But who was Jesus speaking to? Was he speaking to the sinner, the atheist, the pagan? Or was he speaking to those who would oppress others out of their greed for power, money, lust?
You got it. You nailed it!! He was speaking to those who did this in His name. Here is the thing though. . . . those who do this have followers. What is explained about these people in scripture is that they are lead astray. Remember the verse in 2 Timothy that tells us. . . . "always learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". The context is men and women, jumping from one false teaching or cult to another. Without ever coming to a real understanding of God's saving truth in Jesus Christ.
It is their outward form of Christianity and morality that makes them all the more dangerous. People become easy prey for these deceitful false teachers. They are weak in knowledge and weighed down with emotional and spiritual guilt of their sins.
Settling for all the false signs and wonders does not touch the heart or make them whole as Jesus did with the woman at the well.
Yet, do they appear as Christian? These false teachers are SO good at it. . . . the outward appearance. . . they even get into the church. They have Mega Churches!!
People follow their ways. They never come to know the truth, they stop and accept. Which is why Jesus will say on that day. . . . depart I never knew you.
Conversely, in the OT God says do this, do that, concerning sacrifices, but He also told them to prepare their hearts to worship. Seems they could NEVER get this together for very long. . . fair enough?? You asked why God would require human sacrifice?
There was never any remission of sins without blood. . . was there? Didn't God give Adam and Eve animal skins to cover them? Wasn't the whole plan for a perfect and complete sacrifice? This is what is revealed in the OT? Jews understand the purpose of sacrifice and atonement.
Jesus was not only a sacrifice, but a willing sacrifice. Why would God do this? For God so loved the world. . . . God made the perfect and willing sacrifice with the heart of love behind it. He not only showed us how. . . but He did it Himself.
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. . . . . He offered one perfect sacrifice for sins for all time. Something He truly loved. . . the main thing He loved. . . this is my beloved Son. . . what does the word sacrifice mean? What does atone mean? Why Jesus? It was a worthy sacrifice which is able to atone for sin forever. God did this out of a heart of love for us.
It took God Himself to make the sacrifice. . . the effective sacrifice that does not just cover sin. . . it effectively removes it.
It is a gift from a loving God. . . also the reason WE can't boast! LOL
Great is the mystery of Godliness revealed in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up into glory. . . .
I do have a point here. . . it is coming. . . now when I ask you something, you may understand more where I am coming from.
I would opine that most (if not all) of us who spent time in TWI were genuinely asking, genuinely seeking. Yet, look where that got us?
Judas didn't betray because he had a passion for God and believed Jesus to be false. Judas betrayed out of greed. Not so very different, perhaps, than VPW or LCM?
On the other hand, many here are where they are today (at least in part) because of what they experienced while in TWI. So to say to George, or Oakspear, or Bramble, or Garth, "you are going to spend eternity in an everlasting hell because you turned your back on God and/or Jesus" . . . .
Well I'm sorry, but I just can't take to that type of doctrine. I would bet money that George, Oakspear, Bramble, Garth . . . they have all at some point or another genuinely sought out God and God's answer appears to to have been TWI???
I believe Oakspear and Bramble have found God. They call Him by names different than I. They worship Him in ways different than I. But I believe it is the same God. That they called and God answered in a way that fit their relationships with him.
Garth, George, they too searched and God answered in a way that fit for them. A way that allows them to be good, decent human beings and function within our society - even if they now call upon the God who is "no god."
I also believe that if, as you would propose, Jesus is the only way - then it will be God's job to show me that. To show Bramble that. To show Garth that. etc. And in the long run, I believe telling people "if you don't believe my way you will go to everlasting hell" doesn't help God to show us anything. I believe it would probably make God's job that much harder to reach people. It sure doesn't turn me on to the notion of Christianity!
But then, I don't believe God will send me or anyone else to an everlasting hell, simply because we found a path to him that differs from yours, or RG, or each other's. I believe hell is reserved for those who are truly hateful and harmful to mankind. And maybe even that isn't the case. Maybe those who are truly hateful and harmful to makind are that way for reasons you and I can never understand, but that God can. Perhaps, God will simply heal them? I don't know. When it comes to those types of Judgments, I can only speculate, I suppose.
[As a side note - am I the only one who sees the contradiction in the notion that a God who so hated human sacrifice in the OT would set up a "plan" whereby human sacrifice (Jesus on the cross) was the ONLY way to redeem man?]
I'm not sure that this is taught in the OT, at least not clearly, and I'd have to re-read the gospels (part of my plan for 2009 actually) to see if it's even taught in the gospels. The whole "Jesus had to be sacrificed to redeem us" thing seems to bear a suspicious resemblance to the "slain god", or "sacrificial king" mythos that you find in cultures across the world.
You got it. You nailed it!! He was speaking to those who did this in His name. Here is the thing though. . . . those who do this have followers. What is explained about these people in scripture is that they are lead astray. Remember the verse in 2 Timothy that tells us. . . . "always learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". The context is men and women, jumping from one false teaching or cult to another. Without ever coming to a real understanding of God's saving truth in Jesus Christ.
It is their outward form of Christianity and morality that makes them all the more dangerous. People become easy prey for these deceitful false teachers. They are weak in knowledge and weighed down with emotional and spiritual guilt of their sins.
Settling for all the false signs and wonders does not touch the heart or make them whole as Jesus did with the woman at the well.
Yet, do they appear as Christian? These false teachers are SO good at it. . . . the outward appearance. . . they even get into the church. They have Mega Churches!!
People follow their ways. They never come to know the truth, they stop and accept. Which is why Jesus will say on that day. . . . depart I never knew you.
If I am reading this right, you are saying that people who search their entire lives for God may be told "depart, I never knew you" because they were led astray by false teachers? Yet earlier you said if people search, God will answer? I ask because it seems to be contradictory and I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.
Conversely, in the OT God says do this, do that, concerning sacrifices, but He also told them to prepare their hearts to worship. Seems they could NEVER get this together for very long. . . fair enough?? You asked why God would require human sacrifice?
There was never any remission of sins without blood. . . was there? Didn't God give Adam and Eve animal skins to cover them? Wasn't the whole plan for a perfect and complete sacrifice? This is what is revealed in the OT? Jews understand the purpose of sacrifice and atonement.
I believe the point behind the sacrifices (and remember many did not involve blood) were to remind mankind to be thankful for the food they were getting. To respect the earth they were put on. To give thanks because something died so that they could live.
Many of the sacrifices were rituals that man needed to make the more ethereal concepts concrete and understandable. I don't believe God needed the sacrifices, but that man needed the rituals, the concrete. I think many of them probably stemmed from pagan rituals and were modified to make them more humanitarian.
Others served different purposes. For instance, if you ever study the laws of kosher food preparation, you will see that part of the design behind them was a way to prepare healthy foods in a way that was the least cruel to the animals that were being eaten. You will find that such kosher laws do not exist for plant life.
I believe Jesus did live and die. that he freely gave his life (though I remain unconvinced it was some plan predisted by God). I think we God would like us to follow the example Jesus set. I just don't believe Christianity has some "hold" on that. Nor do I think merely performing Romans 10:9 & 10 is the answer.
The example Jesus set was one of love and sacrifice. That is what God requires of us as well. To love one another, to make sacrifices of ourselves to help one another and in doing so, to reorder the world. None of us will ever do it perfect, but in TRYING to do it we learn oh so much and become better people. It is too easy to just shrug your shoulders and say "I'm never going to do it perfect, jesus paid the price, so I don't really have to try." And the very people who say those things, are often the very people who believe they don't have to try, because it has all been done for them already. They are often the ones who preach condemnation to those who believe it is our responsibility to do something to fix this mess of a world we live in - that we do have to try!
To quote a song that often brings tears to my eyes
I told the priest -
Don't count on
Any second coming.
God got his foot kicked
The first time he
Came down here slumming
He had the balls to come,
The gall to die and then
Forgive us -
No, I don't wonder why
I wonder what he thought
It would get us -
Hey he, good try -
Tomorrow, Wendy's,
Going to die
But God says jump,
so I set the time
'cause if he ever saw her
it was through these eyes of mine
and if He ever suffered
it was me who did His crying...
Hey, hey, good bye...
("Tomorrow Wendy" by Concrete Blonde)
Jesus was not only a sacrifice, but a willing sacrifice. Why would God do this? For God so loved the world. . . . God made the perfect and willing sacrifice with the heart of love behind it. He not only showed us how. . . but He did it Himself.
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. . . . . He offered one perfect sacrifice for sins for all time. Something He truly loved. . . the main thing He loved. . . this is my beloved Son. . . what does the word sacrifice mean? What does atone mean? Why Jesus? It was a worthy sacrifice which is able to atone for sin forever. God did this out of a heart of love for us.
It took God Himself to make the sacrifice. . . the effective sacrifice that does not just cover sin. . . it effectively removes it.
But it didn't remove it. Now someday in may be removed, but in there here and now sin is alive and doing quite well. And, people justify their sins by saying "Jesus saved me, I can't save myself and I don't have to try. I can just keep on sinning because I am an imperfect human being.
It is a gift from a loving God. . . also the reason WE can't boast! LOL
Great is the mystery of Godliness revealed in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up into glory. . . .
I do have a point here. . . it is coming. . . now when I ask you something, you may understand more where I am coming from.
I suspect the gift from God most people are seeking through Jesus is forgiveness. That is what is often at the heart of the teacdhings behind redemption - the notion that God forgives you for your imperfections and sins. Those are great concepts and teachings. Most people probably feel a need to be forgiven at some point in their lives and if Christianity can offer them that, then great!! Not all of us find forgiveness through Christianity, some of us find other paths to forgiveness from God.
So to say to George, or Oakspear, or Bramble, or Garth, "you are going to spend eternity in an everlasting hell because you turned your back on God and/or Jesus" . . . .
Well I'm sorry, but I just can't take to that type of doctrine. I would bet money that George, Oakspear, Bramble, Garth . . . they have all at some point or another genuinely sought out God and God's answer appears to to have been TWI???
By and large, Bingo!! And now, like you, I just can't take to that type of doctrine either, and I've been taking that kind of doctrine for decades now, so I think that I have a better idea of where I'm coming from in that respect than Geisha or RainbowsGirl have any idea about. A lot better.
And if their 'god' can't deal with it without going thru a 'send them to hell/outer regions/whatever' routine, ... well, it doesn't say much for his holiness now, does it. <_<
even if they now call upon the God who is "no god."
:lol: "Hey No God! Yeah dude, I'm talking to ya!" Good one, Abi. That made my day. :)
I have never made this personal. If you feel that way I am sorry. It is a discussion about the Christian doctrine of eternal punishment according to scripture. I make no judgements on you or your life. I imagine you to be a nice man. I certainly do not have all the answers. . . I have never claimed to. It is just a discussion. . .
Abi,
And this brings us back to pluralism, perhaps. If I say I have a relationship with God and you say you have a relationship with Jesus, is it not possible we both have a relationship with the same being, but simply assign different names? If Oakspear or Bramble have relationships with several gods, is it not possible they actually have a relationship with one and the same God, but for whatever reason, they view the different aspects of God as different dieties?
I used to have a tag line that said something to the effect of "all the gods are but one god." It was a paraphrase from a line in one of my favorite novels. It goes back to labels and rituals, which are but forms and fashions to help our human minds understand that which we otherwise cannot understand. I think God is much bigger than the human labels, forms, and rituals we assign, but He understands our human frailty and "winks" at it, so to speak.
You are a very pragmatic thinker Abi, I say this with a little bit of confidence given your worldview. Very much a postmodern philosophy. Would you agree? I don't want to assume anything and can only go by what you tell me.
Would you say that you reject the idea of a comprehensive or authoritative worldview being within reach? You are a bright woman so I assume you understand what postmodernism is. . . a less rational worldview that opts for a cluster or cobbling together of ideas. Postmodernists often believe that to claim a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. That it is arrogant.
Narratives used to describe reality as a whole. . . the bible for instance. . . have to be deconstructed? Broken down until they have no authoritative meaning? Meaning they become subjective? Does any of this sound like your thought process? Or am I wrong? Wouldn't be the first time.
The reason I ask is that it is evident in your answers to me. It is a paticular philosophy that one could describe . . . as reactionary to another thought process. It never surprizes me on these forums. It makes perfect sense to me in terms of faith. . . .given our shared history. Most movements in history are reactions to something.
I really do respect your intellect so. . . I wanted to ask you a few things. If you want to answer. . . I would love it. . . if not, I get it.
Do you consider logic as something which is arbitrary? Correct reasoning not attainable? I bet you know that logic. . . is approached with basic laws. . . not unlike our laws in society. A kind of set of rules to follow. . . If want to get somewhere and you go in the opposite direction, logically you are not going to make it to your destination. . . right?
Your above post makes me think of the law of noncontradiction. P is not nonP
Can something be true for me and not for you? Or is it true and not true at the same time? Or is it true and we don't believe it? Does truth change with the person or is truth a reality that is unchangeable with perception? What do you think? Can you believe that blue is a color and not a color at the same time? Is the moon made of cheese because I believe it is?
Truth has to be a match up to a reality Abi. It is by its nature not subjective. Do you agree with this? Or, am I wrong? I have been waiting for months for someone to bring up the blind men and the elephant. :)
So, how can there be so many truths? The very idea contradicts what the bible states. That leaves it an either or proposition. Either we conform our beliefs to the reality of God in the bible. . . or we do as it states and cobble our own belief system from many paths and parts.
Now, here is the problem with that. What is the reality? Where does the actual object i.e, God, intersect. Still with me? Relativism and postmodernism is much too selective for logic. It leaves behind the reality of objective truth.
How does human wisdom become sufficent enough to attain a spiritual knowledge of God?
All that a belief in all paths lead to God does. . . is negate any path as true.
Even the relativist believes that those who don't agree with them are . . . . . wrong or put more politely "Misguided".
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, He claimed He was the only way to the Father. . . . anybody who says this is either a liar or telling the truth. There is no excluded middle. Any attempt is a weak argument. . .
You are a very pragmatic thinker Abi, I say this with a little bit of confidence given your worldview. Very much a postmodern philosophy. Would you agree? I don't want to assume anything and can only go by what you tell me.
Pragmatic I would go with. Postmodern I don't know. I am not sure I understand what that means. :) ah, okay you are explaining it below. I will read on.
Would you say that you reject the idea of a comprehensive or authoritative worldview being within reach? You are a bright woman so I assume you understand what postmodernism is. . . a less rational worldview that opts for a cluster or cobbling together of ideas. Postmodernists often believe that to claim a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. That it is arrogant.
Okay, I think I have just been insulted - less rational, really? :) I would not claim that having a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. I think it CAN be used that way, but it doesn't HAVE to be used that way. Do I think it is arrogant? hmmmm sometimes, perhaps, but not always. I guess I would say it isn't the notion I find arrogant so much as it is what people sometimes do with it?
