12:37 pm CST on 12.29.2024

 

Re: Footnote 1 - This edition of Ethics being reviewed was published in Minneapolis at Fortress Press, 2005.

See notice from earlier today and second bond prospectus print out. For the record, it was a “partisan” that got Bonnhoeffer and the other “executionees” the night before the alleged deed and you are not allowed to know where he and the others are.

_______________________________________________

 

     It appears that part of the difference between the three German words of concern has to do with agency and role, which could mean in relation to culpability (as in crime) or subject/object, as in one who commits versus on upon whom it is committed. My inference from the “stronger of the three” would entail that it is a combination of both action and being acted upon, to the “process” is that which results in the context of “victim.”

     Would this speak to the singularity of God and Christ as one? So for an individual to view oneself in relation to g-d is to contemplate that as which and in what manner the individual is “one” with g-d, including in a context of “g-d” and “Christ?” He says, “Christ” so far (actually he says “Jesus Christ”) perhaps with an understanding that “Christ” may also imply an action, a “verb” as opposed to “noun?” “Reflects” is not the same as “images” and yet it says he says both and an “or” relative to another. Is this to imply that one cannot BOTH “reflect” and “image” oneself as “g-d” and “Christ” at the same time? That would be to split the one...or rather to posit them relative to each other, inferring a “choice” in so far as they are related to each other as opposed to posited and maintained as one.

     He says the “image of g-d” and “relationship” with g-d.” That, however, is not the same as “reflection of g-d.” Does “reflection” also imply a context within which the individual can understand himself/herself as “one” as with “g-d” relative to as “one” as with “Christ?” If so, then much can be ascertained herein, as in the embodiment in mortal human form of “Christ” gives a possibility for relationship as “one” with g-d and a relationship with g-d that g-d alone cannot provide. This, of course, if the essence of allegations of heresy and impiety throughout time, including predating Christendom.

     ‘Voluntary assisted dying’...means...? Did “g-d” assist Christ in “dying?” Did g-d “order” or “command”  Christ in “dying?” Or did Christ make the decision upon and of himself to “die” and g-d agreed, relented or “assisted?” Including in this assistance was the means and manner in which others who came to be party to Christ “dying” engaged their respective roles.

     ‘...gift to preserve or sacrifice to offer...’ from whom is the gift and for whom is the sacrifice? It could imply that g-d had previously allowed for man to be “sacrificed” for g-d but that the distinction is that g-d allowed for Christ to be sacrificed for mankind. This harkens to the original covenant, however, regarding the willingness to sacrifice but the promise that g-d would not compel it out of a man for or regarding his son. But what of the son of g-d himself? Does that perhaps then imply that by virtue of g-d making life a gift to man that the sacrifice of a person is then the sacrifice of the son of g-d only and not a sacrifice of a man’s son? So then the relation of the “acceptance” of the sacrifice can only be by relation to g-d and not to man. Does that also mean to g-d and not to Christ himself?

     “...not the destruction of one’s own life...” See above. It would mean that life is seen as a gift of g-d and hence does not belong to the man himself.

     “...life is not the highest of goods...” meaning life is a means to something else? Is life the object, or the “noun?”

Law versus grace...is this not the main controversy of Christendon as distinct from Judaism? What did I say about grace this morning?

      “Self-murder” – is it still “murder?” And it is a sin...Is it a sin for g-d? Can one be guilty of the commandment or the sin that one proscribes? (be careful...such questions can get you crucified...)

     “...by a new spirit.” Do we each have access to or relation with or as an individual spirit? As distinct from the “Holy Spirit?” Meaning it is about a “new spirit” or “the spirit anew?” I need to understand what this would mean more in this context.

     “...our hands...” and yet the laying on of hands by Christ was to be healing and restorative. And yet also Christ impelled the others with him to use not only his hands, but their own, as they could and were to be able to understand themselves to do as he did, and hence allow for others to likewise be able to do what he did.

     “...the deed of self-murder.” And what relative to other forms of “sacrifice” that do not involve death? Such as imprisonment, impotence/celibacy, slavery, or even the role of the executioner? Is “self-murder” also a form of “self-execution?” Would g-d grant one the “right” or the “permission” to “execute” and under what contexts? Especially without the law? I don’t want to say this could be misapplied but it would be dishonest to not say I already perceive the capacity for manipulation of this explication.

“...out of self-interest.” So the location of “self” as the objective is the context within which it becomes “murder?”

     So the quote would say that “failure” and the acceptance of it is also about refusing to do the work or penance and redemption, and hence to commit impiety. Which also means that one so “tormented” as to give oneself over to self-murder is also saying they refuse to hold the law, or the “way of good” and hence “redemption” in this life is not possible. They would repudiate the “gift of life” because they prefer the pleasure or the benefit of that which they KNOW is sin.

     “...earthly fate” and “g-d”  as related to each other. “Fate” is a “gift” then also? Are we allowed to request an “exchange?” This is important...how much of this is about relating oneself to another individual outside of and/or beyond one and their “oneness” with g-d?

     (One way to understand this quote, however, is to also reflect that the “crucifixion” was not the important part, but rather what Christ did AFTER he “arose” following the crucifixion. There was only ONE crucifixion...this would also imply that g-d expects us to learn or to accept the gift of “redemption” after we are crucified the first time and then grace is what we DO – not so much what we have – after the rising from the death.)

