Post-Modern Religion
louis
2BL Sydney" thread on 8/17/01]:
...What I meant at bottom is that "validity" is irrelevant to belief.
Beliefs cannot be
proven true or false, only believed or not believed.
and...
We exist in only four dimensions. I believe that God and
ultimate Truth exists in more. I don't think we can even comprehend what
existence *is* in more than four dimensions.
: and...
Respect doesn't depend on truth, and belief doesn't depend on truth.
:and...
Now, discrimination is
increasingly less tolerated in this culture, so you'll find that the
actions of those who would discriminate against women and gays, for
example, will be decreasingly tolerated in our institutions.
:and...
But God reveals Godself in many religions.
: and...
I'm not saying there's no truth. I'm saying that all the stuff we might
say is The Truth is really only partial truth. Christianity holds one
truth. Islam another. Judaism another. Wicca another. To contend that
one adheres to The One Exclusive Way is bigoted and arrogant. To try to
make one religion more full of Truth than another is ignorant and
unwise. To say that some Episcopalians are not really Episcopalians
because what they view as Truth is slightly different from what you view
as Truth is mean and short-sighted.
[louis wrote: To that I would answer that we must conform ourselves to the
beliefs God Himself has set forth in His self-revelation.]
To which I would say: which self-revelation? God has revealed Godself in
many ways and has not limited Godself to Christianity.
*****************************************
Louis:
There we have it, ladies and gentlemen: post-modernist religion for a
post-modernist age. Truth is irrelevant, especially when formulating and
choosing our beliefs, because it cannot be "proven." Any possibility of
subjecting our beliefs to any standards of reason, of any relation to truth,
goes right out the window. The only thing that matters is holding a belief,
it seems, and once this belief has been declared everyone must "respect" it.
If no belief represents Truth, or even truth, then all beliefs must be given
equal weight. Thus, Christianity is as valid as, say, Wicca, or even
Stalinism, Nazism, or Satanism. And anyone who objects, who feels that there
are indeed absolute truths, and that there are indeed means to ascertain at
least an approximation of those truths, is to be intimidated by being
branded as "bigoted and arrogant," "ignorant and unwise," & "mean and
short-sighted."
Further, we are to be limited to our naturalistic sides (as we only exist in
four dimensions), and our spiritual selves (I might add, our real selves)
are to be dismissed. This, of course, is necessary because it forecloses any
notion that the immortal and eternal God can have any claim upon us, can
demand obedience and accountability, and that there are consequences for our
spiritual lives and futures when we are separated from Him. He (oops! excuse
the male pronoun) is relegated to an all-loving, all-pervasive "spirit"
which exists within and about us (pantheism). Love is thus impersonal: not
the abolute demand for the commitment of our selves and spirits, but an all
benevolent being of acceptance no matter what. With no one to answer to, we
can dispense with such incumbrances as sin and repentence, as well as the
necessity of a divine redeemer and the work of the Cross. That's so
demeaning, so limiting to our "self-esteem," after all.
Which brings us to post-modern religion's bottom line: if there are no
absolute values, no one faith which represents the fullness of truth, no way
to follow that is unique, no one Truth to which we can dedicate our lives;
if, in fact, all faiths, all cultures, are equal, then really there are no
means to find and then choose to follow the truth beyond what I happen to
like, or feel, or desire. Narcissism, in fact is what we have, and (as
Priscilla so aptly put it) our god will be "Godself." And, of course, it is
precisely Godself which the post-modern age worships. Its temples are the
malls, the self-help and self-esteem movements, advertizing, politics, film
and tv, and progressive religion. Its effects can be seen all around us to
anyone who cares to look - The loss of faith in reason, the growing
violence, the alienation of mass society, the cynicism of the young, the
idolization of gree, the growing drug disaster, etc. -- are any of these
things unrelated? The answer to all our woes, it seems, is to pop a pill and
get our heads shrunk. Certainly, when religion worships Godself, where else
are we to turn?
************************************
Some, I think, will turn to our Books of Common Prayer and our Bibles
(those, that is, as yet untouched by the Jesus Seminar and other
"reinterpreters"), and remember Jesus when He said:
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no one comes to the Father except
through me."
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all
kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for
your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the
prophets who were before you."
"If the world hate you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If
you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you
do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world --
therefore the world hate you. Remember the word that I said to you,
'Servants are not greater than their master.' If they persecuted me, they
will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. But
they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do
not know him who sent me."
and, of course:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who
believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life."
r,
louis
S. K. Hampton
<<APPLAUSE>>
Thank you! I wish I knew how to whistle online!!!
What a nice concise summation you have provided. The only think I
might add is that the post-modern "religion" seems to be totally
wrapped up in feelings and emotion.
Thank you again.
Stephanie
perry lee
SKHa...@aol.com says...
> <<APPLAUSE>>
>
> Thank you! I wish I knew how to whistle online!!!
>
> What a nice concise summation you have provided. The only think I
> might add is that the post-modern "religion" seems to be totally
> wrapped up in feelings and emotion.
>
> Thank you again.
>
> Stephanie
>
>
A five star answer.
Perry
Leslie Terrell
Bruce K. Darling
Why is that posts like this always hit the newsgroup when I am headed to the
airport for another business trip. I'll have to make it a point of reading
your commentary again when I get to New Orleans. How is your search for
another parish coming along? I've been thinking about you, hoping of course
that you find one that doesn't regard social activism as a substitute for
the gospel.
Regards
Bruce
"louis" <l...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:IuAf7.6725$D4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Count Zero
is that we have to love unconditionally and wastefully. There are many
faiths that state this, so if Christianity states this, and they state it,
how can one be wrong at the other be right. You can't sit by and watch
horrible things happen. You must take action and defend the innocent and
oppressed. Why? Because you are stopping hate and cruelity. But Why stop it?
Because hate and cruelity are the counter of love and kindness. It isn't
this, "oh every religion is right even if it is mean and horrible and
promotes hatred", it is what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.
Love and Kindness = Right
Hatred and Cruelity = Wrong
Jonathan
P.S. The arrogant assumption that God is male is foolish. We refer to the
gods of old as gods (i.e. male) and some of them are female. So why couldn't
God be both male and female. How can God really have a gender?
Leslie Terrell
Count Zero <jonb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:DT5g7.57409$MC1.19...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
> I think you are missing Priscilla's point completely. The key to her
beliefs
> is that we have to love unconditionally and wastefully. There are many
> faiths that state this, so if Christianity states this, and they state it,
> how can one be wrong at the other be right.
Most religions, by their very nature, exclude the idea of other religions
being correct. Even Christianity, Jonathon has the famous phrase "I am the
Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man gets to the Father except through me."
Not to say every other religion is completely wrong, I'm just saying that I
believe mine is more right than others. Arrogant? Well, yeah, maybe, but
that's the nature of my faith. That's why we evangelize, unless, of course,
we're just looking for my tithes for the plate.