I have to tell you, I don't beleive the "cluster or cobbling together of ideas is less rational. Rather, it is MORE rational. It makes sense to think through ideas and keep the ones that work, while disgarding those that don't. It seems to me less rational to simply accept a cluster of ideas, merely because they are lumped together.
Narratives used to describe reality as a whole. . . the bible for instance. . . have to be deconstructed? Broken down until they have no authoritative meaning? Meaning they become subjective? Does any of this sound like your thought process? Or am I wrong? Wouldn't be the first time.
Well, no it isn't actually my thought process. I may do that, but it isn't some conscious process. :) However, when you get to describing reality as a whole, well I do believe reality as a whole is largely subjective. Put a 1/2 a glass of water in front of a group of kids and ask them if it is half empy or half full. Some will tell you half empty and that is their reality. Others will tell you half full and that truly is their reality. A few really good thinkers will tell you it is both half empty and half full and thus you have your pluralism.
The reason I ask is that it is evident in your answers to me. It is a paticular philosophy that one could describe . . . as reactionary to another thought process. It never surprizes me on these forums. It makes perfect sense to me in terms of faith. . . .given our shared history. Most movements in history are reactions to something.
It isn't reactionary, Geisha. If anything, it has far more to do with my upbringing and the core of who I am, than my experience with TWI. A non-practicing Jewish father who labels himself athiest and views all religion as a crutch. A non-practicing Jewish mother who most definitely believed in God, but didn't follow any particular relgious beliefs and rarely discussed the subject with me. A small Christian community where I was the outsider because I was Jewish (yet during the brief time I attended Catechism I was always well studied and prepared to answer the questions). One side of the family who viewed Judasim as more of a political movement than a religous one, very socialistic and liberal. Another side of the family who wouldn't eat pork or say the word God (he was always "the man upstairs" or "the big guy."). One side of the family wealthy, upperclass (and ironically they were the liberal socialists). The other side, lower class and more conservative. In sum, I was raised with contradiction and contrast in almost every way.
I have always believed in God for as far back as I can remeber. I have also always questioned what religious groups taught. With the exception of my years in TWI, if it didn't seem logical and/or loving to me, I rejected it regardless of who taught it.
I really do respect your intellect so. . . I wanted to ask you a few things. If you want to answer. . . I would love it. . . if not, I get it.
Do you consider logic as something which is arbitrary? Correct reasoning not attainable? I bet you know that logic. . . is approached with basic laws. . . not unlike our laws in society. A kind of set of rules to follow. . . If want to get somewhere and you go in the opposite direction, logically you are not going to make it to your destination. . . right?
Logic I understand quite well, Geisha. Logically is simply the mathmatics of words. I have studied logic. I have also studied religion, psychology and a bit of philosophy :) I was really a geeky kid. I used to read my mother's college psych books when I was in junior high, while other kids were out doing whatever it is kids did in junior high back then. :)
Your above post makes me think of the law of noncontradiction. P is not nonP
Can something be true for me and not for you? Or is it true and not true at the same time? Or is it true and we don't believe it? Does truth change with the person or is truth a reality that is unchangeable with perception? What do you think? Can you believe that blue is a color and not a color at the same time? Is the moon made of cheese because I believe it is?
As I said earlier, logic is the mathmatic of words. Words are used to communicate ideas. Ideas, however, are not so concrete, neither is perception (glass half empty or half full :) ). So yes, I do believe something can be true for you and not for me. No, I don't see that as illogical. It is true that I like really hot, spicy food. That is true for me. It is also true that other people do not. Much of reality is based on perception and perception is extremely subjective.
Truth has to be a match up to a reality Abi. It is by its nature not subjective. Do you agree with this? Or, am I wrong? I have been waiting for months for someone to bring up the blind men and the elephant. :)
I think you are wrong, Geisha, as I explained above. Now certainly, some facts match up to a reality for everyone. Truth, on the other hand, is very much subjective. Here's an extreme example, but I think it communicates well. My older son has sensory processing issues. Particularly when he was younger, some of the sensory signals to his brain would get jumbled. So, if you touched him softly he was likely to turn around and attack you because he perceived that he was being attacked (he really loved firm touch, though). The fact was, he was only being tapped softy on the shoulder by another student. The truth as he perceived it, however, was that the other student attacked him first.
So, how can there be so many truths? The very idea contradicts what the bible states. That leaves it an either or proposition. Either we conform our beliefs to the reality of God in the bible. . . or we do as it states and cobble our own belief system from many paths and parts.
Geisha, have you ever considered that if you had been born in a different country or to different parents, you would probably completely reject the notion that the Bible is God's Word? I don't believe the Bible is black and white, either/or. I don't believe God is either. I think God will use any name, any tool that is available, to communicate with us. He is YWHW, right? He will become what He will become?
Now, here is the problem with that. What is the reality? Where does the actual object i.e, God, intersect. Still with me? Relativism and postmodernism is much too selective for logic. It leaves behind the reality of objective truth.
Again, I disagree. What you call relatiivism and postmodernism is far far more logical than the black and white, either or, you speak of and I have explained why. Add to that, I don't believe there is an actual, concrete God. God is spirit and there is nothing concrete about spirit. God dwells in all of us and there is no way a black and white, concrete being could possibly do that!
How does human wisdom become sufficent enough to attain a spiritual knowledge of God?
Define human wisdom, Geisha. For that matter what is a spiritual knowledge? You know what the biggest sin a man can commit is? It isn't a "sin against god" via "breaking God's law." The two biggest sins are to sin against yourself and to sin against man. To do those things which you know in your heart are wrong. And how do we know they are wrong? "It is written in our hearts and our hearts tell us so." So, I don't view my belief system as "man's wisdom." I view it as that which has been written in my heart.
All that a belief in all paths lead to God does. . . is negate any path as true.
Becaue no one path is true. Neither is any one religion. We all have bits and pieces of truth.
Even the relativist believes that those who don't agree with them are . . . . . wrong or put more politely "Misguided".
Well then I guess I am not a relativist, because I don't see you as "misguided." I simply believe we have taken different roads that will ultimately get us to the same place.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, He claimed He was the only way to the Father. . . . anybody who says this is either a liar or telling the truth. There is no excluded middle. Any attempt is a weak argument. . .
What was the "only way" that he claimed, exactly? He didn't claim Romans 10:9 & 10, someone else did that. So, what exactly did Jesus mean when he said he was the way? BTW, Jesus was Jewish. Judaism teaches that we are all sons of God, so for Jesus to refer to himself as a son of God would be logical.
geisha...i know you are asking abi these things...but it is a public forum...so i hope you dont mind me playing a little here
If want to get somewhere and you go in the opposite direction, logically you are not going to make it to your destination. . . right?
no...this is not logical if you are talking about "going somewhere" along the surface of the earth
because you will eventually reach your destination...once you make it all the way around the globe
but yeah...it is logical if you are talking about a true straight line (if there is such a thing) ...so that you leave the earth's atmosphere and keep going forever
...unless of course the universe somehow works in a way that and you still end up coming full circle anyway
but even on paper...if you drew a line, then kept drawing the line as you flipped the page...then flipped the page again...
so you see why postmodernism asks "what do you mean by "go"?" ...and logically accepts your answer as the truth behind what you are saying ...on this occasion, at least
(rather than tells you what the word "go" is absolutely supposed to mean according to some law or logic...regardless of what you really meant when you said it)
postmodernism attempts to make some sort of object out of our subjectivity...by compassionate inquiry...the specialty of pluralism
...thus, we are able to compare our subjectivities in the light of day...and otherwise "see" each other...becoming "naked" by revealing our interiors
:o
So, how can there be so many truths?
the one big Truth (God, who is All in All..and IN whom we live and move and have our being) is full of many Truths
..."the One and the Many"...infinite wholes and parts unfolding and changing as we type ...all living and moving within The Whole Truth
...and one's subjective perspective is also a true reality in the universe..and must be included in the grand equation as "a truth"
(and not mistaken for The Whole Truth)
but the one big whole ultimate Truth is hard to miss...impossible to fully describe
because IT includes everything...all truths
but what we call it and how we describe and define and interpret our experience of IT is a different matter altogether
...which is a value of postmodern, relativist, and pluralist methodology
they recognize that the words we use in science are not the same as the thing/s which the science describes
the words in the bible are not the same as the thing/s which the bible describes
the words of aristotle are not the same as thing/s which aristotle describes
God has a name beyond all names
and "all men are liars"
so deconstruction allows us to detach the language we use from that which the language is pointing at
and become aware of the limitations of any one language-set
we may even become free indeed
to find new words to match new perspectives as they arise in our life
a new tongue
yet, of course, the absolute Truth (and truths) remain
as the objectivist knows
which is something postmodernists do tend to forget
as they get lost in the re-interpretations of IT
and are still smarting from whatever failures of modernity shattered their faith in it
but what also often happens prior to postmodernism
...is that we simply cannot bring ourselves to detach from the language we use to interpret our experience of the Truth (and all its infinite truths)
even the rational/objective ones often claim that the only absolute logical right way to define a thing is such and such
...often pointing to the words and books and classifications of some expert or specialist that they have come to trust
our sense of self is, in a sense, informed by an inner encyclopedia of symbols...and our anchor for meaning-making
so we may even feel our life is being somehow threatened to change the words we use...or if faced with alien words for God and truth and such
it may even feel like a sort of hell if someone provides information that causes us to have to rebuild our inner temple
our capacity to deconstruct is something we have to develop...we are not born with it
though sometimes the grace and grit of life simply forces us to burn our old inner book and start afresh
though there are also times when it is not really a choice we have to make
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, He claimed He was the only way to the Father. . . . anybody who says this is either a liar or telling the truth. There is no excluded middle. Any attempt is a weak argument. . .
like Abi said...that is a common statement....anyone can say such a thing...why they say it is not an object...unless we find a way to transform subject into object
which, in the case of a historic Jesus...is difficult, at best
from everything i have come to understand about abraham and such from jewish wisdom...when Jesus said he was the only way to the father
...it was like saying "I AM is the only way to the Father, no one sees the Father but through I AM"
...which is a generic but profound statement of the perennial contemplative spiritual experience.
and as he was likely the only one on the gospel scene who was teaching and demonstrating and living this kind of reality/good news...this statement is true in that context as well
this ancient art and practice of realizing "I AMness" is "how human wisdom becomes sufficent enough to attain a spiritual knowledge of God"
though if we believe that only Jesus could say "before Abraham was...I AM"
such a statement from me or anyone else may seem blasphemous...does not fit our inner dictionary
...even though it really is old news to the world
such as how i've heard it described that when Jacob "saw God's face"
..it was as if he looked out from "the inside" of God's face...as if he wore God's face like a mask
...though he interpreted the experience in his pre-modern language
the more we bring the layers of our subjective perspective into our objective awareness
the more inwardly objective we become...and the deeper and wider our subjective position becomes
until all that is left is "I AM"
...or "God as my Witness"
or "God as my capacity to Witness"
so that all the layers of our mind and soul and heart and body are experienced as objects in this Spirit
like Abi wrote...
God is spirit and there is nothing concrete about spirit. God dwells in all of us and there is no way a black and white, concrete being could possibly do that!
yet ALL manifestation occurs in this radical infinite space and grace called The Spirit of God
and as such...and is described as the manifestation of this Spirit of God...even though this Spirit of God need not "act" in order to cause such
I am happy to speak with you, but you may find the answers to questions in the post to Abi. I do have to say this. I read in your first post that you are looking forward to the next school of thought. I think that you don't have to wait, you are leading the charge to usher it in. :) If you do not exemplify postmodernism. . . . no one on this forum does. But, you are growing on me.
Abi
Pragmatic I would go with. Postmodern I don't know. I am not sure I understand what that means. ah, okay you are explaining it below. I will read on.
Okay, I think I have just been insulted - less rational, really?
No, never would I insult you with words or deeds Abi. Never intentionally and never with malice.. . . let me see if I can explain. Words have specific meaning and when I used the descriptive word rationally, it was within the bounds of a philosophical discussion. Not a personal slight.
I would not claim that having a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. I think it CAN be used that way, but it doesn't HAVE to be used that way. Do I think it is arrogant? hmmmm sometimes, perhaps, but not always. I guess I would say it isn't the notion I find arrogant so much as it is what people sometimes do with it?
Okay, let's really look at this statement here. . . :) One of the reasons I really like what you post here is your honesty. Another, is your moral code. It appears to me that you will say what you think is right over what you think others want to hear. That takes some conviction to your ethics and courage. I have read out some of the drama here. I have even rolled in the mud. . . . It can be intense.
But, when I first started posting here, you and I had specific conversations. What was it I had to convince you of concerning my world view? I understand that you may not remember, but it was that I was not a religious elitist. That was your choice of wording. Your first assumption about me was that given my world view. . . I was an elitist. You and I have worked backwards from that perspective.
In fact, I can refer to your post on this forum to RainbowsGirl only a page or so back. What was it you were trying to tell her? She is certainly not trying to dominate the forums with her statements concerning her faith. She simply started a thread based on an article I sent her once.
Her worldview and yours collide on the very basis we are discussing. Your reaction was to tell her, albeit in a gentle way. . . she sounded arrogant. You may or may not have been posting the majority opinion, but what you surmised was based on what you hold as your worldview.
If what you say is you don't find the notion arrogant, but what people do with it the problem. Then what was it RG did that was so problemtic? She is making a statement based on her understanding of Christian doctrine. . . it is a widely held conviction based on scripture in the NT. . . she has not cobbled this out of thin air, but bases it on a rational view of scripture. In other words. . . she adapts her beliefs to fit with those of the bible.
When it collides with what you hold as conviction. . . it sounds arrogant? I always wondered if it is not more about self in that respect than conviction. RG's worldview does not validate yours or others. You have sized her up on this basis and found her statements lacking. It is unavoidable. She does the same to you, but does it based on scripture, that she believes to be authoritative.
I have to tell you, I don't beleive the "cluster or cobbling together of ideas is less rational. Rather, it is MORE rational. It makes sense to think through ideas and keep the ones that work, while disgarding those that don't. It seems to me less rational to simply accept a cluster of ideas, merely because they are lumped together.
Well, you may be VERY right when it comes to baking, or car mechanics, or something like child rearing. Granted. But, when we come to issues concerning faith. . . we run into a problem there. The reason we have a problem is faith claims something outside itself as the authoritative source. Take the bible for example. It claims within itself to be inspired by God. It claims within itself to be true. It is a narrative concerning God's interaction with mankind. To take what you believe to be true and discard the rest. . . to deconstruct it. . . attempts to render it unathoritative. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. . . . authoritative on whatever it speaks, not only on the things that we like.
See the problem? When we cherry pick our faith. . . we are saying that no text has authority or single meaning that corresponds with a reality. Classic postmodern thinking. You become the arbiter of truth. Also, nailed in the bible.