     So self-murder is “destroying?” The life ends – it would seem that what is destroyed is the “grace” that comes with living beyond the death and the “way of good” made possible by attending to it. [This would then also be an argument against “indulgences” or the conferring upon another the “grace” that comes to each individual for their faith.]

     (This posits the consideration of the “original sin” of the Garden of Eden, and in another manner recontextualizes the story of Isaiah, in another light. This is the first time I have considered Isaiah in relationship to the crucifixion of Christ. The essence is “knowledge” and “wisdom” as a form of “experience” and in what relation to life – and g-d – you experience it. This still holds that all that is possible comes from g-d and is merely a “gift,” or, rather, delegated, for are we not if we accept ourselves in relation to Christ also able to provide “gifts” as we engage with one another? This would need to be considered with more context to the earlier consideration of “lives in the hands          of g-d.”)

     I will have to consider the paragraph forth from the end separately. Does that sound out of context? In one manner, no it is not.

In the context of a severely ill family member, is the “self-murder” of concern to be considered in the light of those that would be alleviated were the “ill” member of the family to “die” of some form rather than afflict the family? This is NOT just about “physical illness.” In some way, especially now (as it would well have been during Hitler’s time) this context of defining the illness and determining it, including through the state, (see what I said about the fourth paragraph from the bottom above) is supposed to be an amelioration to the individual in regards to committing the deed himself/herself. As in, one “sacrificing” for the state (ie., the “People,” as the allure and much of the praxis subsequent to the crucifixion of Christ became) then becomes the “hands of the People” to alleviate their suffering...and yet if the state will not intercede, then the deed is put on the one sick themselves. But, is a “crime” a “sickness?” This is important in being honest about the context of the above as mentioned regarding that Christ was not to be the ONLY ONE to be able to heal, and that part of his crucifixion was because of the lack of faith of the others to “do as [I] have done.”

     “Deed” and “temptation...” Is he not considering “duty?” Including here is at least not in this context the contemplation of the act of suffering, and enduring, as opposed to considering “faith” in primary relation to “grace.” Is “grace” the result of “faith?” I contend that faith is faith in its own accord – it is not a means to an end. It is as it is. But “life” is not the same as “faith.” This is crucial. Do we have a “choice” to “life?” The implication is that part of the freedom of life in relation to g-d is the choice of and to have faith.

From Pastor Pietsch: “Do we see complex motives of self-murder in Jesus’ own death or the purest motive of unbridled love for every human being?”

     I contend we see more than either. We see consequences, and willingness to accept them. If we consider “grace” in the context of life and then faith, we see that life is a means but to what? At what point do we take on the “cross” of our own actions and what do we do about it?

     Recall that Mary and Martha waited at the foot of the cross the whole time he was up there to take down his body and entomb it. Did they believe he would resurrect? I do not believe they did NOT have faith that he would. Can we see this in relation to Christ and g-d as well? Neither Mary nor Martha were capable of self-murder.

 

 

After re-reading the above and “editing” it, does it seem I “avoided” the actual question posited about the “self-murder [of] Jesus?”

I can see and possibly agree with much as it is presented here, but I cannot see that Jesus committed self-murder. Did the apostles agree to consider that the “self-murder” of Jesus – were it to be accepted as such – was for their grace? Did not THEY each have to address whatever afflicted them insofar as Christ was permitted to be crucified and each of them acted at the time in the manner they did? If so, were they selfish? And so what is to placate them or in what manner do they atone for or redeem themselves insofar as the “resurrection” may well have exposed shame in the manner in which they understood or accepted themselves to be selfish?

​

But this is me...I do not personally believe that g-d permitted the apostles to allow for Christ to be sacrificed even IF he allowed for Christ to sacrifice himself. Some may say, however, that they did what they did as an act of faith on their own and that as such, then the contemplation of this question and the manner of its contemplation may still hold the merit it was intended to hold.

Why do I say this? Even if g-d DID intend for a “re-evaluation of the covenant with his people” at the time that Christ was of the Earth, and in the contexts of the relationship he had until that time with the jews, then that was meant NOT to be JUST with “Jesus.” Personal accountability and considerations of delegation of authority and power – of course g-d was concerned with such things because WE HAD ASKED FOR HIM TO CONCERN HIMSELF FOR OUR WELFARE AND BENEFIT with such things. G-d always showed his willingness to consider “negotiating” even if he did not agree with what we posited and there were consequences for not agreeing with the terms that were set as a result of our inquiries. G-d had ALREADY PROMISED US THAT HE WOULD NOT COMPEL US TO SACRIFICE OUR SON. If our “sons” and “daughters” die then we are supposed to understand why and we are required to work justice in this regard. He PROMISED and we were supposed to honor OUR PROMISES. I do not agree that Jesus refused to hold to what he kept as the promise. But, unfortunately, if we accept the manners in which the legacy has unfolded and the practical and political implications, then the other 12 (and more) did and hence g-d did NOT keep his promise with them, or by virtue of them with us, and that means we did not keep our promise with g-d. We are NOT allowed to sacrifice the son of g-d.

​

But I have been saying that now for thousands of years.

Thank you Pastor.

1:54 pm CST

Dec. 29, 2024

Charity Crouse