>You can't sit by and watch
> horrible things happen. You must take action and defend the innocent and
> oppressed. Why? Because you are stopping hate and cruelity. But Why stop
it?
> Because hate and cruelity are the counter of love and kindness. It isn't
> this, "oh every religion is right even if it is mean and horrible and
> promotes hatred", it is what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.
The point of Christianity (while stopping evil is certainly a biproduct) is
the resurrection. That is the point. everything else is a side product,
something that happens as a result of and not as the goal of what we do.
If social justice is your goal, then Christianity by itself will not produce
it. If Christ is your goal, then Christianity will produce social justice
as a biproduct. If you only value Christianity because it produces social
justice, then something is wrong. God will not be used as a means to an end
because HE IS THE END. He is our goal. All else nothingness in
comparison.
>
> Love and Kindness = Right
>
> Hatred and Cruelity = Wrong
Isn't it cruel to cut someone's stomach open and rip their unborn child from
the womb? Oh, wait, we call that a caesarian section. Sometimes cruel
behavoir is appropriate.. Damn, there goes that theory.
> P.S. The arrogant assumption that God is male is foolish. We refer to the
> gods of old as gods (i.e. male) and some of them are female. So why
couldn't
> God be both male and female. How can God really have a gender?
God can't *really have a gender in our vulgar understanding of it because he
is a Spirit. But Jesus called him Father, and so do I. I'm sorry if you're
not mature enough to handle that. (I learned to accept male athority
figures a long time ago, what's your problem?)
--
Pax Christi,
Les
--
God is always faithful Leslie.
~my friend Will
louis
"Count Zero" <jonb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:DT5g7.57409$MC1.19...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...
beliefs
> is that we have to love unconditionally and wastefully. There are many
> faiths that state this, so if Christianity states this, and they state it,
> how can one be wrong at the other be right. You can't sit by and watch
> horrible things happen. You must take action and defend the innocent and
> oppressed. Why? Because you are stopping hate and cruelity. But Why stop
it?
> Because hate and cruelity are the counter of love and kindness. It isn't
> this, "oh every religion is right even if it is mean and horrible and
> promotes hatred", it is what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.
>
This isn't what Priscilla said, though. Reread her statements. Her
contention is that one's beliefs are held without regard to right or wrong,
truth or untruth. And, more to the point, that "Christianity holds one
truth. Islam another. Judaism another. Wicca another." She didn't say "One
Truth," but one truth among many. All faiths are therefore equal, and the
search for Truth is essentially irrelevant. This relativistic attitude is
central to post-modernism which denies the existence of Truth, and holds
that all "truths" are equal (and equally arbitrary), and are merely
interesting signs pointing to each groups cultural peculiarities. Thus, the
disparagement of such concepts as "excellence" and hierarchies of truth.
To say as you do:
> Love and Kindness = Right
>
> Hatred and Cruelity = Wrong
is equally irrelevant. Such strong statements are Truths. If Truth is
irrelevant to belief, what right have you to assert them? Post-modernism has
deconstructed such concepts, just as it has deconstructed the Bible and
Christian belief. In order to make such statements of absolute truth you
must be able to back them up, using reason, tradition, orthodoxy, etc.
Priscilla denies this. If Wicca is as equally true as Christianity, why
choose? By what standards could one judge (other than personal whim, that
is). In fact, one would have to reject Christianity completely, using this
"reasoning," because Christianity, and Christ, makes absolute statements
about itself: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man comes to the
Father except through me." This is anathema to the modern relativist, but it
is central to Christian belief. By its very nature, it is not one truth
among others, but The Truth. Sorry.
r,
louis
> Jonathan
>
> P.S. The arrogant assumption that God is male is foolish. We refer to the
> gods of old as gods (i.e. male) and some of them are female. So why
couldn't
> God be both male and female. How can God really have a gender?
Sorry, but your arrogance is showing. Do you think you know better than
millenia of Judeo-Christianity?
>
>
>
louis
I look forward to your comments on my post. I've just had it with the fuzzy
thinking going on around these issues.
This last Sunday I returned to my parish because the one priest I still
respect was presiding. I went to the 7:30 am service (a penance for my
sins!) because they use the BCP and not some printed handout. I spoke with
him afterwards, briefly outlining my concerns. He was very understanding and
invited me to make an appointment to speak with him extensively about
things. I still can't see myself going there full time, but in only when he
is preaching. Right now, I won't get near any of the women priests there, or
even the Rector.
r,
louis
All Saints Pasadena (my old parish) ~looks~ like an Anglican church (attn.
Charlie). When I walked in again I had such a good feeling. It's really
tragic what's happening there.
"Bruce K. Darling" <thur...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:81Uf7.1031$Ij.215...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Count Zero
> being correct. Even Christianity, Jonathon has the famous phrase "I am
the
> Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man gets to the Father except through
me."
> Not to say every other religion is completely wrong, I'm just saying that
I
> believe mine is more right than others. Arrogant? Well, yeah, maybe, but
> that's the nature of my faith. That's why we evangelize, unless, of
course,
> we're just looking for my tithes for the plate.
Do you really think that God only spoke to the few people in a small area of
the Earth? Why would God only focus on one place. It's not like God is
really limited in his ability to communicate with the people of his
creation. I know that exclusiveness is part of Christianity, but maybe we
need to look to see if the message of christ didn't reach other people and
thier culture didn't grasp it differently.
> >You can't sit by and watch
> > horrible things happen. You must take action and defend the innocent and
> > oppressed. Why? Because you are stopping hate and cruelity. But Why stop
it?
> > Because hate and cruelity are the counter of love and kindness. It isn't
> > this, "oh every religion is right even if it is mean and horrible and
> > promotes hatred", it is what is right is right and what is wrong is
wrong.
>
> The point of Christianity (while stopping evil is certainly a biproduct)
is
> the resurrection. That is the point. everything else is a side product,
> something that happens as a result of and not as the goal of what we do.
> If social justice is your goal, then Christianity by itself will not
produce
> it. If Christ is your goal, then Christianity will produce social justice
> as a biproduct. If you only value Christianity because it produces social
> justice, then something is wrong. God will not be used as a means to an
end
> because HE IS THE END. He is our goal. All else nothingness in
> comparison.
The teachings of kindness and love that Christ taught drive us to do what is
right. They drive us to right wrongs. The focus on the resurrection in
Christianity was decided by men. The resurrection is but one aspect of
Jesus. There is no point in believing in the resurrection if you don't
follow his teachings of love and kindness.
> > Love and Kindness = Right
> >
> > Hatred and Cruelity = Wrong
>
> Isn't it cruel to cut someone's stomach open and rip their unborn child
from
> the womb? Oh, wait, we call that a caesarian section. Sometimes cruel
> behavoir is appropriate.. Damn, there goes that theory.
When a caesarian is done it isn't being done by the doctor because he wants
to hurt the woman. It is done to save the woman. Hate and Cruelity, with the
big H and big C, are the type of cruelity that is done for pleasure to
inflict pain and suffer on others. A caesarian doesn't compare... it is like
comparing apples and oranges.