But, I have to ask you something in all sincerity. . . . consider, if God is a reality. . . meaning, He is and futhermore. . . He is AS He is. . . . meaning a reality of characteristics . . . . and in one book He says. . . I am like this. . . my name is. . . I want you to obey me and do this. . . I change not. . . there is only ONE way to me. . . . and in another God is portrayed in a contradictory manner. . . my name is this. . . any way to get to me is okay. . . obey me this other opposing way. . . .and each book claims to be all true. . . what happens when we pick what we like and leave the rest? Have we not just designed a God to suit our liking?
Have we not just discarded something that claims to be true in favor of something we like better? Moreover, what reality does our truth correspond to? Are we believing in something whole and real outside of ourselves. . . or believing in our own selves?
Logically it is an either or proposition. You can't get around it. . . unless you design your own God. The bible prohibits this. It is called idolatry. It is specifically addressed and forbidden. Quite frankly, I question the logic of a designer God. . . one who refects our own selves. . . I am looking for the object who matches the reality, not creating one.
As a woman of faith, I put my finite self into the hands of an infinite God. He proclaims Himself in the bible, but never defends Himself. Have you ever wondered about that?
Well, no it isn't actually my thought process. I may do that, but it isn't some conscious process. However, when you get to describing reality as a whole, well I do believe reality as a whole is largely subjective. Put a 1/2 a glass of water in front of a group of kids and ask them if it is half empy or half full. Some will tell you half empty and that is their reality. Others will tell you half full and that truly is their reality. A few really good thinkers will tell you it is both half empty and half full and thus you have your pluralism.
Abi, that is a wonderful illustration for a bunch of kids and glass of water. . . . but we are talking about a specific reality, a being, who has made specific revelations about Himself. In other words He has told us the reality of the glass being half full. It has been defined for us. I have blue eyes. . . I can slap some green contacts on, but I still have blue eyes. That reality does not change. If something is round. . . it is not square at the same time? I may not like round, but it is round. Defined, descriptive and understood as the reality.
T
he bible says it is inspired by God. . . a revelation of Himself to man. . . if true. . . it's specifics concerning who He is are true. . . No? How can it possibly be that if it is true. . . it is not true for everyone? What we understand or choose to believe does not reality make. I can choose to believe I am 5' 10" and chronologically 21 years old. Not the reality. I like the idea better. . . but I am 5' 5" and older than 21 :) . Moreover, the bible states that God does not change. In it He states. . . I am that I am. He does not state, I am what you want me to be.
The bible clearly covers man's rebellion towards God's authority. . . over and over again--ad nauseum in fact. What does one rebell against? Authority right? Rebellion can have many faces. . . it is still rebellion. Could you not call redefining something clearly defined as rebellion?
It isn't reactionary, Geisha. If anything, it has far more to do with my upbringing and the core of who I am, than my experience with TWI. A non-practicing Jewish father who labels himself athiest and views all religion as a crutch. A non-practicing Jewish mother who most definitely believed in God, but didn't follow any particular relgious beliefs and rarely discussed the subject with me. A small Christian community where I was the outsider because I was Jewish (yet during the brief time I attended Catechism I was always well studied and prepared to answer the questions). One side of the family who viewed Judasim as more of a political movement than a religous one, very socialistic and liberal. Another side of the family who wouldn't eat pork or say the word God (he was always "the man upstairs" or "the big guy."). One side of the family wealthy, upperclass (and ironically they were the liberal socialists). The other side, lower class and more conservative. In sum, I was raised with contradiction and contrast in almost every way.
I have always believed in God for as far back as I can remeber. I have also always questioned what religious groups taught. With the exception of my years in TWI, if it didn't seem logical and/or loving to me, I rejected it regardless of who taught it.
Abi, I can relate on many levels to your journey. I don't judge it. But, I have to ask you. . . what God do you believe in? The one who acts and behaves in a manner you consider loving? As a finite being, could it not be, we don't always understand what the true loving thing is? That God's ways are above our ways? That there is a greater, higher purpose at work? Stands to reason, that if we are not omtipotent, and He is. . . He might have an edge. If you tell your child they can't play in the street, they could be hurt, but they think it is okay. . . are you being unloving? Or are you being more loving? It also stands to reason that we can surely believe that God exists. . . without believing in Him.
When one decides what is or is not loving. . . that is a declaration of what God should be. . . not the other way around. That is fine. But, when the bible says that God willingly sacrificed His Son. . . for us. . .and one rejects this based on what they consider loving or tolerable. . . it is based on a feeling. All authority of scripture is discarded for our own way. No? If the bible says A, B, and C are all true and we don't like A or B, but C is okay with us, so it is true for us. . . how reliable is B? Not very.
Logic I understand quite well, Geisha. Logically is simply the mathmatics of words. I have studied logic. I have also studied religion, psychology and a bit of philosophy I was really a geeky kid. I used to read my mother's college psych books when I was in junior high, while other kids were out doing whatever it is kids did in junior high back then.
I was less studious I am afraid. However, logic is more than simply the mathematics of words. . . . There are laws to logic. Identity, P is P--noncontradiction--P is not non P--excluded middle either P or non P.
If I say it is snowing. . . you know what that means. It is a true statement (if it IS snowing). It is a statement applied to the reality? No? Everything is itself and not something else. . . snowing is identified.
If I say "It is snowing". . . that cannot be true and untrue. . . it may not be snowing where you are, but that does not mean it can snow and not snow in the same place at the same time.
It is snowing. . . . is a statement that is true or false.
These are fundemental laws governing reality. Can't get around them without creating your own reality.
If you really consider, to deny them is self-refuting. They are what is assumed in scripture.
As I said earlier, logic is the mathmatic of words. Words are used to communicate ideas. Ideas, however, are not so concrete, neither is perception (glass half empty or half full ). So yes, I do believe something can be true for you and not for me. No, I don't see that as illogical. It is true that I like really hot, spicy food. That is true for me. It is also true that other people do not. Much of reality is based on perception and perception is extremely subjective.
Is God a reality or an idea?
I think you are wrong, Geisha, as I explained above. Now certainly, some facts match up to a reality for everyone. Truth, on the other hand, is very much subjective. Here's an extreme example, but I think it communicates well. My older son has sensory processing issues. Particularly when he was younger, some of the sensory signals to his brain would get jumbled. So, if you touched him softly he was likely to turn around and attack you because he perceived that he was being attacked (he really loved firm touch, though). The fact was, he was only being tapped softy on the shoulder by another student. The truth as he perceived it, however, was that the other student attacked him first.
You have about the cutest kids I have seen. Truly. . you are a lovely family. Is it the truth that changes with our perception. . . was your son actually attacked? The law of identity defines an attack as specific. We know what an attack is. Right?
Was the person who gently touched him attacking? As defined. . . as we know the reality of an attack? No,
Do you see at all, the logical fallacy here. . . . His perception did not make the reality of the gentle touch an attack. . . He percieved it as such, it was his reality. But, an attack is specific. . . a gentle touch is specific. . . The law of non contradiction Abi. . . it is not an attack and a gentle touch at the same time. . . they are two different things.
Geisha, have you ever considered that if you had been born in a different country or to different parents, you would probably completely reject the notion that the Bible is God's Word? I don't believe the Bible is black and white, either/or. I don't believe God is either. I think God will use any name, any tool that is available, to communicate with us. He is YWHW, right? He will become what He will become?
Classic postmodern argument . . . . text book. Truth as defined in a cultural --social and linguistic construction. It serves a specific purpose. I get it. No objective reality beyond our cultural boundries. Reality described differently. But, what if there IS a God's eye view and an objective reality?
This understanding of cultural truth. . . it is what scripture opposes. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. Social customs or personal opinions. . . do not create truth. When the bible says Jesus is Lord. . .you perceive that as a Christian tradition and cultural language. . . . I get that. . . . the bible. . . . claims it as truth about an objective reality. Truth with a corresponding object.
Which is why. . . when someone comes on these forums. . . and expresses Jesus is the only way to God. . . they are expressing an objective reality. Not that they are better. . . . NO. . . they are saying. . . there actually is no other way to God. No other path will get you there. . . He is the only way to the Father. Not that it is the elite way. . . or their favorite way. . . or the fun way. . . or even the pretty way. . .
Why? How can we do that? Because the bible proclaims itself to be true, and to be authoritative. If it is. . . people have a problem. . . . if not, I am just a misguided jerk and it is all good. When we cherry pick what we like. . . we lose any universal standard or objective reality. We create our own. . .
I am banking on the revelation of God revealed in scripture. . . whether I like it or not. My reality conforms to something outside myself. . . which claims the authority of reality. . . not my own idea of it. . . .and. . . it is not like I have not examined the evidence or other faiths. The bible is unique in its continuity, circulation, translation, teaching, influence and survivability.
One of the strongest testaments to the God of the bible. . . is the Jewish people. A great nation out of Abraham. YEP. A dispersed people. I am a historian by nature and education. . . in each place the Jews have been. . . they have been driven out. Usually because they prospered. Wandering for 1900 years. Persecuted, from everywhere. Look at the Holocaust. But, what is utterly amazing is . . . Israel. . . reborn on May 14, 1948. Through all of this. . . they have neither perished. . . or lost their national identity. 5 generations is about as far as people get before they disappear without a home. Unique and special people.
Why am I not Jewish? Because I am one of the gentiles the bible speaks of. . . who was grafted in. . . you know the rest. :)
Abi, I appreciate the time and the honesty. . . I anticipated your responses. . . in truth, I could have written them for you. As you may have gathered. . . I have thought these things out once or twice. It is not like I do not understand your perspective. . . I just cannot embrace it. Doesn't mean I can't embrace you though. . . . :) It never means that.
So the problem with communication is one pointing to something outside of themselves exclusively, and not willing to explore that which is within.
Overall, and generally speaking, herein lies the problem of actual interaction and experiencing faith that is with substance within and all around us.
If it's solely from an outside source that faith is based on,
then all wars and murders and rapes and all vileness is justified.
Justified by faith in an outside source alone,
keeps one from getting their hands dirty.
That is true to a degree and I do agree. On these forums I am very careful not to overly express what I have internalized. Imagine if you will. . . . look at what happened when I said I prayed for someone's health.
But, I am spent. . . logic talk takes it out of you. . . so I do agree with your point. . . . to a point.
Thanks. . . . I have, as usual taken up a great deal of this thread. . . . which RG started. So, I will let it be.
Whatever the praying thing was about don't really matter.
Posts here are not held against you by the many I know.
This is why there needs to be conversation and not hurling posts.
Like I don't like quoting another, though I did with your post because of it's length.
I do think conversations can flow easier without quoting each other.
It makes it seem like we are stuck in what we said, which we are not,
rather then able to be flexible, perhaps change the mind or not,
that don't matter either.
And that's all I had to say about what you said.
Right or wrong don't matter.
Considering does, to see from another pov.
That takes some sacrifice.
And I suppose sometimes the whole post needs to be quoted to insert comments because of it's length or depth. But I still don't believe they should be held against us. But speaking from the heart is courage, to lay one's life out to another. And be able to handle whatever comes.
So anyways....stick around, listen for what you need to hear.
That happens when speaking from the heart,
Listening and speaking, these will stir things others won't see.
I hope your response to Cman was not an indication that you are ready to walk away from this thread altogether. I have been enjoying our conversation. I only wish we lived closer together and could sit down over coffee with a couple of Bibles. I miss those early days in TWI when I got together with a couple of friends and searched the scripture - back before it was required that we become locked in with head quarters and could only speak of those things that came out of hq and had to agree on top of everything else!
Okay, I'm going to try to respond within your post. I'll go with purple this time, because I am trying to leave the context intact. :)
Sirguessalot,
I am happy to speak with you, but you may find the answers to questions in the post to Abi. I do have to say this. I read in your first post that you are looking forward to the next school of thought. I think that you don't have to wait, you are leading the charge to usher it in. :) If you do not exemplify postmodernism. . . . no one on this forum does. But, you are growing on me.
Abi
Pragmatic I would go with. Postmodern I don't know. I am not sure I understand what that means. ah, okay you are explaining it below. I will read on.
Okay, I think I have just been insulted - less rational, really?
No, never would I insult you with words or deeds Abi. Never intentionally and never with malice.. . . let me see if I can explain. Words have specific meaning and when I used the descriptive word rationally, it was within the bounds of a philosophical discussion. Not a personal slight.
I didn't honestly think you were trying to insult me, Geisha, hence the smiley face. I was laughing at your choice of words, I guess, that is all. I knew you weren't personally slighting me.
I would not claim that having a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. I think it CAN be used that way, but it doesn't HAVE to be used that way. Do I think it is arrogant? hmmmm sometimes, perhaps, but not always. I guess I would say it isn't the notion I find arrogant so much as it is what people sometimes do with it?
Okay, let's really look at this statement here. . . :) One of the reasons I really like what you post here is your honesty. Another, is your moral code. It appears to me that you will say what you think is right over what you think others want to hear. That takes some conviction to your ethics and courage. I have read out some of the drama here. I have even rolled in the mud. . . . It can be intense.
But, when I first started posting here, you and I had specific conversations. What was it I had to convince you of concerning my world view? I understand that you may not remember, but it was that I was not a religious elitist. That was your choice of wording. Your first assumption about me was that given my world view. . . I was an elitist. You and I have worked backwards from that perspective.
I have gotten to know you a bit better, Geisha. First impressions are not always accurate. Sometimes the way you word things . . . . well, I get while it can cause people to get a bit riled up in response to you, as I did. But, over time I think you heart has come through and I recognize that these words on a page can be somewhat limiting in the impression that is left. They are not always so 3 dimensional.
In fact, I can refer to your post on this forum to RainbowsGirl only a page or so back. What was it you were trying to tell her? She is certainly not trying to dominate the forums with her statements concerning her faith. She simply started a thread based on an article I sent her once.
Her worldview and yours collide on the very basis we are discussing. Your reaction was to tell her, albeit in a gentle way. . . she sounded arrogant. You may or may not have been posting the majority opinion, but what you surmised was based on what you hold as your worldview.
If what you say is you don't find the notion arrogant, but what people do with it the problem. Then what was it RG did that was so problemtic? She is making a statement based on her understanding of Christian doctrine. . . it is a widely held conviction based on scripture in the NT. . . she has not cobbled this out of thin air, but bases it on a rational view of scripture. In other words. . . she adapts her beliefs to fit with those of the bible.
Well, yes and no. It was based on my world view, to be sure. But it wasn't simply a difference in religous beliefs. Geisha, you and I have conversed here. We have exchanged thoughts, ideas, beliefs. We may agree on some points and disagree on others, but even where we disagree the tone is one of respect. And I think, our conversation will change/effect/influence both of us in good ways.
I have had similar conversations with RG off and on over the years. But the tone of her last couple of posts (I cannot speak to the initial ones became as I came to this thread late in the game) came across not as one who wants to converse, or share ideas and thoughts. It came across as if she wanted to preach. I suppose preaching is fine to a point, and there may be people here who will read her lengthy quotes of scripture and enjoy them. But I don't come here to be preached at (and I think there are a number of other people here who probably feel the same way.)
