The Cross II Have you ever thought about the cross? I mean, why the cross? Jesus encountered numerous inanimate objects throughout his travels, why iconize this particular object? It'd be like me going out and buying a little noose pendant in remembrance of a friend's suicide. Amore traditional reminder would be a picture, a date, or initials or something, but not the goddamn murder weapon. So why the cross? I think the difference with Jesus was suffering; but not just suffering, consciously chosen suffering. Both Jesus and my friend chose to suffer, but for one there was something in the suffering itself, while for the other it was only a necessary evil in producing death. Imagine for a moment, that Jesus had died a different death, although still for the saving of mankind. Instead of being painfully nailed to a set of 2x4s, he was clubbed from behind. Unconscious, he was bled to death. Free of both physical and emotional pain, his death seems to lack the profundity and meaningfulness it originally had. Anyone can be unexpectantly murdered, it takes someone special to go through what Jesus did. Not only did he experience massive physical and emotional trauma, he also consciously chose to go through with it. Every miracle given and sermon preached brought him closer to this known fate, and still he persisted. It is consciously chosen pain that makes all the difference with the Jesus case. So what is it about pain that makes it so spiritual? After all, isn't it just an evolutionary anachronism? When we were monkeys of low cerebral development running around the jungle, pain was very useful in signaling the need for bodily attention. Modern man has no need for this. If his arm were broken, and he could not feel any pain, he would still have the rationale to seek medical attention. This lack of a need for pain structures much of our modern society. Beyond every action and moral decision there is a latent assumption that the right action will be one that reduces pain and suffering. We extend life, vaccinize diseases, and anesthetize surgeries. I find this ironic. A supposedly Christian country praises the sacrifices of Jesus while simultaneously promoting the exact opposite values. What if we are wrong in assuming that the only purpose of pain is in making us aware of bodily injury? Even if this were the original animal purpose, who's to say that it didn't further develop, like every other function does, into something more. If evolution promotes the deteriorating of some things into anachronisms, couldn't it just as well turn others to new uses? The following of Jesus seems to vindicate this notion. Why would millions upon millions of people devoutly mourn and praise the death of Jesus if pain were a simple animalistic sensation? So what could possibly be the "something more" of pain? In attempting to determine this, it is helpful to go to the extremes for examples gratuitous pain, the pain that goes beyond the typical awareness pain. Say someone is getting bludgeoned with a blunt object. First blows register the typical sensation of pain. "You are in pain, your body is being injured," your pain receptors tell you. With continued beating, something different happens. Your receptors have no point in repeatedly telling you something you already know. It is inefficient, and habituation may step in; for example,  when you tell your little brother to think of fire trucks when he cuts his finger. Besides the pain-relieving affects of distraction, you also know that pain becomes habituated. It cannot possibly stay at the same level of pain. Also, the cut is constantly being repaired and endorphins are eventually released. Thus it is with pain, distraction, endorphins, and habituation combine to gradually reduce it. However, this is the same physical pain we were talking of before. If there is something more, it must be a mental phenomenon. We see this somewhat with distraction. It's like an altering of consciousness. For example, consider those with dissociative identity disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder). Disregarding the debate over the truthfulness of its subjects, this disorder demonstrates the affects of extreme pain. Over ninety percent of the people were severely abused, and all of them show signs of altering consciousness. The theory is that in order to cope with horrendous abuse, a mental escape was needed. New personas were acquired that eventually came to dominant their lives. So here is an example of a "something more" of pain. Yet, this altered consciousness was not evinced in Jesus. He directly faced off with his pain from beginning to end. Perhaps this partly explains his broad appeal. There does not have to be some higher meaning to suffering. It could simply be suffering for the sake of suffering. In a modern world in which "bad" and "suffering" are synonymous, what should we make of someone who chooses to bring such things upon himself? I'm not sure, but to me it seems like another case of bad faith or justification. We think, "he couldn't possibly have gone through all that for nothing, there must be something more to his life and death." It's like initiation into certain groups or clubs, such as fraternities. You're not sure about joining, but decide to any way. After going through a humiliating initiation, you cannot tell yourself that you are still not sure about this frat. The decision has already been made, and if you went through all that humiliation, it must be worth it. What if an entire religion began with an aggregate cognitive act of justification?