> > P.S. The arrogant assumption that God is male is foolish. We refer to
the
> > gods of old as gods (i.e. male) and some of them are female. So why
couldn't
> > God be both male and female. How can God really have a gender?
>
> God can't *really have a gender in our vulgar understanding of it because
he
> is a Spirit. But Jesus called him Father, and so do I. I'm sorry if
you're
> not mature enough to handle that. (I learned to accept male athority
> figures a long time ago, what's your problem?)
Ah... now you understand my view of god. God truly has not gender in the
sense we understand. I call God by the male gender because in our language
it includes both male and female. Also, I am male so I identify with a male
concept better. The fact that you attack Priscillia for not wanting to
assign a gender to God is what I was mentioning. But can we not have female
authority figures? I learned to accept female authority figures a long time
ago, what's your problem?
Jonthan
Count Zero
> This isn't what Priscilla said, though. Reread her statements. Her
> contention is that one's beliefs are held without regard to right or
wrong,
> truth or untruth. And, more to the point, that "Christianity holds one
> truth. Islam another. Judaism another. Wicca another." She didn't say
"One
> Truth," but one truth among many. All faiths are therefore equal, and the
> search for Truth is essentially irrelevant. This relativistic attitude is
> central to post-modernism which denies the existence of Truth, and holds
> that all "truths" are equal (and equally arbitrary), and are merely
> interesting signs pointing to each groups cultural peculiarities. Thus,
the
> disparagement of such concepts as "excellence" and hierarchies of truth.
The primary message of Jesus is to love unconditionally. If a faith promotes
unconditional love then how can it not be the message of Christ. I know
becuase Jesus stated that only through him, but do you really think God is
so limited that he would only communicate with a small number of people. Why
not hit all of the planet at once.
> To say as you do:
>
> > Love and Kindness = Right
> >
> > Hatred and Cruelity = Wrong
>
> is equally irrelevant. Such strong statements are Truths. If Truth is
> irrelevant to belief, what right have you to assert them? Post-modernism
has
> deconstructed such concepts, just as it has deconstructed the Bible and
> Christian belief. In order to make such statements of absolute truth you
> must be able to back them up, using reason, tradition, orthodoxy, etc.
> Priscilla denies this. If Wicca is as equally true as Christianity, why
> choose? By what standards could one judge (other than personal whim, that
> is). In fact, one would have to reject Christianity completely, using this
> "reasoning," because Christianity, and Christ, makes absolute statements
> about itself: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man comes to the
> Father except through me." This is anathema to the modern relativist, but
it
> is central to Christian belief. By its very nature, it is not one truth
> among others, but The Truth. Sorry.
Now I will disagree with Priscillia in this point. The magic aspect of Wicca
is something that isn't very Christian from my understanding. It isn't used
as a way to communicate with God but as a tool to manipulate the universe
and get what you want. Personally, every Wiccan that I have ever met uses it
as a way to justify the right to do literally whatever they want. I have
seen very little redeeming about Wicca, especially modern Wicca, but from
what I understand there are a number of what would be considered Christian
concepts. Of course my knowledge of Wicca is only from the experience with
those who practice it, and those people weren't exactly nice and loving, so
I could be wrong.
Now to Islam and Judeism. With Islam, at least the Islamics I have talked
with, they believe that Mohammad was the new prophet. We had failed to
follow God's new covenant that Jesus presented so he sent a new prophet to
give a the new covenant of God. So how can we as Christians be sure that we
aren't all wrong and not following the correct faith. Islam could actually
be the true word of God. It is valid when you think about it. Especially
when you consdier that it comes from the same source... Judeism. Islamics
see Jesus as a great teaching and a prophet, but not the Son of God. I know
Islamics who celebrate Christmas because they see the birth of Jesus as
celebrating the birth of a prophet.
Judeism is the root of our faith. To deny Judeism is to deny who we are as
Christians.
> > P.S. The arrogant assumption that God is male is foolish. We refer to
the
> > gods of old as gods (i.e. male) and some of them are female. So why
> couldn't
> > God be both male and female. How can God really have a gender?
>
> Sorry, but your arrogance is showing. Do you think you know better than
> millenia of Judeo-Christianity?
They could be wrong. After all the Bible was written by a strict Patriarchal
society so it is not unfeasible that they could have made some arrogant
assumption about the nature of God. I identify with the male gender because
I am male, so I call God "he" and "father." But, I know deep in my heart
that those meager words don't do God justice. God is just more than gender.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I will know when I die. I am willing to
wait.
Leslie Terrell
> > Most religions, by their very nature, exclude the idea of other
religions
> > being correct. Even Christianity, Jonathon has the famous phrase "I am
> the
> > Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man gets to the Father except through
> me."
> > Not to say every other religion is completely wrong, I'm just saying
that
> I
> > believe mine is more right than others. Arrogant? Well, yeah, maybe,
but
> > that's the nature of my faith. That's why we evangelize, unless, of
> course,
> > we're just looking for my tithes for the plate.
>
> Do you really think that God only spoke to the few people in a small area
of
> the Earth? Why would God only focus on one place. It's not like God is
> really limited in his ability to communicate with the people of his
> creation. I know that exclusiveness is part of Christianity, but maybe we
> need to look to see if the message of christ didn't reach other people and
> thier culture didn't grasp it differently.
Jonathon, I'm not saying God didn't speak to other cultures apart from the
jews, but he did CHOOSE them to hammer into their heads just what sort of
diety he was. You'll notice that the hebrew god is markedly different from
other dieties of the era. He was just. He took a concern for his creation.
He was OUTSIDE of creation, and therefore not subject to it. You can
bargain with this God! Ex, Abraham haggling with him for the cities of
Sodem and Gommorroah. You'll note that we dont' have him "falling in love"
with any human women. (Yes, we do have the Virgin Mary but there's no
account of God seducing her to accomplish the pregnancy.) If it hadn't been
for the situation created with the Jews, it would have been no big deal that
we have a virgin claiming to be pregnant by a diety or a man claiming to be
the diety's child... but it happened among the Jews. That's what makes
Christianity and Judaism so different from other religions. They have a
monopoly on claims to a direct relationship to God.. being HIS people. I'm
not saying there were no righteous men in other cultures or faiths, or that
God didn't smuggle a bit of the truth into their belief systems, but he gave
revelation of it to us... And he chose the Jews and through them christians
to be the messengers. I'm not limiting God here, I'm looking at history
and seeing what he has done. God, in his wisdom, chose one tribe of people
to make HIS people so that through them all men might know the truth.
No, there is no point in following his teachings if he was not resurrected.