I can go to any corner church and find someone who would love to preach at me. I come here to converse. To share and exchange ideas, not with a view that we all must agree but because I love the variety of beliefs. That we can agree on some points, disagree on others and still hang out and continue talking. I find it both off-putting and somewhat worrisome that RG has gone from conversing to what appears to be preaching.
When it collides with what you hold as conviction. . . it sounds arrogant? I always wondered if it is not more about self in that respect than conviction. RG's worldview does not validate yours or others. You have sized her up on this basis and found her statements lacking. It is unavoidable. She does the same to you, but does it based on scripture, that she believes to be authoritative.
No, Geisha. See above, you misunderstand where I am coming from. It isn't merely that we disagree on a point or points. You and I also disagree on points, yet we are still talking. Do you see the difference?
I have to tell you, I don't beleive the "cluster or cobbling together of ideas is less rational. Rather, it is MORE rational. It makes sense to think through ideas and keep the ones that work, while disgarding those that don't. It seems to me less rational to simply accept a cluster of ideas, merely because they are lumped together.
Well, you may be VERY right when it comes to baking, or car mechanics, or something like child rearing. Granted. But, when we come to issues concerning faith. . . we run into a problem there. The reason we have a problem is faith claims something outside itself as the authoritative source. Take the bible for example. It claims within itself to be inspired by God. It claims within itself to be true. It is a narrative concerning God's interaction with mankind. To take what you believe to be true and discard the rest. . . to deconstruct it. . . attempts to render it unathoritative. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. . . . authoritative on whatever it speaks, not only on the things that we like.
Geisha, the Epistles claim they are "god breathed" or "God inspired" or whatever the proper translation and understanding of that verse is. I don't believe you will find such statements within the OT. The OT is the history of mankinds relationship with God and with one another. There is great great learning and wisdom there. It is a story of love, disagreement, betrayal, forgiveness, hope, and love all over again and much more.
But, perhaps we define faith differently. I don't believe the scriptures are solely authoratative, not even the OT. There are great rabbinical arguments regarding the meaning of the scripture. Think about it, even the great Rabbis couldn't always agree regarding what verses meant or how they were to be applied! And there are oral traditions that have been passed down that are not recorded in the Bible. So my faith does not reside only in the writings contained in a book. My faith resides in God, in the belief that God will show me what I need to know and how I need to apply it in my life.
See the problem? When we cherry pick our faith. . . we are saying that no text has authority or single meaning that corresponds with a reality. Classic postmodern thinking. You become the arbiter of truth. Also, nailed in the bible.
Yes, I do get to be the arbiter of my truth, to some degree or another. That too you will find in the OT. Sarah laughed at God, Abraham argued and negotiated with God. Moses told God he needed someone else to speak for him. The book of Ruth is an amazing thing! A man violated the laws of the OT and married into "another nation." He married Ruth and she (one from outside the tribes of Israel) has an entire book dedicated to her! There is nothing black and white about the Bible.
But, I have to ask you something in all sincerity. . . . consider, if God is a reality. . . meaning, He is and futhermore. . . He is AS He is. . . . meaning a reality of characteristics . . . . and in one book He says. . . I am like this. . . my name is. . . I want you to obey me and do this. . . I change not. . . there is only ONE way to me. . . . and in another God is portrayed in a contradictory manner. . . my name is this. . . any way to get to me is okay. . . obey me this other opposing way. . . .and each book claims to be all true. . . what happens when we pick what we like and leave the rest? Have we not just designed a God to suit our liking?
Yes, I think to some degree or another we all design a god to our liking, even you. But that is just part and parcel of the frailty of being human. I suspect the reality is that God is so much bigger than our minds can comprehend that any characteristic used to define him will still fall short. And when I read the OT, I see a God who is ever constant and ever changing at the same time. I know that probably sounds contradictory to you, but I don't see it as a contradiction. I believe what appears to be changing to us is still part of the constant that is God. What we see as changing is only our perception and not the reality that is God. I don't think we can list out a handful of ideas and say "that is God" and be right. We may be right in part, but it still falls short.
Have we not just discarded something that claims to be true in favor of something we like better? Moreover, what reality does our truth correspond to? Are we believing in something whole and real outside of ourselves. . . or believing in our own selves?
Both. Because God isn't wholly outside of ourselves. God dwells within us, each of us.
Logically it is an either or proposition. You can't get around it. . . unless you design your own God. The bible prohibits this. It is called idolatry. It is specifically addressed and forbidden. Quite frankly, I question the logic of a designer God. . . one who refects our own selves. . . I am looking for the object who matches the reality, not creating one.
But you too have created one. You have created one that you can read on a page, that is contained within a book. And no matter how well you know that book, there will still be parts you are missing and/or parts you may have wrong. The same is true for me. Even the epistles talk of how now we see through a glass darkly. That will be true for as long as we live in flesh and blood bodies.
So I don't think your either or scenario is logical. Either or scenarios are often logical fallacies simply because they leave out the vast array of options in between.
As a woman of faith, I put my finite self into the hands of an infinite God. He proclaims Himself in the bible, but never defends Himself. Have you ever wondered about that?
Do you see the illogic of that statement? If God is infinite, who could he possibly be contained only within the pages of a single book?
Well, no it isn't actually my thought process. I may do that, but it isn't some conscious process. However, when you get to describing reality as a whole, well I do believe reality as a whole is largely subjective. Put a 1/2 a glass of water in front of a group of kids and ask them if it is half empy or half full. Some will tell you half empty and that is their reality. Others will tell you half full and that truly is their reality. A few really good thinkers will tell you it is both half empty and half full and thus you have your pluralism.
Abi, that is a wonderful illustration for a bunch of kids and glass of water. . . . but we are talking about a specific reality, a being, who has made specific revelations about Himself. In other words He has told us the reality of the glass being half full. It has been defined for us. I have blue eyes. . . I can slap some green contacts on, but I still have blue eyes. That reality does not change. If something is round. . . it is not square at the same time? I may not like round, but it is round. Defined, descriptive and understood as the reality.
Yes, concrete, five senses objects can be defined and by and large contained within a definition. But God is not a five senses reality. So, it is sort of apples to oranges, no? And even those things that are five senses defined are still ever changing. Take a window. Glass, hard, solid. but is it really? Because scientists will tell you glass isn't a solid, it is a liquid. Almost everything on this earth is in a constant state of change - though the change may occur so slowly that we fail to perceive it. And yet, despite the contiuous change, there are some properties within the change that are ever constant and unchanging.
he bible says it is inspired by God. . . a revelation of Himself to man. . . if true. . . it's specifics concerning who He is are true. . . No? How can it possibly be that if it is true. . . it is not true for everyone? What we understand or choose to believe does not reality make. I can choose to believe I am 5' 10" and chronologically 21 years old. Not the reality. I like the idea better. . . but I am 5' 5" and older than 21 :) . Moreover, the bible states that God does not change. In it He states. . . I am that I am. He does not state, I am what you want me to be.
And yet, if you could truly convince yourself that you were 5'10" and 21 years old, people may not believe you are only 21, but they would perceive you as being younger than you are. :)
i am that I am . . . . and that I am is so much bigger than we can perceive and understand. The NT says it is inspired by God. I don't believe the OT makes that claim. The NT also is often addressed to specific groups of people, I don't believe the OT does that. So, it works for you, it is addressed to you, perhaps. And hontestly, I respect that you have found a way to God that fits you. I just don't believe it is the ONLY way to God.
The bible clearly covers man's rebellion towards God's authority. . . over and over again--ad nauseum in fact. What does one rebell against? Authority right? Rebellion can have many faces. . . it is still rebellion. Could you not call redefining something clearly defined as rebellion?
What exactly is rebellion? Because there are many instances recorded in the OT of people violating the laws God gave, and God didn't reckon them rebellious. Rebellion is a state of heart, IMO
It isn't reactionary, Geisha. If anything, it has far more to do with my upbringing and the core of who I am, than my experience with TWI. A non-practicing Jewish father who labels himself athiest and views all religion as a crutch. A non-practicing Jewish mother who most definitely believed in God, but didn't follow any particular relgious beliefs and rarely discussed the subject with me. A small Christian community where I was the outsider because I was Jewish (yet during the brief time I attended Catechism I was always well studied and prepared to answer the questions). One side of the family who viewed Judasim as more of a political movement than a religous one, very socialistic and liberal. Another side of the family who wouldn't eat pork or say the word God (he was always "the man upstairs" or "the big guy."). One side of the family wealthy, upperclass (and ironically they were the liberal socialists). The other side, lower class and more conservative. In sum, I was raised with contradiction and contrast in almost every way.
I have always believed in God for as far back as I can remeber. I have also always questioned what religious groups taught. With the exception of my years in TWI, if it didn't seem logical and/or loving to me, I rejected it regardless of who taught it.
Abi, I can relate on many levels to your journey. I don't judge it. But, I have to ask you. . . what God do you believe in? The one who acts and behaves in a manner you consider loving? As a finite being, could it not be, we don't always understand what the true loving thing is? That God's ways are above our ways? That there is a greater, higher purpose at work? Stands to reason, that if we are not omtipotent, and He is. . . He might have an edge. If you tell your child they can't play in the street, they could be hurt, but they think it is okay. . . are you being unloving? Or are you being more loving? It also stands to reason that we can surely believe that God exists. . . without believing in Him.
Oh, I certainly agree that I can't and don't understand all of God's ways. If I did, I'd be a god, no? But I still have to follow those things that sit peaceably in my heart. To do othewise, to do something my consiouce says is wrong simply because someone points to scripture and tells me "thus sayeth the Word" THAT would truly be wrong, IMO.
When one decides what is or is not loving. . . that is a declaration of what God should be. . . not the other way around. That is fine. But, when the bible says that God willingly sacrificed His Son. . . for us. . .and one rejects this based on what they consider loving or tolerable. . . it is based on a feeling. All authority of scripture is discarded for our own way. No? If the bible says A, B, and C are all true and we don't like A or B, but C is okay with us, so it is true for us. . . how reliable is B? Not very.
For you those things are true, Geisha, because you follow the bible. But remember, I do not follow the New Testament. So when you say "the Bible says God sacrified his son" it is not hard for me to disagree with that notion. I have a different frame of reference, a different world view. Now, I can accept that you believe those things. But I still see that concept as a glaring contradiction coming from a God that hated human sacrifice.
Logic I understand quite well, Geisha. Logically is simply the mathmatics of words. I have studied logic. I have also studied religion, psychology and a bit of philosophy I was really a geeky kid. I used to read my mother's college psych books when I was in junior high, while other kids were out doing whatever it is kids did in junior high back then.
I was less studious I am afraid. However, logic is more than simply the mathematics of words. . . . There are laws to logic. Identity, P is P--noncontradiction--P is not non P--excluded middle either P or non P.
If I say it is snowing. . . you know what that means. It is a true statement (if it IS snowing). It is a statement applied to the reality? No? Everything is itself and not something else. . . snowing is identified.
If I say "It is snowing". . . that cannot be true and untrue. . . it may not be snowing where you are, but that does not mean it can snow and not snow in the same place at the same time.
It is snowing. . . . is a statement that is true or false.
These are fundemental laws governing reality. Can't get around them without creating your own reality.
If you really consider, to deny them is self-refuting. They are what is assumed in scripture.
But you are comparing the 5 senses with spiritual matters, Geisha. Spiritual matters are not so easily and readily defined. We can not see them, taste them, smell them. They are not so concrete. Even the writings contained within the Bible are not so concrete - if they were there wouldn't be so much disagreement and debate about them!!
As I said earlier, logic is the mathmatic of words. Words are used to communicate ideas. Ideas, however, are not so concrete, neither is perception (glass half empty or half full ). So yes, I do believe something can be true for you and not for me. No, I don't see that as illogical. It is true that I like really hot, spicy food. That is true for me. It is also true that other people do not. Much of reality is based on perception and perception is extremely subjective.
Is God a reality or an idea?
Both. I believe there is a reality that is God. I also think that what we see is in part the reality of God and in part an idea.
I think you are wrong, Geisha, as I explained above. Now certainly, some facts match up to a reality for everyone. Truth, on the other hand, is very much subjective. Here's an extreme example, but I think it communicates well. My older son has sensory processing issues. Particularly when he was younger, some of the sensory signals to his brain would get jumbled. So, if you touched him softly he was likely to turn around and attack you because he perceived that he was being attacked (he really loved firm touch, though). The fact was, he was only being tapped softy on the shoulder by another student. The truth as he perceived it, however, was that the other student attacked him first.
You have about the cutest kids I have seen. Truly. . you are a lovely family. Is it the truth that changes with our perception. . . was your son actually attacked? The law of identity defines an attack as specific. We know what an attack is. Right?
Was the person who gently touched him attacking? As defined. . . as we know the reality of an attack? No,
Do you see at all, the logical fallacy here. . . . His perception did not make the reality of the gentle touch an attack. . . He percieved it as such, it was his reality. But, an attack is specific. . . a gentle touch is specific. . . The law of non contradiction Abi. . . it is not an attack and a gentle touch at the same time. . . they are two different things.
I think terms have to be defined. Facts are facts are facts. They the fact that the grass is green is somewhat unchanging (unless it is winter). Truth is how we perceive the facts. So the fact was, there was no attack. But the truth as my son percieved it was that he was attacked - that was what he knew, what he perceived.
hahahaha, think of a married couple having an argument. She goes to her mother and said he did thus and thus. He later tries to explain to the mother no, I didn't do thus and thus and did this and this. Odds are really good they both are telling the truth as they perceived things.
Geisha, have you ever considered that if you had been born in a different country or to different parents, you would probably completely reject the notion that the Bible is God's Word? I don't believe the Bible is black and white, either/or. I don't believe God is either. I think God will use any name, any tool that is available, to communicate with us. He is YWHW, right? He will become what He will become?
Classic postmodern argument . . . . text book. Truth as defined in a cultural --social and linguistic construction. It serves a specific purpose. I get it. No objective reality beyond our cultural boundries. Reality described differently. But, what if there IS a God's eye view and an objective reality?
I have no doubt there is a God's eye view and an objective reality. I just don't think WE will ever see things from that God's eye view while we are living in these flesh and blood bodies.
This understanding of cultural truth. . . it is what scripture opposes. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. Social customs or personal opinions. . . do not create truth. When the bible says Jesus is Lord. . .you perceive that as a Christian tradition and cultural language. . . . I get that. . . . the bible. . . . claims it as truth about an objective reality. Truth with a corresponding object.
Which is why. . . when someone comes on these forums. . . and expresses Jesus is the only way to God. . . they are expressing an objective reality. Not that they are better. . . . NO. . . they are saying. . . there actually is no other way to God. No other path will get you there. . . He is the only way to the Father. Not that it is the elite way. . . or their favorite way. . . or the fun way. . . or even the pretty way. . .
