beyond Belief," author Elaine Pagals addresses what I think is the ultimate horror and cause of the most profound suffering: the death of a child. Years ago, a tragic accident killed one of my friends. His mother died a few years later, as a result of grief. She was a beautiful soul, and was not bitter .... just wounded beyond description. When I read Pagals' work, I was reminded of my friend's mother.It would be wrong to say that the death of Elaine Pagals' child was in any way other than tragic. Yet Pagals was able to survive where others do not, by finding some meaning to her unearned suffering.

My brothers are both atheists. I recall that one was offended by some people who described the finding of Elizabeth Smart some nine months after she was kidnapped as "God's will." He said by this logic, God likes some children more than others. I believe that this takes us back to the two threads on DU religion & theology that compared Paul's Christianity with the acual teachings of Christ. Those who believe that God preferred Elizabeth Smart would seem to fit the Paul doctrine; while those with greater insight, such as Pagals, find understanding in the Gnostic Gospels.

Others survive unearned suffering in other ways. We know that Robert Kennedy, an Irish Catholic, scrawled on a paper after his brother's death, "The innocent suffer -- how can that be possible and God be just. All things are to be examined & called into question. There are no limits set to thought." Many, though certainly not all, find the journey that RFK took after Dallas to be one of the most important parts of the 1960s.

And that brings us full circle. On the night that Rev. King was murdered, Robert Kennedy addressed a crowd that was stunned by the bitterness and hatred that was tearing this nation apart at its seams. Kennedy quoted Aeschylus: "God, whose law it is that he who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God."Did King's unearned suffering benefit humanity? Did his sacrifice make America a better place to live? I can't answer for anyone but myself, but I certainly think so.

Differences of opinion.

Years ago, while I was employed in my first social work position, I had the opportunity to meet a group of people who were involved in the Alternatives To Violence program. Most of the group I got to know were Quakers, who did volunteer work in the jails and prisons in the New York-New Jersey area. I spent a significant amount of time with them, and found that their program helped me not only in my work in jails, and with domestic violence groups, but also in my own life.I remember that some of the Quakers introduced this set of guidelines to the Haudenosaunee, or People of the Long House. It was funny, because the Clan Mothers said, "Oh yes, this is our system, too. It is part of the Power of the Good Mind." Some things were added as the program evolved, and so this is why I'm going to post two sections.Because I am human, I benefit from reading and re-reading these from time to time. I am pretty sure that a couple of the guidelines refer to me specifically, as an individual. Maybe others on DU will find some of this of interest. It is taken from my notes from some twenty years ago.Anytime two (or more) people are involved in any form of relationship, there is bound to be differences of opinion. If certain behaviors occur while those differences are discussed, it can lead to understanding and respect; other behaviors always lead to unnecessary arguments and hostility, and even violence.The following guidelines are useful in facilitating a discussion of differences in a way that leads to a minimum of aggravation, and focuses on arriving at an understanding that differences of opinion are okay. When we recognize that different opinions should not be seen as a problem that needs to be resolved, we have taken a large step forward.(1) Clarify as much as possible the nature of the differences.(2) Do not bring in irrelevant material. This includes: do not bring up past mistakes; and do not cite other people's behavior. When irrelevant material is brought into a discussion by another person, do not try to address it. Either say, "That has nothing to do with this discussion," or ignore it and get back to the issue at hand.(3) Do not be accusatory in any way.(4) Do not label or call people names. The best examples are "that's stupid," or worse, "you're stupid."(5) Do not attempt to blame the other person for anything.(6) Be careful not to give in to the urge to be hostile, condescending, irritable, or sarcastic.(7) If the discussion is "face-to-face," rather than on an internet site, try to speak in a medium tone. Speaking too softly or too loudly is disrespectful.Part Two(1) Seek to resolve differences by reaching common ground.(2) Reach for something good in the person(s) you are having a conflict with.(3) Listen before making any judgment.(4) Base your position on truth, to the best of your ability.(5)Be prepared to revise your position if it is wrong; be willing to admit when you are wrong.(6) Risk being creative rather than focusing on being "right."(7) Use surprise and humor.(8) Be patient and persistent.(9) Trust your inner self; you know if you are saying something to score "debating points" rather than reconcile differences.(10) Build community based on honesty, respect, and hope for a better future.The last point is that if you want to apologize to another person, it does not mean that you were wrong, or that you agree with the other person. It can simply mean that you do not wish to fight. This is equally true if someone makes an apology to you.I've spent the past two days thinking about these guidelines. For a variety of reasons, I have found myself straying from them in the past couple of months in some of my dealings with a couple members of my extended family. I recognize they are as important for me, as for any inmate I ever worked with. We are all "prisoners" from time to time.