If he wasn't who he said he was, then he was a nut. He makes bold,
incredible claims, that if made by any one else, would be absurd. Why
should I follow a loon? i agree that love and kindness are integral parts
of Christ's teaching, but if that is all you want from him, to learn to love
and be kind, then you have missed the point, and you will never do for his
purpose. He doesn't want to make us better men (in the sense of "people"
but new men. That means dying to your old ways and learning to live a
completely new life. If I were merely following this God to learn to be
loving and kind I would have left him a long time ago, but I am following
him so I might be saved from the disease of sin, and so, even when I don't
feel like being loving and kind, I follow still. If that were all that
were keeping me with Christ, I would have given up a long time ago.
>
> > > Love and Kindness = Right
> > >
> > > Hatred and Cruelity = Wrong
> >
> > Isn't it cruel to cut someone's stomach open and rip their unborn child
> from
> > the womb? Oh, wait, we call that a caesarian section. Sometimes cruel
> > behavoir is appropriate.. Damn, there goes that theory.
>
> When a caesarian is done it isn't being done by the doctor because he
wants
> to hurt the woman. It is done to save the woman. Hate and Cruelity, with
the
> big H and big C, are the type of cruelity that is done for pleasure to
> inflict pain and suffer on others. A caesarian doesn't compare... it is
like
> comparing apples and oranges.
Yeah, well, I thought I'd throw out a red herring like yours.
>
> > > P.S. The arrogant assumption that God is male is foolish. We refer to
> the
> > > gods of old as gods (i.e. male) and some of them are female. So why
> couldn't
> > > God be both male and female. How can God really have a gender?
> >
> > God can't *really have a gender in our vulgar understanding of it
because
> he
> > is a Spirit. But Jesus called him Father, and so do I. I'm sorry if
> you're
> > not mature enough to handle that. (I learned to accept male athority
> > figures a long time ago, what's your problem?)
>
> Ah... now you understand my view of god. God truly has not gender in the
> sense we understand. I call God by the male gender because in our language
> it includes both male and female. Also, I am male so I identify with a
male
> concept better. The fact that you attack Priscillia for not wanting to
> assign a gender to God is what I was mentioning. But can we not have
female
> authority figures? I learned to accept female authority figures a long
time
> ago, what's your problem?
I held these views long before I ever met you. And I have no problem with
female authority figures, I just think that it's incredibly silly to harp on
a pronoun. (I come from a very matriarchal family.. my mother and my
paternal grandmother are the pillars of our family systems.) It's a simple
matter of following Christ's example and not being to thin skinned to deal
with it.
--
Pax Christi,
Les
--
I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in
my people; no more shall the sound of
weeping be heard in it, or the cry of
distress.
~Isaiah 65:17-19
Count Zero
Okay.. the concept of haggling with God is a concept I have always had a
problem with. Now lets say there are two people who are dying of cancer. One
person has 200 people praying to god to save them, the other only has one.
The person who has 200 people lives and the other person dies. Now with that
concept God cared more about that person who had 200 people praying for them
than the person with only one person praying for them. Did it occur to you
that means God puts more value on some peoples lives than others. If God is
suppose to love all of use unconditionally, why would God not save both. Why
only save the person with more people praying for them. Is the other person
some how lesser. I think that is why I have a problem with the God that
intervines with the world. A God that can be manipulated by people to get
what they want.
Now some people might say that person who died was needed by God. But, did
the loved ones of that person not need them. When my mother died when I was
twelve people told me that. Now think about it.. .I was 12... didn't I need
my mother. Why would a God who loves and cares for me so much want to see me
suffer so. Weren't the constant prayers of a frightened little boy who loved
his mother enough to turn Gods heart and let my mother live. Weren't the
prayers of a congregating praying for the wife of thier Priest enough to
change his mind. It's not like she had a terminal disease. It was a simple
kidney transplant. So with that in mind, don't tell me that God can be
bargained with. Don't tell me about God's great plan. That's all bullshit.
Humans created those concepts to try and comfort us for the horrible things
that happen. Death happens because people die. Things happen because that is
the nature of life. God or Satan aren't interfering. It is the nature of
life. That is our test from God. No matter how crappy things get, we push
on. God didn't create this universe for us. God created the planet and
realized something was missing. So he made humanity. We are an afterthought.
The things that happen in life are because we live in a creation that wasn't
designed for us. Eden was there, effectively, to protect us from that
creation, but we craved knowledge. We lost our innocence and our minds were
opened up to the nature of the world. Only later did God show us the love
through Jesus. A man who loved without end. He loved because it made him
grow spiritually. God taught him a new way of being that would allow all
people in his creation to join him forever, not just the Jews.
As to the righteousness of men and women in other faiths, you are
contridicing yourself. You stated that only through Jesus can we be
righteous, but how can those men and women be righteous if they don't know
Christ. And, if God put some of his message in other faiths, then how does
that invalidate them and cause people who are not Christian to not gain
eternal life.
When I talk about love I am not talking about romantic love. God's love is
as a parent to his children.
> No, there is no point in following his teachings if he was not
resurrected.
> If he wasn't who he said he was, then he was a nut. He makes bold,
> incredible claims, that if made by any one else, would be absurd. Why
> should I follow a loon? i agree that love and kindness are integral parts
> of Christ's teaching, but if that is all you want from him, to learn to
love
> and be kind, then you have missed the point, and you will never do for his
> purpose. He doesn't want to make us better men (in the sense of "people"
> but new men. That means dying to your old ways and learning to live a
> completely new life. If I were merely following this God to learn to be
> loving and kind I would have left him a long time ago, but I am following
> him so I might be saved from the disease of sin, and so, even when I don't
> feel like being loving and kind, I follow still. If that were all that
> were keeping me with Christ, I would have given up a long time ago.
See the key is, that I do believe that Jesus gained eternal life because he
loved everyone and loved wastefully. That is the aspect of Jesus I am
talking about. I strive to be like Jesus. To love unconditionally and
wastefully. To hold no malice towards those around me and do no harm. It is
that love that makes your spirit grow. It is that spirit that gains eternal
life, not because you did what you were told, but because you spirit is so
strong it can never die.
> > Ah... now you understand my view of god. God truly has not gender in the
sense we understand. I call God by the male gender because in our language
> > it includes both male and female. Also, I am male so I identify with a
male concept better. The fact that you attack Priscillia for not wanting to
> > assign a gender to God is what I was mentioning. But can we not have
female authority figures? I learned to accept female authority figures a
long
> > time ago, what's your problem?
>
> I held these views long before I ever met you. And I have no problem with
> female authority figures, I just think that it's incredibly silly to harp
on
> a pronoun. (I come from a very matriarchal family.. my mother and my
> paternal grandmother are the pillars of our family systems.) It's a
simple
> matter of following Christ's example and not being to thin skinned to deal
> with it.
I knew what you meant, but I was just throwing a red herring your way too.
We better be careful or we might get into a red herring throwing match...
and that is nasty because the aftermath always smells horrible. :P
Jonathan
Leslie Terrell
The point of the story is not that Abraham got his way, Jonathon; he didn't.