Why? How can we do that? Because the bible proclaims itself to be true, and to be authoritative. If it is. . . people have a problem. . . . if not, I am just a misguided jerk and it is all good. When we cherry pick what we like. . . we lose any universal standard or objective reality. We create our own. . .
I am banking on the revelation of God revealed in scripture. . . whether I like it or not. My reality conforms to something outside myself. . . which claims the authority of reality. . . not my own idea of it. . . .and. . . it is not like I have not examined the evidence or other faiths. The bible is unique in its continuity, circulation, translation, teaching, influence and survivability.
And that is the crux of the matter. YOU are banking on that idea and for you, that idea is reality. Others do not bank on that idea, others do not proclaim themselves to be Christian, so for them that idea is not reality.
One of the strongest testaments to the God of the bible. . . is the Jewish people. A great nation out of Abraham. YEP. A dispersed people. I am a historian by nature and education. . . in each place the Jews have been. . . they have been driven out. Usually because they prospered. Wandering for 1900 years. Persecuted, from everywhere. Look at the Holocaust. But, what is utterly amazing is . . . Israel. . . reborn on May 14, 1948. Through all of this. . . they have neither perished. . . or lost their national identity. 5 generations is about as far as people get before they disappear without a home. Unique and special people.
Why am I not Jewish? Because I am one of the gentiles the bible speaks of. . . who was grafted in. . . you know the rest. :)
Abi, I appreciate the time and the honesty. . . I anticipated your responses. . . in truth, I could have written them for you. As you may have gathered. . . I have thought these things out once or twice. It is not like I do not understand your perspective. . . I just cannot embrace it. Doesn't mean I can't embrace you though. . . . :) It never means that.
So you are saying I am predictable? :) HA! And it is okay with me if you don't embrace my perspective. I am truly enjoying our conversation here.
We just got home from a prison!! LOL An hour and a half away from us. Someday, maybe I can share with you a bit about what I do. I quickly checked in and read your answers and I gotta tell you. . . I loved them.
I did find a great deal in there to relate to and would like to explore it a bit more. I think you nailed some things. So, give me a day or so. I am still working on a bit of Roman's for us all to explore from varying viewpoints.
Why would a Good God send people to an everlasting hell?
In conclusion now that many angles from all participants have been represented, I would like to clarify some points and issues and make a few closing remarks. Sounding like a defense attorney without the proper credentials; I well suppose? Not really, but I will be using it as an analogy. A Christian is to always be ready to defend the gospel with scriptural evidence.
Scripture is; from a bible based Christian standpoint, GOD’s testimony and evidence of Himself. GOD states that he is His Word and that Jesus Christ is the Word in the Flesh. Scripture is God’s testimony and His evidence. Without scripture we would only have speculative, segmented and subjective accounts of GOD’s attributes, Will and Ways. It would be difficult to see or understand why a Good GOD would send people to an everlasting hell. The
why,
needs to be satisfied by evidence from GOD; and as a Christian I am to represent that testimony and evidence to the best of my ability. Not all believe!!! That is a separate issue.
1Pe 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Phl 1:7
Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.
Phl 1:17
But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel.
We have a defense attorney and I might just add the perfect defense attorney in Jesus Christ …the word in the flesh…our Savior; which most men can only hope that their earthly defense attorney will be to them, in their time of need.
1Ti 2:5
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Romans chapter 8 discusses this :
Rom 8:27
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.
A Good defense attorney makes their case in accordance with the laws and statues of their jurisdiction. Man has his rules, laws and jurisdiction and likewise so does GOD have His Rules laws and jurisdiction.
Whenever the attorneys case is weak he uses age old strategies, techniques and tactics to dissuade, confuse or discredit his opponent’s evidence; such as misrepresentation, mischaracterization, gas lighting, misleading partial quotes and exurbs in an attempt to dismantle the credibility of the evidences presented by his opponent.
GOD states that his Word and Ways are perfect and flawless; that makes His case perfect. He needs no extraneous strategies techniques or tactics to win. He has already won. He has always known the outcome. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He wishes all to believe Him; even unto salvation; but He allows man to choose for His reasons. Some we understand and some we do not! Everything that pertains to life and godliness is in the bible for anyone who wants it - as He GOD is and wants it to be. If GOD doesn’t exist for anyone or only exists by your own definition so be it; none of what I say will matter in that case. It is also well known that those who reject scripture as evidence reject it as believable testimony; So they should not be upset if I am wrong.
The Issue of this thread is: Why would a Good God send people to an everlasting hell? The Why of this is the issue that I presented. It is not how hell is defined and it is not whether or not those sent to hell are destroyed in eternal death, or are absent from the presence of GOD for eternity. They pertain and anyone can bring them in as they wish to. This is a doctrinal thread, so I am representing GOD’s scriptural testimony and evidence concerning WHY?. It is anyone’s choice whether they believe it or not. It becomes a question of GOD’s integrity with man.
I will use this example as it was eluded to, that I have “way think”
Example: In PFAL we were taught that Man’s basic spiritual problem is, was and will always be the integrity of HIS, GOD’s Word.
I am a student of the bible and a Christian, so I check the relevance of things that I study. TWI plagiarized a lot, and doctrinally twisted it to suit their agendas; but they did not invalidate the scriptures themselves…often only their application and intent.
So looking at integrity and its definition:
in•teg•ri•ty [ in téggrətee ]
noun
Definition:
1. possession of firm principles: the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards
2. completeness: the state of being complete or undivided ( formal )
the territorial integrity of the nation
3. wholeness: the state of being sound or undamaged ( formal )
public confidence in the integrity of the voting process
I see this statement as true. The spiritual battle between man and GOD is to whether man believes the scriptures are true or not, whether they are God breathed or not, and whether or not there is a right dividing of them.
When I stated that GOD is a black and white thinker I was referring to his absoluteness and his objectivity, being relevant to His unchanging standards as they are set in His Word. He stated of Himself that he does not change from being “I am that I am” I was in no way indicating that he is not loving , gracious, merciful, forgiving, patient and kind and all the far to many to count wonderful attributes of God; but they are set in accordance with His set standards and not man’s often ever changing standards. What GOD testifies of Himself does not change. What does change is the interpretation by the interpreter of what GOD says. I study to endeavor not to privately interpret GOD’s Word and Will. I want to know the whole picture of GOD; with all of. His Why’s, His Wherefores and all of His perfect attributes. I LOVE Him just the way that he is Perfect Love and Perfect Light.
Why would a Good God send people to an everlasting hell?
In conclusion now that many angles from all participants have been represented, I would like to clarify some points and issues and make a few closing remarks. Sounding like a defense attorney without the proper credentials; I well suppose? Not really, but I will be using it as an analogy. A Christian is to always be ready to defend the gospel with scriptural evidence.
Scripture is; from a bible based Christian standpoint, GOD’s testimony and evidence of Himself. GOD states that he is His Word and that Jesus Christ is the Word in the Flesh. Scripture is God’s testimony and His evidence. Without scripture we would only have speculative, segmented and subjective accounts of GOD’s attributes, Will and Ways. It would be difficult to see or understand why a Good GOD would send people to an everlasting hell. The
why,
needs to be satisfied by evidence from GOD; and as a Christian I am to represent that testimony and evidence to the best of my ability. Not all believe!!! That is a separate issue.
1Pe 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Phl 1:7
Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.
Phl 1:17
But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel.
We have a defense attorney and I might just add the perfect defense attorney in Jesus Christ …the word in the flesh…our Savior; which most men can only hope that their earthly defense attorney will be to them, in their time of need.
1Ti 2:5
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Romans chapter 8 discusses this :
Rom 8:27
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.
A Good defense attorney makes their case in accordance with the laws and statues of their jurisdiction. Man has his rules, laws and jurisdiction and likewise so does GOD have His Rules laws and jurisdiction.
Whenever the attorneys case is weak he uses age old strategies, techniques and tactics to dissuade, confuse or discredit his opponent’s evidence; such as misrepresentation, mischaracterization, gas lighting, misleading partial quotes and exurbs in an attempt to dismantle the credibility of the evidences presented by his opponent.
GOD states that his Word and Ways are perfect and flawless; that makes His case perfect. He needs no extraneous strategies techniques or tactics to win. He has already won. He has always known the outcome. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He wishes all to believe Him; even unto salvation; but He allows man to choose for His reasons. Some we understand and some we do not! Everything that pertains to life and godliness is in the bible for anyone who wants it - as He GOD is and wants it to be. If GOD doesn’t exist for anyone or only exists by your own definition so be it; none of what I say will matter in that case. It is also well known that those who reject scripture as evidence reject it as believable testimony; So they should not be upset if I am wrong.
The Issue of this thread is: Why would a Good God send people to an everlasting hell? The Why of this is the issue that I presented. It is not how hell is defined and it is not whether or not those sent to hell are destroyed in eternal death, or are absent from the presence of GOD for eternity. They pertain and anyone can bring them in as they wish to. This is a doctrinal thread, so I am representing GOD’s scriptural testimony and evidence concerning WHY?. It is anyone’s choice whether they believe it or not. It becomes a question of GOD’s integrity with man.
I will use this example as it was eluded to, that I have “way think”
Example: In PFAL we were taught that Man’s basic spiritual problem is, was and will always be the integrity of HIS, GOD’s Word.
I am a student of the bible and a Christian, so I check the relevance of things that I study. TWI plagiarized a lot, and doctrinally twisted it to suit their agendas; but they did not invalidate the scriptures themselves…often only their application and intent.
So looking at integrity and its definition:
in•teg•ri•ty [ in téggrətee ]
noun
Definition:
1. possession of firm principles: the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards
2. completeness: the state of being complete or undivided ( formal )
the territorial integrity of the nation
3. wholeness: the state of being sound or undamaged ( formal )
public confidence in the integrity of the voting process
I see this statement as true. The spiritual battle between man and GOD is to whether man believes the scriptures are true or not, whether they are God breathed or not, and whether or not there is a right dividing of them.
When I stated that GOD is a black and white thinker I was referring to his absoluteness and his objectivity, being relevant to His unchanging standards as they are set in His Word. He stated of Himself that he does not change from being “I am that I am” I was in no way indicating that he is not loving , gracious, merciful, forgiving, patient and kind and all the far to many to count wonderful attributes of God; but they are set in accordance with His set standards and not man’s often ever changing standards. What GOD testifies of Himself does not change. What does change is the interpretation by the interpreter of what GOD says. I study to endeavor not to privately interpret GOD’s Word and Will. I want to know the whole picture of GOD; with all of. His Why’s, His Wherefores and all of His perfect attributes. I LOVE Him just the way that he is Perfect Love and Perfect Light.
RG,
That was nicely stated. Let me ask you a question. When you read that we are to give an answer with meekness and fear. . . . what does that mean? When you say the spiritual battle between man and God is to believe the SCRIPTURES as true or not. . . . what does that mean?
Isn't what happens sometimes. . . .is that a Christian can ending up preaching the scriptures instead of preaching what is in them? Isn't a Christian really suppose to share their faith about Jesus?
The bible is our source. . . .but not our source of hope. It is what is written within. It is the reality behind the words. Sometimes, especially when people have been abused with the scriptures. . . they are angry about them. No? Make sense?
Paul reasoned with people from OUT of the scriptures. . . he didn't reason the scriptures with them. Acts 17. . . he identified to reason with them.
Jesus actually had to reprove the Pharisees for their worshipping of the laws or the SCRIPTURES. . . He reproved them for missing the whole point.
They were angry people who passed alot of judgements while reciting long strings of passages.
Conversly, the woman at the well, even she could recite scripture(The law). Jesus had to declare who He was to her. . . to gently and tenderly show her that she was missing it. The main point of the story and His confrontation with the pharisees was I AM.
The worship of God not only has to be consistent with scripture, but it must be centered on the word made flesh who revealed the Father. Jesus didn't say the bible is the way -- the --truth--the life. . . . He said He was.
This in NO way discredits the "Word" but it places worship in its proper position. . . on a person, not leather and ink.
Before an attorney can try a case, they have to build a case. . . sometimes this can be a lengthy process. . . it can even begin with the credibility of the evidence. That can be a detailed process. If we are trying to win a case. . . we have to understand what it is we are trying to defend.
With the gospel. . . it is that the bible is true. . . and that we just have to believe it? Is that really what the gospel is?
It is the message contained within. That this is God's plan for humanity. We can actually tell this story, without quoting a single verse. And sometimes we even have to begin with the reasonableness of one truth. Sometimes we have to begin sharing the gospel by looking at a thought process and what truth is? MAke sense?
I think that to present a loving God to someone who has been in a situation like we all have. . . . we have to love them, respect that they differ, and reason out why WE accept these things to be true. Not just that they are. Call me crazy.
Man's great spiritual battle with God, is not that the bible is true. . . it is if they accept Jesus as Lord to accept a relationship with Him. That they accept Jesus as the only way.
But the whole point is. . . . God so LOVED the world that He did this. It is a stunning story with great hope and depth and staggering sacrifice. It really is the greatest story ever told. What is important is the meaning of it. . . . the heart behind it. . . . the author of the book.
Consider this. . . we can end up worshipping our knowledge of God limited to what we have been able to grasp thus far in our study of the word. . . . that is why Paul had to say the depth and riches of Christ are beyond understanding . . . . this is why we worship Him, not our knowledge of Him. . . knowledge fails.
To add: Man's basic spiritual problem is that they don't believe the integrity of God's word?
How about. . . . if you continue in my word. . . . you are my disciples indeed. He that is of God, hears Gods words. . . . you hear them not because you are not of God.
The bible was written FOR the believer, not the disbeliever. . . .
Man's basic spiritual problem according to SCRIPTURE is that they love the darkness rather than light. Jesus wasn't rejected because He was a lousy bible teacher. . . He wowed em with the scriptures. . . people want to go their own way.
The rich young ruler quoted the scriptures to Jesus. . . verbatim as a matter of fact, he knew they were true. . . He believed. . . but He didn't want to follow Jesus at the expense of his own way.
The bible has been quoted and known for centuries. . . it isn't until the last hundred years and the advent of postmodern thinking that the idea of an objective truth has been questioned. . . the bible has been a respected book. Thomas Jefferson KNEW the bible. . . loved it so much. . . he made his own version. . . BUT, he missed the point.
What was the problem of the eunuch? That he didn't respect the scriptures? No. . . the eunuch's problem was "what is the point of the scriptures?".
VP's problem wasn't that he was a plagiarist. . . . it was that he WRONG. And this BTW, is how we all came to worship the bible. . . always God and His word. . . the word, the word, and nothing but the word. . . where is Jesus in this litany? Where is the reality behind "The Word?"
WHY are God's ways perfect and better than our own. . . cause the bible says so? We are defenders of the FAITH, not a book.
That was nicely stated. Let me ask you a question. When you read that we are to give an answer with meekness and fear. . . . what does that mean? When you say the spiritual battle between man and God is to believe the SCRIPTURES as true or not. . . . what does that mean?