There weren't even ten righteous people in the city and God did as he
intended all along. The point of the story is that this God is a God that
can be approached. The little man can shake his finger and say "You can't
do this! You're supposed to be righteous! What are people going to think if
you destroy that city and there are even fifty righteous men in it!" and not
have the proverbial smite button on the divine computer punched and the
S.O.B. blown up in an instant. That's what was so bloody unusual.
You'll note Abraham didn't offer God anything in return. So he didn't sin.
He wasn't attemting to bargain in our sense of, you scratch my back, I'll
scratch yours. When I said he was haggling for the city, I meant he was
saying Fifty! Okay, so I can't have fifty, what about forty! It was haggling
in the sense of two people deciding on a price for an item in the market
place.
> Now some people might say that person who died was needed by God. But, did
> the loved ones of that person not need them. When my mother died when I
was
> twelve people told me that. Now think about it.. .I was 12... didn't I
need
> my mother. Why would a God who loves and cares for me so much want to see
me
> suffer so. Weren't the constant prayers of a frightened little boy who
loved
> his mother enough to turn Gods heart and let my mother live. Weren't the
> prayers of a congregating praying for the wife of thier Priest enough to
> change his mind. It's not like she had a terminal disease. It was a simple
> kidney transplant. So with that in mind, don't tell me that God can be
> bargained with. Don't tell me about God's great plan. That's all bullshit.
> Humans created those concepts to try and comfort us for the horrible
things
> that happen. Death happens because people die. Things happen because that
is
> the nature of life. God or Satan aren't interfering. It is the nature of
> life. That is our test from God. No matter how crappy things get, we push
I'm very sorry that happened to you, Jonathon. I dont' think God doesn't
interfer though.. What was Christ if not interference? I'm not going to
tell you about God's great plan, because that's something you need to work
out between him and you and I refuse to touch on it. I've lost people too.
(I was a year old when my first terminally ill relative died and I was of
the age 12 when I got a reprieve and didn't have anyone get sick until I was
15) I'm losing one of my mentors right now.. he's in a hospice dying of
AIDS. I'm not angry with God about it. Don't get me wrong, I am angry. I
am angry at cancer, I am angry at AIDS, I am angry at the dementia that's
making my grandmother slip away from us. I think what sustains me is knowing
that each one of these people are a blessing to me (yes, even after death).
They've given me such love, and taught me so much about life.. and death,
that I know, deep down in my heart, in the part that doesn't scream with
grief, that they were only on loan to me. God never promised I should get
to keep them. This haggling diversion you've taken, Jonathon, no matter
how tender a subject with you (and I understand that it is very raw to the
touch) is another red herring you've thrown out for me to follow. I don't,
however, want to argue it with you. I suggest you argue it with God.
Resolve this issue with the Father before it destroys any sound theology you
have left. Your beliefs don't look much like Christianity anymore. I want
to reccommend you read two very different books by the same author; C. S.
Lewis. A Grief Observed, the journal(s) he kept after his wife Joy died
(Late in his life, I might add, he found her long after he was content to
die a bachelor) and Mere Christianity. I hope they help you. Until you
work this out with God and yourself, I cannot. I warn you that A Grief
Observed is not the usual sound, sane, comforting C.S. Lewis one familiar
with him would expect, hell, at times, it shook me to the core.. because he
never intended to publish the thing while he was writing. Appherently, he
decided to do it later... because so many people admired him, and he thought
that understanding they were not alone in the insanity that is grief would
help them through it. Go ahead and scream at God, he's not going to kill
you for it. Hell, you might even get a "hug" (Holy Spirit) when it's all
over with.
Snip the rest.
In Christ's peace,
Leslie
Count Zero
sin.
> He wasn't attemting to bargain in our sense of, you scratch my back, I'll
> scratch yours. When I said he was haggling for the city, I meant he was
> saying Fifty! Okay, so I can't have fifty, what about forty! It was
haggling
> in the sense of two people deciding on a price for an item in the market
> place.
I was never taught to "offer" God anything in return. The fact of the matter
is that you can't claim that God chooses to save some lives and let others
die soley based prayers.
> I'm very sorry that happened to you, Jonathon. I dont' think God doesn't
> interfer though.. What was Christ if not interference? I'm not going to
> tell you about God's great plan, because that's something you need to work
> out between him and you and I refuse to touch on it.
The reason I don't buy into "God's Great" plan is because if there was some
plan, if we were controlled by God daily, then where is the free will to
choose the correct path in life. If I actually moving away from
Christianity, then I am suppose to and it's God's plan for me to not gain
eternal life. Then why fight it.
I do believe in God's interference in a sense, but not the conscious
controlling sense. It is a type of inspiration. Much like Jesus was inspired
by his connection with God.
I sympathize with your loses too, but I have no malice toward God. People
die.. that is a fact, God had no way to stop it because that is not what God
does. It is not his place to interfere in things that way. The nature of
life is that you die. If you have lived a good life, filled with love, then
you gain eternal life. As I firmly believe my mother has.
I will admit I do have malice toward people who claim that God kills people.
That God is hateful. That is something I do have to work through. It angers
me that anyone would suggest a being like God would be like that. That
malice often troubles me, but that peace is something that I will find
through communion with God.
Jonathan
perry lee
jonb...@home.com says...
>
> The reason I don't buy into "God's Great" plan is because if there was some
> plan, if we were controlled by God daily, then where is the free will to
> choose the correct path in life. If I actually moving away from
> Christianity, then I am suppose to and it's God's plan for me to not gain
> eternal life. Then why fight it.
>
The fact that God has a daily plan for our lives does not automatically
mean that we are powerless to fight it. The majesty of free will comes
from the fact that God DOES allow us to walk away, to reject His plan for
us and to follow our own shallow, short-sighted desires.
I find it interesting that you draw a distinction between God's plan
and "The Correct Path" in life. Do you seriously think that God does not
have the best possible future planned for us? Do you really believe that
there is a better plan than God's?
> I do believe in God's interference in a sense, but not the conscious
> controlling sense. It is a type of inspiration. Much like Jesus was inspired
> by his connection with God.
>
Jesus does not have a "connection with God," Jesus IS God.
It's in the Nicene Creed. You could look it up.
Perry
Leslie Terrell
> > You'll note Abraham didn't offer God anything in return. So he didn't
> sin.
> > He wasn't attemting to bargain in our sense of, you scratch my back,
I'll
> > scratch yours. When I said he was haggling for the city, I meant he was
> > saying Fifty! Okay, so I can't have fifty, what about forty! It was
> haggling
> > in the sense of two people deciding on a price for an item in the market
> > place.
>
> I was never taught to "offer" God anything in return. The fact of the
matter
> is that you can't claim that God chooses to save some lives and let others
> die soley based prayers.
I never said it was based solely on prayer, Jonathon, I just said we are
able to approach God in a way that other dieties would not be approached! I
dont' think prayer changes God so much as it changes us... but I do know we
were ordered by Christ to pray for our needs. (The Our Father being the
model) What was it he said "If you who are sinners will give you child
bread and not a stone when he asks for it, how much more will your heavenly
father do for you?" I think God takes our wishes and wants into account,
but that he knows about things that we don't know about... and some of our
desires are not good overall for the grand scheme of things. I am an
example of that, if hitler had never come to power, I would not have been
born. Why? My grandparents met BECAUSE OF WW II. There are six men and 12
grandchildren and 4 great grandchildren that came out of that marriage that
never would have happened if my grandfather had not been stationed near
Georgia... close enough to meet grandma. I'm not saying hitler came to
power so the lot of us could be born, but the world would be vastly
different if things had not gone the way they did. You never know how
something is going to effect the time line, so to speak. There's burdens
that come with being the Creator of something: simply put, you know to much.
>
>
> > I'm very sorry that happened to you, Jonathon. I dont' think God doesn't
> > interfer though.. What was Christ if not interference? I'm not going
to
> > tell you about God's great plan, because that's something you need to
work
> > out between him and you and I refuse to touch on it.
>
> The reason I don't buy into "God's Great" plan is because if there was
some
> plan, if we were controlled by God daily, then where is the free will to
> choose the correct path in life. If I actually moving away from
> Christianity, then I am suppose to and it's God's plan for me to not gain
> eternal life. Then why fight it.
Did it ever occur to you that you may be being exposed to myself, louis, and
the rest of these people with tradiitonal theological views for a reason?
To fight it? Or that you might work through this if you really examined your
beliefs and stopped throwing red herrings into this debate?
>
> I do believe in God's interference in a sense, but not the conscious
> controlling sense. It is a type of inspiration. Much like Jesus was
inspired
> by his connection with God.
He was God, I wouldn't call it something as deathly vague as a "connection".
Are you limiting God? Do you think you can earn heaven? You'll never get
there by just living a good life, that happens by grace alone. (And I am
NOT saying your mother is not with God; I dont' know her, and I can't say
anything about that.) It is by grace that we meet God, Jonathon, nothing we
ever do can be good enough. Even Mother Theresa, by all accounts the living
saint she was made out to be, had to rely solely on grace and justification
through Christ's blood for her reward.
>
> I will admit I do have malice toward people who claim that God kills
people.
> That God is hateful. That is something I do have to work through. It
angers
> me that anyone would suggest a being like God would be like that. That
> malice often troubles me, but that peace is something that I will find
> through communion with God.
If you're at such peace with God, then stop throwing red herrings and really
argue this stuff out.
BTW< it was my roomate (her father died of aids five years ago) who thought
you were letting your mother's death shape your theology and that you needed
to deal with it.
--
Pax Christi,
Les
--
There are magnificent beings who walk this
earth disguised as humans. Don't you ever
forget that!
~Idgie Threadgoode
Fried Green Tomatoes At the Whistlestop Cafe
louis
>
> The primary message of Jesus is to love unconditionally. If a faith
promotes
> unconditional love then how can it not be the message of Christ. I know
> becuase Jesus stated that only through him, but do you really think God is
> so limited that he would only communicate with a small number of people.
Why
> not hit all of the planet at once.
>
was tough enough to get them to come around. Of course, it's clear that
God's influence has been felt around the world throughout history, but He is
uniquely at play with the Jews. Read Cahill's "The Gifts of the Jews" for
an excellent analysis of why, exactly, the message of the Jews was really
something new, a fundamentally different conception of God and His
relationship with humanity, and how that has changed mankind.
As to your contention that the ~primary~ message of Jesus is to love
unconditionally: I don't that's so. I think his primary message is:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that
whomsoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
This Love is truly beyond our ken, however, it is ~not~ unconditional --
"whomsoever believeth in him." If we reject him, even though we are loved,
we will not have any relationship with God, nor eternal life.
Well, it denies the divinity of Christ, so I don't think it to be the true
faith. And just because people are wicked enough to reject Christ doesn't
mean God had to try again.
One could, of course, deny this (which is our right). However, this doesn't
make the two faiths equal: they are radically different.
It is valid when you think about it. Especially
> when you consdier that it comes from the same source... Judeism. Islamics
> see Jesus as a great teaching and a prophet, but not the Son of God. I
know
> Islamics who celebrate Christmas because they see the birth of Jesus as
> celebrating the birth of a prophet.
>
> Judeism is the root of our faith. To deny Judeism is to deny who we are as
> Christians.
The Jews are our elder brothers and sisters in the Way. They are the chosen.
We truly do owe them much. If it wasn't for Christ I would convert to
judaism.
>
>
> > > P.S. The arrogant assumption that God is male is foolish. We refer to
> the
> > > gods of old as gods (i.e. male) and some of them are female. So why
> > couldn't
> > > God be both male and female. How can God really have a gender?
> >
> > Sorry, but your arrogance is showing. Do you think you know better than
> > millenia of Judeo-Christianity?
>
> They could be wrong. After all the Bible was written by a strict
Patriarchal
> society so it is not unfeasible that they could have made some arrogant
> assumption about the nature of God. I identify with the male gender
because
> I am male, so I call God "he" and "father." But, I know deep in my heart
> that those meager words don't do God justice. God is just more than
gender.
> Of course, I could be wrong, but I will know when I die. I am willing to
> wait.
All this worry about being arrogant! I certainly see the liberals as
arrogant in their rejection of God's Word.
Certainly, the true nature of God is hidden (how could a finite creature
understand the infinite Creator?). But He has revealed Himself to us in
Christ and His Word. That's enough to understand for one lifetime, I think
[I've only scratched the surface].
r,
louis
>
>
Count Zero
"> The fact that God has a daily plan for our lives does not automatically
> mean that we are powerless to fight it. The majesty of free will comes
> from the fact that God DOES allow us to walk away, to reject His plan for
> us and to follow our own shallow, short-sighted desires.
>
> I find it interesting that you draw a distinction between God's plan
> and "The Correct Path" in life. Do you seriously think that God does not
> have the best possible future planned for us? Do you really believe that
> there is a better plan than God's?
If God has a plan then why would I leave it. I believe God's interferance
ended with Jesus. If the fact that Jesus taught us how to live so we could
gain eternal life is God's Plan, then I would say that God has a "Great
Plan." But the traditional sense of the "Great Plan" is that everything
happens in the world because God wants it too. If that were true then why
would the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing in Kosovo happen. If the murder of 6
million people was all part of the "Great Plan" then I have to say, for a
God who loves us, he has an odd way of showing it.
The correct path is different. I am choosing to be loving and kind, so if I
continue and repent for my wrongs and forgive wrongs against me then I will
gain eternal life. I see sin as a blight on your soul which makes it so you
spirit isn't strong enough to join with the spirit of god. It isn't a choice
by God that a person doesn't gain eternal life, it is our own failure. The
path or laws were set before us. It is our own failure to follow them, not a
judgement by God that we die.
> > I do believe in God's interference in a sense, but not the conscious
> > controlling sense. It is a type of inspiration. Much like Jesus was
inspired
> > by his connection with God.
> >
>
> Jesus does not have a "connection with God," Jesus IS God.