It means to give an answer with meekness and fear, knowing that the whole of GOD cannot even be contained in His Word...How often I have spoken of His LOVE, Grace and mercy and Forgiveness. Recognizing that all have fallen short of the glory of GOD, To All he shows His Love and All have feelings and have been abused and continue to be abused in many hurtful ways...Including me!!!. It means to choose to believe GOD by knowing Him and having a relationship with Him; to believe His testimony, the evidence of His Word both written and practised; or to believe as you choose to believe or to define GOD as you choose to define Him. The battle is saying what GOD testifies of Himself is alterable to what You choose and that it is okay to alter ones own perception of His Word or GOD; that he doesn't care if we do this...that His integrity is within the questionings, standards and judgments of mankind.
Isn't what happens sometimes. . . .is that a Christian can ending up preaching the scriptures instead of preaching what is in them? Isn't a Christian really suppose to share their faith about Jesus?
It isn't wrong to preach, or to teach, or to pastor, or to walk in Love, grace forgiveness and empathy. etc...in full knowledge that GOD alone is the ONLY Righteous Judge. It is a God given responsibility. Preaching, teaching, pastoring and sharing are all essential if done in GOD's LOVE.
I have always had a loving relationship with GOD even when I knew nothing much about him, I knew not to blame Him. I knew to trust Him. I knew that He is my Heavenly Father and that He is more Loving, Wise, All knowing and capable than I or anyother man could ever totally understand!!! Within the relation with Him, He has taught me with His Love, by His demonstrated example and with scripture. Only in a relationship of Love do you truly see a heart. As pointed out this is a forum for discussion of many diverse viewpoints and beliefs. I know only what they express to me, although I give their hearts, lives and experiences much Love and respect...whether it is seen or not seen. Often that is far more than I receive back. I give my best in Love!!!
The bible is our source. . . .but not our source of hope. It is what is written within. It is the reality behind the words. Sometimes, especially when people have been abused with the scriptures. . . they are angry about them. No? Make sense?
True!!!
Paul reasoned with people from OUT of the scriptures. . . he didn't reason the scriptures with them. Acts 17. . . he identified to reason with them.
I do both!!!
Jesus actually had to reprove the Pharisees for their worshiping of the laws or the SCRIPTURES. . . He reproved them for missing the whole point.
They were angry people who passed a lot of judgments while reciting long strings of passages.
I don't worship the Word of GOD. I worship GOD!!!
Conversly, the woman at the well, even she could recite scripture(The law). Jesus had to declare who He was to her. . . to gently and tenderly show her that she was missing it. The main point of the story and His confrontation with the pharisees was I AM.
Depending upon the circumstance Jesus Christ and His apostles and disciples did both, by example, demonstration and quoting scritures... It is written...He preached the word, He taught the Word, and demonstrated the Word. He send out His disciples to do the same and to pastor them in Love. He held them accountable in the responsibilities he gave them as well!!!
The worship of God not only has to be consistent with scripture, but it must be centered on the word made flesh who revealed the Father. Jesus didn't say the bible is the way -- the --truth--the life. . . . He said He was.
This in NO way discredits the "Word" but it places worship in its proper position. . . on a person, not leather and ink.
That is a heavy accusation to lay at anyone's feet. If You are alluding that I worship leather and ink; I can defend myself and say that I don't. I am known by my fruits which you may or may not see. GOD knows and that is enough for me!!!
Before an attorney can try a case, they have to build a case. . . sometimes this can be a lengthy process. . . it can even begin with the credibility of the evidence. That can be a detailed process. If we are trying to win a case. . . we have to understand what it is we are trying to defend.
True by GOD and Jesus Christ are Supercedant and Superior to any of man's abilities and not under the same limited constraints; and even this is based on need, circumstances and conditions and the member of the body of Christ's particular abilities, knowledge and experiences. We ALL are imperfect, we all fall short...that is why we are not appointed judges...too big and too important a job for any man to even consider. Only GOD is perfect and judges absolutely rightly!!!
With the gospel. . . it is that the bible is true. . . and that we just have to believe it? Is that really what the gospel is?
It is in part that and the example and demonstration of GOD's Love!!!
It is the message contained within. That this is God's plan for humanity. We can actually tell this story, without quoting a single verse. And sometimes we even have to begin with the reasonableness of one truth. Sometimes we have to begin sharing the gospel by looking at a thought process and what truth is? MAke sense?
Sometimes!!! But without the knowledge where is wisdom and understanding to even know!!!
I think that to present a loving God to someone who has been in a situation like we all have. . . . we have to love them, respect that they differ, and reason out why WE accept these things to be true. Not just that they are. Call me crazy.
I think presenting a whole GOD is even greater and even more necessary and even more timely!!!
Man's great spiritual battle with God, is not that the bible is true. . . it is if they accept Jesus as Lord to accept a relationship with Him. That they accept Jesus as the only way.
That is done both with and with scripture as addressed above!!!
But the whole point is. . . . God so LOVED the world that He did this. It is a stunning story with great hope and depth and staggering sacrifice. It really is the greatest story ever told. What is important is the meaning of it. . . . the heart behind it. . . . the author of the book.
Without evidence and testimony it can certainly be perceived as only a story, only a doctrine,only a religion, etc.....
Consider this. . . we can end up worshiping our knowledge of God limited to what we have been able to grasp thus far in our study of the word. . . . that is why Paul had to say the depth and riches of Christ are beyond understanding . . . . this is why we worship Him, not our knowledge of Him. . . knowledge fails.
True. I am very secure in my Worship of GOD - with All my Heart, soul, mind and strength...not my own reasonings nor understanding!!!
It means to give an answer with meekness and fear, knowing that the whole of GOD cannot even be contained in His Word...How often I have spoken of His LOVE, Grace and mercy and Forgiveness. Recognizing that all have fallen short of the glory of GOD, To All he shows His Love and All have feelings and have been abused and continue to be abused in many hurtful ways...Including me!!!. It means to choose to believe GOD by knowing Him and having a relationship with Him; to believe His testimony, the evidence of His Word both written and practised; or to believe as you choose to believe or to define GOD as you choose to define Him. The battle is saying what GOD testifies of Himself is alterable to what You choose and that it is okay to alter ones own perception of His Word or GOD; that he doesn't care if we do this...that His integrity is within the questionings, standards and judgments of mankind.
RG, I don't even understand this. How does one know? How does one choose to believe God by KNOWING Him? Don't we believe first and then see then know Him? Isn't that the paradox? Isn't it why we defend our faith in Him? We don't defend the book. We can put forth the reasonable case for why it is a believable testimony. . . what is that? Is it the relevance, uniqueness, cannon, reliability, prophecy, historical and archaeological evidence. Sometimes it takes going back that far. . . No?
Now, why would the battle get as far as saying that what God's testimony of Himself is alterable? Because it is our nature to make our own way. . . to reject His way?. . . a good apologist will defend His way. That can take time and patience. Don't you agree?
It isn't wrong to preach, or to teach, or to pastor, or to walk in Love, grace forgiveness and empathy. etc...in full knowledge that GOD alone is the ONLY Righteous Judge. It is a God given responsibility. Preaching, teaching, pastoring and sharing are all essential if done in GOD's LOVE.
I never said otherwise but to be straight, we pastor the flock.
I have always had a loving relationship with GOD even when I knew nothing much about him, I knew not to blame Him. I knew to trust Him. I knew that He is my Heavenly Father and that He is more Loving, Wise, All knowing and capable than I or anyother man could ever totally understand!!! Within the relation with Him, He has taught me with His Love, by His demonstrated example and with scripture. Only in a relationship of Love do you truly see a heart. As pointed out this is a forum for discussion of many diverse viewpoints and beliefs. I know only what they express to me, although I give their hearts, lives and experiences much Love and respect...whether it is seen or not seen. Often that is far more than I receive back. I give my best in Love!!!
RG, YOU didn't do any of these things. God did. The glory and praise belongs to Him for your witness and testimony. . . not you. You and I. . . . we were never good enough or pure enough or righteous or MEEK enough to know these things on our own. If that is the case, God did that for you. Jews believe children are born pure. . . Christians believe we are fallen. We don't find Him. . . He finds us.
Paul reasoned with people from OUT of the scriptures. . . he didn't reason the scriptures with them. Acts 17. . . he identified to reason with them.
I do both!!!
Well, that's great then. But, God declares Himself in scripture, never defends His integrity. . . . We defend our faith in Him. . . the gospel message, God's integrity needs no defense.
Jesus actually had to reprove the Pharisees for their worshiping of the laws or the SCRIPTURES. . . He reproved them for missing the whole point.
They were angry people who passed a lot of judgments while reciting long strings of passages.
I don't worship the Word of GOD. I worship GOD!!!
Are you a Pharisee? Because if you are not. . . then I don't know why you would defend an accusation against them?
Depending upon the circumstance Jesus Christ and His apostles and disciples did both, by example, demonstration and quoting scritures... It is written...He preached the word, He taught the Word, and demonstrated the Word. He send out His disciples to do the same and to pastor them in Love. He held them accountable in the responsibilities he gave them as well!!!
He is the word. He declared God. He taught from the scripture concerning Himself.
That is a heavy accusation to lay at anyone's feet. If You are alluding that I worship leather and ink; I can defend myself and say that I don't. I am known by my fruits which you may or may not see. GOD knows and that is enough for me!!!
We all worshipped the bible in TWI, that is what it was. . . . bible worship. I didn't say you are doing this now. . . . did I ?
True by GOD and Jesus Christ are Supercedant and Superior to any of man's abilities and not under the same limited constraints; and even this is based on need, circumstances and conditions and the member of the body of Christ's particular abilities, knowledge and experiences. We ALL are imperfect, we all fall short...that is why we are not appointed judges...too big and too important a job for any man to even consider. Only GOD is perfect and judges absolutely rightly!!!
I have NO idea what this means. . . does it mean we never speak? Converse? Reason? What? God's integrity is NEVER the question. . . EVER. . . we defend the GOSPEL to the best of our ability? God doesn't need US to defend Him or His integrity. . . it is without question
With the gospel. . . it is that the bible is true. . . and that we just have to believe it? Is that really what the gospel is?
It is in part that and the example and demonstration of GOD's Love!!!
The love of God is demonstrated through the message of the gospel. . . that God so loved the world. . . or that God reconciled the world unto Himself. . . if this is not the case. . . we end up arguing about words and lose the message.
Sometimes!!! But without the knowledge where is wisdom and understanding to even know!!!
What do you think beginning with the idea of one truth is. . . not knowledge? Not understanding? What is your point? Could it not be wisdom to begin where someone is and converse from there? Isn't that what God did with us?
I think presenting a whole GOD is even greater and even more necessary and even more timely!!!
I don't even know what this means? YOU don't know a whole God. . . we know in part. . . we know the gospel. We preach Christ. Why God so loved the world through Him. It is the WHOLE point of the bible. Our hope is to be fixed on Him not our great knowledge of semantics. . . otherwise we quibble about WORDS
Without evidence and testimony it can certainly be perceived as only a story, only a doctrine,only a religion, etc.....
Which is why we present the evidence. But, that can be a long road. It can begin with a defining of one truth, can't it? If one cannot even accept the logic of objective truth, to defend our faith, don't we begin there? So, how do you jump right in to do the impossible and present a "Whole" God. Just say, the bible says it. . . I believe it. . . that settles it? Where is the reasoning from the scripture there?
Consider this. . . we can end up worshiping our knowledge of God limited to what we have been able to grasp thus far in our study of the word. . . . that is why Paul had to say the depth and riches of Christ are beyond understanding . . . . this is why we worship Him, not our knowledge of Him. . . knowledge fails.
True. I am very secure in my Worship of GOD - with All my Heart, soul, mind and strength...not my own reasonings nor understanding!!!
Okay, but we don't defend ourselves. . . we defend the faith.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
14
29
23
Popular Days
Jan 25
37
Jan 22
20
Jan 31
13
Jan 26
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 13 posts
Oakspear 14 posts
geisha779 29 posts
RainbowsGirl 23 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2009
37 posts
Jan 22 2009
20 posts
Jan 31 2009
13 posts
Jan 26 2009
11 posts
geisha779
But who was Jesus speaking to? Was he speaking to the sinner, the atheist, the pagan? Or was he speaking to those who would oppress others out of their greed for power, money, lust?
You got it. You nailed it!! He was speaking to those who did this in His name. Here is the thing though. . . . those who do this have followers. What is explained about these people in scripture is that they are lead astray. Remember the verse in 2 Timothy that tells us. . . . "always learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". The context is men and women, jumping from one false teaching or cult to another. Without ever coming to a real understanding of God's saving truth in Jesus Christ.
It is their outward form of Christianity and morality that makes them all the more dangerous. People become easy prey for these deceitful false teachers. They are weak in knowledge and weighed down with emotional and spiritual guilt of their sins.
Settling for all the false signs and wonders does not touch the heart or make them whole as Jesus did with the woman at the well.
Yet, do they appear as Christian? These false teachers are SO good at it. . . . the outward appearance. . . they even get into the church. They have Mega Churches!!
People follow their ways. They never come to know the truth, they stop and accept. Which is why Jesus will say on that day. . . . depart I never knew you.
Conversely, in the OT God says do this, do that, concerning sacrifices, but He also told them to prepare their hearts to worship. Seems they could NEVER get this together for very long. . . fair enough?? You asked why God would require human sacrifice?
There was never any remission of sins without blood. . . was there? Didn't God give Adam and Eve animal skins to cover them? Wasn't the whole plan for a perfect and complete sacrifice? This is what is revealed in the OT? Jews understand the purpose of sacrifice and atonement.
Jesus was not only a sacrifice, but a willing sacrifice. Why would God do this? For God so loved the world. . . . God made the perfect and willing sacrifice with the heart of love behind it. He not only showed us how. . . but He did it Himself.
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. . . . . He offered one perfect sacrifice for sins for all time. Something He truly loved. . . the main thing He loved. . . this is my beloved Son. . . what does the word sacrifice mean? What does atone mean? Why Jesus? It was a worthy sacrifice which is able to atone for sin forever. God did this out of a heart of love for us.
It took God Himself to make the sacrifice. . . the effective sacrifice that does not just cover sin. . . it effectively removes it.
It is a gift from a loving God. . . also the reason WE can't boast! LOL
Great is the mystery of Godliness revealed in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up into glory. . . .
I do have a point here. . . it is coming. . . now when I ask you something, you may understand more where I am coming from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Geisha,
I would opine that most (if not all) of us who spent time in TWI were genuinely asking, genuinely seeking. Yet, look where that got us?
Judas didn't betray because he had a passion for God and believed Jesus to be false. Judas betrayed out of greed. Not so very different, perhaps, than VPW or LCM?
On the other hand, many here are where they are today (at least in part) because of what they experienced while in TWI. So to say to George, or Oakspear, or Bramble, or Garth, "you are going to spend eternity in an everlasting hell because you turned your back on God and/or Jesus" . . . .