>
> It's in the Nicene Creed. You could look it up.
The Nicene Creed was written by men. As was the New Testement. I believe in
the holiness of Christ, but not the divinity. Please don't start a debate
about this. I understand your dedication to the belief. I understand how it
is comforting, reassuring, and inspiring. I find more comfort and
inspiration in a human being who was inspired by God to do good and preach
his word of love and kindness. If a man named Jesus could gain eternal life,
then how hard could it be for me. It would be easy for the incarnation of
God to gain eternal life, after all, he is God. It drives me harder to be
better. I know that if Jesus could be holy enough to gain eternal life, then
maybe I can too.
Jonathan
Count Zero
But if it was God's Plan that you be born then your grandparents would have
met anyway. So that doesn't really work. But it is a very interesting
story... I would love to hear more about it.
> Did it ever occur to you that you may be being exposed to myself, louis,
and
> the rest of these people with tradiitonal theological views for a reason?
> To fight it? Or that you might work through this if you really examined
your
> beliefs and stopped throwing red herrings into this debate?
That is a possibility, but I will never truely know until I die. It is also
very possible that God sent me here to try and tell you about the truth.
While I know and honestly believe that is complete arrogance, it is not
beyond the realm of possiblity.
> > I sympathize with your loses too, but I have no malice toward God.
People
> > die.. that is a fact, God had no way to stop it because that is not what
God
> > does. It is not his place to interfere in things that way. The nature of
> > life is that you die. If you have lived a good life, filled with love,
then
> > you gain eternal life. As I firmly believe my mother has.
>
> Are you limiting God? Do you think you can earn heaven? You'll never get
> there by just living a good life, that happens by grace alone. (And I am
> NOT saying your mother is not with God; I dont' know her, and I can't say
> anything about that.) It is by grace that we meet God, Jonathon, nothing
we
> ever do can be good enough. Even Mother Theresa, by all accounts the
living
> saint she was made out to be, had to rely solely on grace and
justification
> through Christ's blood for her reward.
I know that God has not limits, but it is like the father that let's his
children grow up, giving them as much information to make thier way through
the world, but knows that if he really interferes then thier trials and
tribulations will be meaningless because they won't learn from them. Things
happen because things happen, not because they are planned by God.
> > I will admit I do have malice toward people who claim that God kills
people.
> > That God is hateful. That is something I do have to work through. It
angers
> > me that anyone would suggest a being like God would be like that. That
> > malice often troubles me, but that peace is something that I will find
> > through communion with God.
>
> If you're at such peace with God, then stop throwing red herrings and
really
> argue this stuff out. BTW it was my roomate (her father died of aids five
years ago) who thought
> you were letting your mother's death shape your theology and that you
needed to deal with it.
Actually. Life experiences did shape my theology. Life experiences shape
everyone's theology. They even shaped the theology of the writers of the New
Testament. I have long since dealt with the death of my mother. The concept
that people die and that is the nature of life, rather than your mother died
because God needed her was quite a help. When you are a counselor at a
summer camp and a kid is crying in your arms asking, "Why did God kill my
mom?" It helps shape you too... you remember that God never kills people
because He needs them, but they just die because that is how life is. When
you explain that to the kid and his eyes brighten and his attitude changes,
he goes from being that angry, unhappy child to a happy and calm child you
realize how God really works.
Note: I was the counselor.
Jonathan
Count Zero
> Because He didn't. Look at the record of His interactions with the Jews:
it
> was tough enough to get them to come around. Of course, it's clear that
> God's influence has been felt around the world throughout history, but He
is
> uniquely at play with the Jews. Read Cahill's "The Gifts of the Jews" for
> an excellent analysis of why, exactly, the message of the Jews was really
> something new, a fundamentally different conception of God and His
> relationship with humanity, and how that has changed mankind.
Then doesn't that mean that God is limited. Why only focus on one group of
people? If he can't manage to even get a single small group of people to do
what they are supposed to then I find that rather pathetic. How could God
not influence everyone his creation. I have had many discussions with my
Priest parents about the statement that God has other children. Can't
remember exactly where that comes from.
I think you limit God far too much. I don't limit God's power in any way,
but I do limit the use of God's power. There is no need for God to use his
power.
> As to your contention that the ~primary~ message of Jesus is to love
> unconditionally: I don't that's so. I think his primary message is:
> "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that
> whomsoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
> This Love is truly beyond our ken, however, it is ~not~ unconditional --
> "whomsoever believeth in him." If we reject him, even though we are loved,
> we will not have any relationship with God, nor eternal life.
So we shouldn't love and care for non-christians? I understand what you are
saying. I think one of the keys isn't just the belief in Christ, but
behaving as Christ did. He loved unconditionally. He may have gotten
frustrated at times, but he always did what was right in the end. His
message about loving your enemies and loving your neighbor as you would
yourself is unconditional love in my book.
Jonathan
perry lee
jonb...@home.com says...
>
> > Jesus does not have a "connection with God," Jesus IS God.
> >
> > It's in the Nicene Creed. You could look it up.
>
> The Nicene Creed was written by men. As was the New Testement. I believe in
> the holiness of Christ, but not the divinity. Please don't start a debate
> about this.
<SHRUG> I have no need to debate this issue, but I am curious on one
point: if the creed and the NT were, as you say, "written by men,"
then how do you know that this Jesus of yours attained eternal life?
What verifiable or infallible record gives you an assurance that he
made the grade?
Count Zero
> > > Jesus does not have a "connection with God," Jesus IS God.
> > >
> > > It's in the Nicene Creed. You could look it up.
> >
> > The Nicene Creed was written by men. As was the New Testement. I believe
in
> > the holiness of Christ, but not the divinity. Please don't start a
debate
> > about this.
>
> <SHRUG> I have no need to debate this issue, but I am curious on one
> point: if the creed and the NT were, as you say, "written by men,"
> then how do you know that this Jesus of yours attained eternal life?
> What verifiable or infallible record gives you an assurance that he
> made the grade?
Faith. While my beliefs are ruled by, at least from my perspective, common
sense and in-depth study, there are somethings that you have to leave to
faith.
Jonathan
Leslie Terrell
No, actually, I think that it was prolly the only way it would have worked
with the rest of history. You can say it could have been done another way,
but at the expense of reordering the universe?
>
> > Did it ever occur to you that you may be being exposed to myself, louis,
> and
> > the rest of these people with tradiitonal theological views for a
reason?
> > To fight it? Or that you might work through this if you really examined
> your
> > beliefs and stopped throwing red herrings into this debate?
>
> That is a possibility, but I will never truely know until I die. It is
also
> very possible that God sent me here to try and tell you about the truth.
Well, then you'd better start doing your job and coming up with some
convincing arguments.
> While I know and honestly believe that is complete arrogance, it is not
> beyond the realm of possiblity.
I've learned that what I do _does_ matter, and that it is arrogance to say I
cannot change the world. (I can do all things through Christ who strengthens
me.)