Well I'm sorry, but I just can't take to that type of doctrine. I would bet money that George, Oakspear, Bramble, Garth . . . they have all at some point or another genuinely sought out God and God's answer appears to to have been TWI???
I believe Oakspear and Bramble have found God. They call Him by names different than I. They worship Him in ways different than I. But I believe it is the same God. That they called and God answered in a way that fit their relationships with him.
Garth, George, they too searched and God answered in a way that fit for them. A way that allows them to be good, decent human beings and function within our society - even if they now call upon the God who is "no god."
I also believe that if, as you would propose, Jesus is the only way - then it will be God's job to show me that. To show Bramble that. To show Garth that. etc. And in the long run, I believe telling people "if you don't believe my way you will go to everlasting hell" doesn't help God to show us anything. I believe it would probably make God's job that much harder to reach people. It sure doesn't turn me on to the notion of Christianity!
But then, I don't believe God will send me or anyone else to an everlasting hell, simply because we found a path to him that differs from yours, or RG, or each other's. I believe hell is reserved for those who are truly hateful and harmful to mankind. And maybe even that isn't the case. Maybe those who are truly hateful and harmful to makind are that way for reasons you and I can never understand, but that God can. Perhaps, God will simply heal them? I don't know. When it comes to those types of Judgments, I can only speculate, I suppose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
By and large, Bingo!! And now, like you, I just can't take to that type of doctrine either, and I've been taking that kind of doctrine for decades now, so I think that I have a better idea of where I'm coming from in that respect than Geisha or RainbowsGirl have any idea about. A lot better.
And if their 'god' can't deal with it without going thru a 'send them to hell/outer regions/whatever' routine, ... well, it doesn't say much for his holiness now, does it. <_<
:lol: "Hey No God! Yeah dude, I'm talking to ya!" Good one, Abi. That made my day. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Garth,
I have never made this personal. If you feel that way I am sorry. It is a discussion about the Christian doctrine of eternal punishment according to scripture. I make no judgements on you or your life. I imagine you to be a nice man. I certainly do not have all the answers. . . I have never claimed to. It is just a discussion. . .
Abi,
And this brings us back to pluralism, perhaps. If I say I have a relationship with God and you say you have a relationship with Jesus, is it not possible we both have a relationship with the same being, but simply assign different names? If Oakspear or Bramble have relationships with several gods, is it not possible they actually have a relationship with one and the same God, but for whatever reason, they view the different aspects of God as different dieties?
I used to have a tag line that said something to the effect of "all the gods are but one god." It was a paraphrase from a line in one of my favorite novels. It goes back to labels and rituals, which are but forms and fashions to help our human minds understand that which we otherwise cannot understand. I think God is much bigger than the human labels, forms, and rituals we assign, but He understands our human frailty and "winks" at it, so to speak.
You are a very pragmatic thinker Abi, I say this with a little bit of confidence given your worldview. Very much a postmodern philosophy. Would you agree? I don't want to assume anything and can only go by what you tell me.
Would you say that you reject the idea of a comprehensive or authoritative worldview being within reach? You are a bright woman so I assume you understand what postmodernism is. . . a less rational worldview that opts for a cluster or cobbling together of ideas. Postmodernists often believe that to claim a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. That it is arrogant.
Narratives used to describe reality as a whole. . . the bible for instance. . . have to be deconstructed? Broken down until they have no authoritative meaning? Meaning they become subjective? Does any of this sound like your thought process? Or am I wrong? Wouldn't be the first time.
The reason I ask is that it is evident in your answers to me. It is a paticular philosophy that one could describe . . . as reactionary to another thought process. It never surprizes me on these forums. It makes perfect sense to me in terms of faith. . . .given our shared history. Most movements in history are reactions to something.
I really do respect your intellect so. . . I wanted to ask you a few things. If you want to answer. . . I would love it. . . if not, I get it.
Do you consider logic as something which is arbitrary? Correct reasoning not attainable? I bet you know that logic. . . is approached with basic laws. . . not unlike our laws in society. A kind of set of rules to follow. . . If want to get somewhere and you go in the opposite direction, logically you are not going to make it to your destination. . . right?
Your above post makes me think of the law of noncontradiction. P is not nonP
Can something be true for me and not for you? Or is it true and not true at the same time? Or is it true and we don't believe it? Does truth change with the person or is truth a reality that is unchangeable with perception? What do you think? Can you believe that blue is a color and not a color at the same time? Is the moon made of cheese because I believe it is?
Truth has to be a match up to a reality Abi. It is by its nature not subjective. Do you agree with this? Or, am I wrong? I have been waiting for months for someone to bring up the blind men and the elephant. :)
So, how can there be so many truths? The very idea contradicts what the bible states. That leaves it an either or proposition. Either we conform our beliefs to the reality of God in the bible. . . or we do as it states and cobble our own belief system from many paths and parts.
Now, here is the problem with that. What is the reality? Where does the actual object i.e, God, intersect. Still with me? Relativism and postmodernism is much too selective for logic. It leaves behind the reality of objective truth.
How does human wisdom become sufficent enough to attain a spiritual knowledge of God?
All that a belief in all paths lead to God does. . . is negate any path as true.
Even the relativist believes that those who don't agree with them are . . . . . wrong or put more politely "Misguided".
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, He claimed He was the only way to the Father. . . . anybody who says this is either a liar or telling the truth. There is no excluded middle. Any attempt is a weak argument. . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
somewhat
sorry to interrupt...i hope we can be civil
but for what its worth...
postmodernism is not pre-rational
but post-rational
it is not a subjective perspective
but more of an inter-objective one
(where our subjective perspectives are becoming objects)
which may be mistakenly considered less-rational
for having moved beyond the natural limits of logic
but there is a common fallacy that mistakenly equates pre- and post-
simply for being non-
which is why rational thinkers typically cant tell the difference
...
and yes...like all development...the emergence of postmodernity has new problems along with new gifts
a few of its faults are
a rejection of all hierarchy...even natural growth hierarchies...while hypocritically claiming to be above other worldviews
...which is also a part of why post-modernity can do nothing against ego-centricity in social orders..."how dare you judge someone else"
but a few gifts of postmodernity...social and civil rights and equality...ethnic and cultural diversity ...and an open inclusive heart
and a capacity to use language more fluidly than previous waves...and so a capacity to hold and compare conflicting views
... digging deeper for personal definitions...becoming in touch with the vast contextual networks and influences that we are swimming in
in a way...postmodernism is like the later stages of life where we need to deconstruct and dismantle our unconcious habits and influences
...logic and reason aside...we are running out of time and want to reveal what is authentic and unique about us
as we become more and more self aware
and even though postmodernity has never been so mainstream until the last century
the great interfaith movements of history rode in on the emergence of a pluralist wave
some people of religion were able to relax their death-grip on language and gross reduction
and compare spiritual with spiritual so that they might find common ground
...ushering in many centuries of peace and good will
(yes...500 years of christian, jew and muslim collaboration to create europe's first hospitals
...why dont they tell this story in the middle east peace process?)
...
personally...i prefer what comes after post-modernism/pluralism
and cant wait for our society to grow past this post-modern funk
...if nothing else...so we can finally talk about human development
and how to stop putting childlike adults in executive positions
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
back on topic
the subjective pre-modernist might say..."i personally know for sure that hell is absolutely an otherworldy place for justice in the afterlife"
the objective modernist might say..."hell is a baby covered in napalm"
the inter-objective post-modernist might simply ask..."what does hell mean to each of us...and where did we learn such things?"
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Glad you liked it, Garth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well said, Abi
btw...to a nondual rabbi...the glass is not only both half full and half empty
...but also both fully full and fully empty
if one can wade through the jargon and odd names...this article on Postmodern Christianity might be interesting
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
geisha...i know you are asking abi these things...but it is a public forum...so i hope you dont mind me playing a little here
no...this is not logical if you are talking about "going somewhere" along the surface of the earth
because you will eventually reach your destination...once you make it all the way around the globe
but yeah...it is logical if you are talking about a true straight line (if there is such a thing) ...so that you leave the earth's atmosphere and keep going forever
...unless of course the universe somehow works in a way that and you still end up coming full circle anyway
but even on paper...if you drew a line, then kept drawing the line as you flipped the page...then flipped the page again...
so you see why postmodernism asks "what do you mean by "go"?" ...and logically accepts your answer as the truth behind what you are saying ...on this occasion, at least
(rather than tells you what the word "go" is absolutely supposed to mean according to some law or logic...regardless of what you really meant when you said it)
postmodernism attempts to make some sort of object out of our subjectivity...by compassionate inquiry...the specialty of pluralism
...thus, we are able to compare our subjectivities in the light of day...and otherwise "see" each other...becoming "naked" by revealing our interiors
:o
the one big Truth (God, who is All in All..and IN whom we live and move and have our being) is full of many Truths
..."the One and the Many"...infinite wholes and parts unfolding and changing as we type ...all living and moving within The Whole Truth
...and one's subjective perspective is also a true reality in the universe..and must be included in the grand equation as "a truth"
(and not mistaken for The Whole Truth)
but the one big whole ultimate Truth is hard to miss...impossible to fully describe
because IT includes everything...all truths
but what we call it and how we describe and define and interpret our experience of IT is a different matter altogether
...which is a value of postmodern, relativist, and pluralist methodology
they recognize that the words we use in science are not the same as the thing/s which the science describes
the words in the bible are not the same as the thing/s which the bible describes
the words of aristotle are not the same as thing/s which aristotle describes
God has a name beyond all names
and "all men are liars"
so deconstruction allows us to detach the language we use from that which the language is pointing at
and become aware of the limitations of any one language-set
we may even become free indeed
to find new words to match new perspectives as they arise in our life
a new tongue
yet, of course, the absolute Truth (and truths) remain
as the objectivist knows
which is something postmodernists do tend to forget
as they get lost in the re-interpretations of IT
and are still smarting from whatever failures of modernity shattered their faith in it
but what also often happens prior to postmodernism
...is that we simply cannot bring ourselves to detach from the language we use to interpret our experience of the Truth (and all its infinite truths)
even the rational/objective ones often claim that the only absolute logical right way to define a thing is such and such
...often pointing to the words and books and classifications of some expert or specialist that they have come to trust
our sense of self is, in a sense, informed by an inner encyclopedia of symbols...and our anchor for meaning-making
so we may even feel our life is being somehow threatened to change the words we use...or if faced with alien words for God and truth and such
it may even feel like a sort of hell if someone provides information that causes us to have to rebuild our inner temple
our capacity to deconstruct is something we have to develop...we are not born with it
though sometimes the grace and grit of life simply forces us to burn our old inner book and start afresh
though there are also times when it is not really a choice we have to make
like Abi said...that is a common statement....anyone can say such a thing...why they say it is not an object...unless we find a way to transform subject into object
which, in the case of a historic Jesus...is difficult, at best
from everything i have come to understand about abraham and such from jewish wisdom...when Jesus said he was the only way to the father
...it was like saying "I AM is the only way to the Father, no one sees the Father but through I AM"
...which is a generic but profound statement of the perennial contemplative spiritual experience.
and as he was likely the only one on the gospel scene who was teaching and demonstrating and living this kind of reality/good news...this statement is true in that context as well
this ancient art and practice of realizing "I AMness" is "how human wisdom becomes sufficent enough to attain a spiritual knowledge of God"
though if we believe that only Jesus could say "before Abraham was...I AM"
such a statement from me or anyone else may seem blasphemous...does not fit our inner dictionary
...even though it really is old news to the world
such as how i've heard it described that when Jacob "saw God's face"
..it was as if he looked out from "the inside" of God's face...as if he wore God's face like a mask
...though he interpreted the experience in his pre-modern language
the more we bring the layers of our subjective perspective into our objective awareness
the more inwardly objective we become...and the deeper and wider our subjective position becomes
until all that is left is "I AM"
...or "God as my Witness"
or "God as my capacity to Witness"
so that all the layers of our mind and soul and heart and body are experienced as objects in this Spirit
like Abi wrote...
yet ALL manifestation occurs in this radical infinite space and grace called The Spirit of God
and as such...and is described as the manifestation of this Spirit of God...even though this Spirit of God need not "act" in order to cause such
...simply Being is enough
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Fear unites...
Hell is a concept created by despots and tyrants to scare people into blind submission.
They take human frailties and change the vernacular and call it evil.
Thus our errors are not simply human weakness but are repackaged and perceived as “spiritual” in nature.
Out of this fear of hell people blindly accept error to free themselves from something purely imagined.
All because we have this evolutionary “god spot” in the brain telling us we are feeling a “presence” of something.
We have self preservation tendencies that we egotistically translate into a desire for eternal life….
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Sirguessalot,
I am happy to speak with you, but you may find the answers to questions in the post to Abi. I do have to say this. I read in your first post that you are looking forward to the next school of thought. I think that you don't have to wait, you are leading the charge to usher it in. :) If you do not exemplify postmodernism. . . . no one on this forum does. But, you are growing on me.
Abi
Pragmatic I would go with. Postmodern I don't know. I am not sure I understand what that means. ah, okay you are explaining it below. I will read on.
Okay, I think I have just been insulted - less rational, really?
No, never would I insult you with words or deeds Abi. Never intentionally and never with malice.. . . let me see if I can explain. Words have specific meaning and when I used the descriptive word rationally, it was within the bounds of a philosophical discussion. Not a personal slight.
I would not claim that having a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. I think it CAN be used that way, but it doesn't HAVE to be used that way. Do I think it is arrogant? hmmmm sometimes, perhaps, but not always. I guess I would say it isn't the notion I find arrogant so much as it is what people sometimes do with it?
Okay, let's really look at this statement here. . . :) One of the reasons I really like what you post here is your honesty. Another, is your moral code. It appears to me that you will say what you think is right over what you think others want to hear. That takes some conviction to your ethics and courage. I have read out some of the drama here. I have even rolled in the mud. . . . It can be intense.
But, when I first started posting here, you and I had specific conversations. What was it I had to convince you of concerning my world view? I understand that you may not remember, but it was that I was not a religious elitist. That was your choice of wording. Your first assumption about me was that given my world view. . . I was an elitist. You and I have worked backwards from that perspective.
In fact, I can refer to your post on this forum to RainbowsGirl only a page or so back. What was it you were trying to tell her? She is certainly not trying to dominate the forums with her statements concerning her faith. She simply started a thread based on an article I sent her once.
Her worldview and yours collide on the very basis we are discussing. Your reaction was to tell her, albeit in a gentle way. . . she sounded arrogant. You may or may not have been posting the majority opinion, but what you surmised was based on what you hold as your worldview.
If what you say is you don't find the notion arrogant, but what people do with it the problem. Then what was it RG did that was so problemtic? She is making a statement based on her understanding of Christian doctrine. . . it is a widely held conviction based on scripture in the NT. . . she has not cobbled this out of thin air, but bases it on a rational view of scripture. In other words. . . she adapts her beliefs to fit with those of the bible.