Heh, I still learn from my life, and it has been much interfered with. I
learn from that interference too. Your theory doesn't really hold much
water, and I'd like to see some support for it.
?
That was a little ambiguous. How did this make you realize how "God really
works"?
--
Pax Christi,
Les
--
perry lee
jonb...@home.com says...
>
> >
> > <SHRUG> I have no need to debate this issue, but I am curious on one
> > point: if the creed and the NT were, as you say, "written by men,"
> > then how do you know that this Jesus of yours attained eternal life?
> > What verifiable or infallible record gives you an assurance that he
> > made the grade?
>
> Faith. While my beliefs are ruled by, at least from my perspective, common
> sense and in-depth study, there are somethings that you have to leave to
> faith.
>
> Jonathan
>
Faith? Faith in what? Faith does not exist in a vacuum. "Faith is the
confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthness of a person,
place, or thing." That is from the American Heritage Dictionary. I would
add that this often comes without visible, tangible proof. So on what do
you base your faith that Jesus attained eternal life? In-depth study of
what? Certain books? Do you, after all, base part of your faith on the
writings of men?
louis
>
> > Because He didn't. Look at the record of His interactions with the Jews:
> it
> > was tough enough to get them to come around. Of course, it's clear that
> > God's influence has been felt around the world throughout history, but
He
> is
> > uniquely at play with the Jews. Read Cahill's "The Gifts of the Jews"
for
> > an excellent analysis of why, exactly, the message of the Jews was
really
> > something new, a fundamentally different conception of God and His
> > relationship with humanity, and how that has changed mankind.
>
> Then doesn't that mean that God is limited. Why only focus on one group of
> people? If he can't manage to even get a single small group of people to
do
> what they are supposed to then I find that rather pathetic. How could God
> not influence everyone his creation. I have had many discussions with my
> Priest parents about the statement that God has other children. Can't
> remember exactly where that comes from.
>
> I think you limit God far too much. I don't limit God's power in any way,
> but I do limit the use of God's power. There is no need for God to use his
> power.
The question here, is what kind of God do you want? Sure, He could snap His
fingers (so to speak) and, hey presto!, everyone believes. However, God
created us in His image, with His freedom intact. God limits Himself so as
to allow humans free will and the ability to love and obey Him freely. ~We~
don't limit Him at all.
And, sure, we can see the evidence of His influence in the myths and
religions of various peoples throughout history. However, with the Jews we
have myth become fact: we have history not story. The Jews present an
entirely new paradigm of man's relationship with God. The cyclical,
pantheistic and stoic, world-denying faiths are suddenly superceded by a
personal, living God (with a personality) Who, in turn, demands an
individual response from each and every human being. The cyclical outlook is
replaced by a time line with history having a definite beginning and end,
and thus a plan for human destiny mapped out by this personal God. All
modern history of the west (and now the world) comes from this personalistic
religious revelation. In fact, the personalistic revelation which you
dismiss as "pathetic" has proven irresistible, spreading from a small tribal
culture to dominate the globe.
>
> > As to your contention that the ~primary~ message of Jesus is to love
> > unconditionally: I don't that's so. I think his primary message is:
> > "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that
> > whomsoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
> > This Love is truly beyond our ken, however, it is ~not~ unconditional --
> > "whomsoever believeth in him." If we reject him, even though we are
loved,
> > we will not have any relationship with God, nor eternal life.
>
> So we shouldn't love and care for non-christians? I understand what you
are
> saying. I think one of the keys isn't just the belief in Christ, but
> behaving as Christ did. He loved unconditionally. He may have gotten
> frustrated at times, but he always did what was right in the end. His
> message about loving your enemies and loving your neighbor as you would
> yourself is unconditional love in my book.
>
> Jonathan
And here I submit the question is, what do we mean by love, particlarly
"unconditional love"? So often, it seems, we view love as some entirely
benign force of acceptance, inclusion & uncritical "anything goes." However,
love can be painful, even harsh in its application. Consider the love of
parent for child (Jesus' favorite model for our relationship with God): it
is often the case that it is uncritical. However, it is just as often harsh
(from the child's viewpoint) when the parent corrects or punishes out of
love and concern. I do think that God's love is unconditional, frighteningly
so (hence the Bible's phrase, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom"). His unconditional love is an all-consuming fire which demands our
entire being, our entire love and obedience (remember "love the Lord your
god with all your heart, your mind, and your spirit"?). I think that it is
we humans who seek to put conditions on His love, not vice versa. Remember,
Dante wrote that the fixed pains of Hell were created by the love of God.
Those who turn from His unconditional love, reject Him out of hate or
indifference or malice, only create hell for themselves: His all-consuming
fire ceases to light the person and becomes a burning torment.
As to your contention that we should behave as Christ did...well, sure, the
imitation of Christ is a perfectly orthodox idea. However, I wonder just how
many people have thought this through. He calls upon us to pick up our
crosses and follow Him, which doesn't exactly bring to mind an easy time or
philosophy of just benign love and kindness for each other. Remember, Christ
sweat blood in the garden when He contemplated the fate awaiting Him.
However, He was obedient to the unconditional love of the Father, even unto
death. And it is this path He calls us to follow. Self-denial, absolute and
unconditional response to the Father, even unto torture and death, these are
the responses Christ made. And when we make the unconditional response of
belief and love, we share in His glorious resurrection and eternal life.
r,
louis
>
>
>
Count Zero
"perry lee" <perr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15f533f632c61b5598979f@news...
Faith that Jesus was a good enough person to gain eternal life. I have no
doubts that he was. Look at his life. He loved unconditionally and
wastefully. I know that it seems hard to have Faith compared to when your
Faith is backed up by the physical resurrection of Jesus, but I still have
faith. I do base part of my faith on the writings of men. These men had
amazing experiences through God... they had to have gotten a least a few
things right.
Jonathan
Count Zero
> "unconditional love"?
What I mean by unconditional love is that you love someone no matter what
they do. Yeah you might disagree with them, and you will tell them they were
wrong, but you still love them. There are no conditions on love. You might
not like someone, but you must always love them. You will do what is best
for that person, no matter what it takes. I agree... love can be harsh, but
it doesn't have to be cruel.. there is a difference. You may deny someone
help because you know it is better for them in the long run, but you don't
deny them help because you simply don't care. Sometimes the best way to help
someone is to let them find thier own course and learn from thier mistakes.
It is the kind of love where, even though that person is killing you and
hurting those you love, you still love them.
Jonathan
louis
Nice side-step of everything I said in my post.
l
>
>
>
Count Zero
Sorry... I consider love and unconditional love when talking about Jesus one
and the same thing. When I say God is love, I am obviously not talking about
romantic love. I am talking about the caring for other people. The love a
brother has to brother or a son to his father or mother. It is familial
love. Everyone on the Earth I love as if they were my family.
I may have misunderstood what you wanted answered... if you want more
information please ask... I delete posts after I am done reading them (may
have to stop doing that), so I can't go back and look at your original
message.
Jonathan