When it collides with what you hold as conviction. . . it sounds arrogant? I always wondered if it is not more about self in that respect than conviction. RG's worldview does not validate yours or others. You have sized her up on this basis and found her statements lacking. It is unavoidable. She does the same to you, but does it based on scripture, that she believes to be authoritative.
I have to tell you, I don't beleive the "cluster or cobbling together of ideas is less rational. Rather, it is MORE rational. It makes sense to think through ideas and keep the ones that work, while disgarding those that don't. It seems to me less rational to simply accept a cluster of ideas, merely because they are lumped together.
Well, you may be VERY right when it comes to baking, or car mechanics, or something like child rearing. Granted. But, when we come to issues concerning faith. . . we run into a problem there. The reason we have a problem is faith claims something outside itself as the authoritative source. Take the bible for example. It claims within itself to be inspired by God. It claims within itself to be true. It is a narrative concerning God's interaction with mankind. To take what you believe to be true and discard the rest. . . to deconstruct it. . . attempts to render it unathoritative. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. . . . authoritative on whatever it speaks, not only on the things that we like.
See the problem? When we cherry pick our faith. . . we are saying that no text has authority or single meaning that corresponds with a reality. Classic postmodern thinking. You become the arbiter of truth. Also, nailed in the bible.
But, I have to ask you something in all sincerity. . . . consider, if God is a reality. . . meaning, He is and futhermore. . . He is AS He is. . . . meaning a reality of characteristics . . . . and in one book He says. . . I am like this. . . my name is. . . I want you to obey me and do this. . . I change not. . . there is only ONE way to me. . . . and in another God is portrayed in a contradictory manner. . . my name is this. . . any way to get to me is okay. . . obey me this other opposing way. . . .and each book claims to be all true. . . what happens when we pick what we like and leave the rest? Have we not just designed a God to suit our liking?
Have we not just discarded something that claims to be true in favor of something we like better? Moreover, what reality does our truth correspond to? Are we believing in something whole and real outside of ourselves. . . or believing in our own selves?
Logically it is an either or proposition. You can't get around it. . . unless you design your own God. The bible prohibits this. It is called idolatry. It is specifically addressed and forbidden. Quite frankly, I question the logic of a designer God. . . one who refects our own selves. . . I am looking for the object who matches the reality, not creating one.
As a woman of faith, I put my finite self into the hands of an infinite God. He proclaims Himself in the bible, but never defends Himself. Have you ever wondered about that?
Well, no it isn't actually my thought process. I may do that, but it isn't some conscious process. However, when you get to describing reality as a whole, well I do believe reality as a whole is largely subjective. Put a 1/2 a glass of water in front of a group of kids and ask them if it is half empy or half full. Some will tell you half empty and that is their reality. Others will tell you half full and that truly is their reality. A few really good thinkers will tell you it is both half empty and half full and thus you have your pluralism.
Abi, that is a wonderful illustration for a bunch of kids and glass of water. . . . but we are talking about a specific reality, a being, who has made specific revelations about Himself. In other words He has told us the reality of the glass being half full. It has been defined for us. I have blue eyes. . . I can slap some green contacts on, but I still have blue eyes. That reality does not change. If something is round. . . it is not square at the same time? I may not like round, but it is round. Defined, descriptive and understood as the reality.
T
he bible says it is inspired by God. . . a revelation of Himself to man. . . if true. . . it's specifics concerning who He is are true. . . No? How can it possibly be that if it is true. . . it is not true for everyone? What we understand or choose to believe does not reality make. I can choose to believe I am 5' 10" and chronologically 21 years old. Not the reality. I like the idea better. . . but I am 5' 5" and older than 21 :) . Moreover, the bible states that God does not change. In it He states. . . I am that I am. He does not state, I am what you want me to be.
The bible clearly covers man's rebellion towards God's authority. . . over and over again--ad nauseum in fact. What does one rebell against? Authority right? Rebellion can have many faces. . . it is still rebellion. Could you not call redefining something clearly defined as rebellion?
It isn't reactionary, Geisha. If anything, it has far more to do with my upbringing and the core of who I am, than my experience with TWI. A non-practicing Jewish father who labels himself athiest and views all religion as a crutch. A non-practicing Jewish mother who most definitely believed in God, but didn't follow any particular relgious beliefs and rarely discussed the subject with me. A small Christian community where I was the outsider because I was Jewish (yet during the brief time I attended Catechism I was always well studied and prepared to answer the questions). One side of the family who viewed Judasim as more of a political movement than a religous one, very socialistic and liberal. Another side of the family who wouldn't eat pork or say the word God (he was always "the man upstairs" or "the big guy."). One side of the family wealthy, upperclass (and ironically they were the liberal socialists). The other side, lower class and more conservative. In sum, I was raised with contradiction and contrast in almost every way.
I have always believed in God for as far back as I can remeber. I have also always questioned what religious groups taught. With the exception of my years in TWI, if it didn't seem logical and/or loving to me, I rejected it regardless of who taught it.
Abi, I can relate on many levels to your journey. I don't judge it. But, I have to ask you. . . what God do you believe in? The one who acts and behaves in a manner you consider loving? As a finite being, could it not be, we don't always understand what the true loving thing is? That God's ways are above our ways? That there is a greater, higher purpose at work? Stands to reason, that if we are not omtipotent, and He is. . . He might have an edge. If you tell your child they can't play in the street, they could be hurt, but they think it is okay. . . are you being unloving? Or are you being more loving? It also stands to reason that we can surely believe that God exists. . . without believing in Him.
When one decides what is or is not loving. . . that is a declaration of what God should be. . . not the other way around. That is fine. But, when the bible says that God willingly sacrificed His Son. . . for us. . .and one rejects this based on what they consider loving or tolerable. . . it is based on a feeling. All authority of scripture is discarded for our own way. No? If the bible says A, B, and C are all true and we don't like A or B, but C is okay with us, so it is true for us. . . how reliable is B? Not very.
Logic I understand quite well, Geisha. Logically is simply the mathmatics of words. I have studied logic. I have also studied religion, psychology and a bit of philosophy I was really a geeky kid. I used to read my mother's college psych books when I was in junior high, while other kids were out doing whatever it is kids did in junior high back then.
I was less studious I am afraid. However, logic is more than simply the mathematics of words. . . . There are laws to logic. Identity, P is P--noncontradiction--P is not non P--excluded middle either P or non P.
If I say it is snowing. . . you know what that means. It is a true statement (if it IS snowing). It is a statement applied to the reality? No? Everything is itself and not something else. . . snowing is identified.
If I say "It is snowing". . . that cannot be true and untrue. . . it may not be snowing where you are, but that does not mean it can snow and not snow in the same place at the same time.
It is snowing. . . . is a statement that is true or false.
These are fundemental laws governing reality. Can't get around them without creating your own reality.
If you really consider, to deny them is self-refuting. They are what is assumed in scripture.
As I said earlier, logic is the mathmatic of words. Words are used to communicate ideas. Ideas, however, are not so concrete, neither is perception (glass half empty or half full ). So yes, I do believe something can be true for you and not for me. No, I don't see that as illogical. It is true that I like really hot, spicy food. That is true for me. It is also true that other people do not. Much of reality is based on perception and perception is extremely subjective.
Is God a reality or an idea?
I think you are wrong, Geisha, as I explained above. Now certainly, some facts match up to a reality for everyone. Truth, on the other hand, is very much subjective. Here's an extreme example, but I think it communicates well. My older son has sensory processing issues. Particularly when he was younger, some of the sensory signals to his brain would get jumbled. So, if you touched him softly he was likely to turn around and attack you because he perceived that he was being attacked (he really loved firm touch, though). The fact was, he was only being tapped softy on the shoulder by another student. The truth as he perceived it, however, was that the other student attacked him first.
You have about the cutest kids I have seen. Truly. . you are a lovely family. Is it the truth that changes with our perception. . . was your son actually attacked? The law of identity defines an attack as specific. We know what an attack is. Right?
Was the person who gently touched him attacking? As defined. . . as we know the reality of an attack? No,
Do you see at all, the logical fallacy here. . . . His perception did not make the reality of the gentle touch an attack. . . He percieved it as such, it was his reality. But, an attack is specific. . . a gentle touch is specific. . . The law of non contradiction Abi. . . it is not an attack and a gentle touch at the same time. . . they are two different things.
Geisha, have you ever considered that if you had been born in a different country or to different parents, you would probably completely reject the notion that the Bible is God's Word? I don't believe the Bible is black and white, either/or. I don't believe God is either. I think God will use any name, any tool that is available, to communicate with us. He is YWHW, right? He will become what He will become?
Classic postmodern argument . . . . text book. Truth as defined in a cultural --social and linguistic construction. It serves a specific purpose. I get it. No objective reality beyond our cultural boundries. Reality described differently. But, what if there IS a God's eye view and an objective reality?
This understanding of cultural truth. . . it is what scripture opposes. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. Social customs or personal opinions. . . do not create truth. When the bible says Jesus is Lord. . .you perceive that as a Christian tradition and cultural language. . . . I get that. . . . the bible. . . . claims it as truth about an objective reality. Truth with a corresponding object.
Which is why. . . when someone comes on these forums. . . and expresses Jesus is the only way to God. . . they are expressing an objective reality. Not that they are better. . . . NO. . . they are saying. . . there actually is no other way to God. No other path will get you there. . . He is the only way to the Father. Not that it is the elite way. . . or their favorite way. . . or the fun way. . . or even the pretty way. . .
Why? How can we do that? Because the bible proclaims itself to be true, and to be authoritative. If it is. . . people have a problem. . . . if not, I am just a misguided jerk and it is all good. When we cherry pick what we like. . . we lose any universal standard or objective reality. We create our own. . .
I am banking on the revelation of God revealed in scripture. . . whether I like it or not. My reality conforms to something outside myself. . . which claims the authority of reality. . . not my own idea of it. . . .and. . . it is not like I have not examined the evidence or other faiths. The bible is unique in its continuity, circulation, translation, teaching, influence and survivability.
One of the strongest testaments to the God of the bible. . . is the Jewish people. A great nation out of Abraham. YEP. A dispersed people. I am a historian by nature and education. . . in each place the Jews have been. . . they have been driven out. Usually because they prospered. Wandering for 1900 years. Persecuted, from everywhere. Look at the Holocaust. But, what is utterly amazing is . . . Israel. . . reborn on May 14, 1948. Through all of this. . . they have neither perished. . . or lost their national identity. 5 generations is about as far as people get before they disappear without a home. Unique and special people.
Why am I not Jewish? Because I am one of the gentiles the bible speaks of. . . who was grafted in. . . you know the rest. :)
Abi, I appreciate the time and the honesty. . . I anticipated your responses. . . in truth, I could have written them for you. As you may have gathered. . . I have thought these things out once or twice. It is not like I do not understand your perspective. . . I just cannot embrace it. Doesn't mean I can't embrace you though. . . . :) It never means that.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
And here is a problem with communication Geisha.
While I will agree this to be in true in part,
it certainly is not the whole.
Cause without what is inside,
that faith,
then there is none.
In fact the subjective and objective will meet.
The inner faith and the faith that meets us.
When these come together they are one.
So the problem with communication is one pointing to something outside of themselves exclusively, and not willing to explore that which is within.
Overall, and generally speaking, herein lies the problem of actual interaction and experiencing faith that is with substance within and all around us.
If it's solely from an outside source that faith is based on,
then all wars and murders and rapes and all vileness is justified.
Justified by faith in an outside source alone,
keeps one from getting their hands dirty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
That is true to a degree and I do agree. On these forums I am very careful not to overly express what I have internalized. Imagine if you will. . . . look at what happened when I said I prayed for someone's health.
But, I am spent. . . logic talk takes it out of you. . . so I do agree with your point. . . . to a point.
Thanks. . . . I have, as usual taken up a great deal of this thread. . . . which RG started. So, I will let it be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Not trying to run you off Geisha.
Whatever the praying thing was about don't really matter.
Posts here are not held against you by the many I know.
This is why there needs to be conversation and not hurling posts.
Like I don't like quoting another, though I did with your post because of it's length.
I do think conversations can flow easier without quoting each other.
It makes it seem like we are stuck in what we said, which we are not,
rather then able to be flexible, perhaps change the mind or not,
that don't matter either.
And that's all I had to say about what you said.
Right or wrong don't matter.
Considering does, to see from another pov.
That takes some sacrifice.
And I suppose sometimes the whole post needs to be quoted to insert comments because of it's length or depth. But I still don't believe they should be held against us. But speaking from the heart is courage, to lay one's life out to another. And be able to handle whatever comes.
So anyways....stick around, listen for what you need to hear.
That happens when speaking from the heart,
Listening and speaking, these will stir things others won't see.
It's no accident to be here or where ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Geisha,
I hope your response to Cman was not an indication that you are ready to walk away from this thread altogether. I have been enjoying our conversation. I only wish we lived closer together and could sit down over coffee with a couple of Bibles. I miss those early days in TWI when I got together with a couple of friends and searched the scripture - back before it was required that we become locked in with head quarters and could only speak of those things that came out of hq and had to agree on top of everything else!
Okay, I'm going to try to respond within your post. I'll go with purple this time, because I am trying to leave the context intact. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Abi,
We just got home from a prison!! LOL An hour and a half away from us. Someday, maybe I can share with you a bit about what I do. I quickly checked in and read your answers and I gotta tell you. . . I loved them.
I did find a great deal in there to relate to and would like to explore it a bit more. I think you nailed some things. So, give me a day or so. I am still working on a bit of Roman's for us all to explore from varying viewpoints.
Well done Abi, you make me proud!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
RG,
That was nicely stated. Let me ask you a question. When you read that we are to give an answer with meekness and fear. . . . what does that mean? When you say the spiritual battle between man and God is to believe the SCRIPTURES as true or not. . . . what does that mean?
Isn't what happens sometimes. . . .is that a Christian can ending up preaching the scriptures instead of preaching what is in them? Isn't a Christian really suppose to share their faith about Jesus?
The bible is our source. . . .but not our source of hope. It is what is written within. It is the reality behind the words. Sometimes, especially when people have been abused with the scriptures. . . they are angry about them. No? Make sense?
Paul reasoned with people from OUT of the scriptures. . . he didn't reason the scriptures with them. Acts 17. . . he identified to reason with them.
Jesus actually had to reprove the Pharisees for their worshipping of the laws or the SCRIPTURES. . . He reproved them for missing the whole point.
They were angry people who passed alot of judgements while reciting long strings of passages.
Conversly, the woman at the well, even she could recite scripture(The law). Jesus had to declare who He was to her. . . to gently and tenderly show her that she was missing it. The main point of the story and His confrontation with the pharisees was I AM.
The worship of God not only has to be consistent with scripture, but it must be centered on the word made flesh who revealed the Father. Jesus didn't say the bible is the way -- the --truth--the life. . . . He said He was.
This in NO way discredits the "Word" but it places worship in its proper position. . . on a person, not leather and ink.
Before an attorney can try a case, they have to build a case. . . sometimes this can be a lengthy process. . . it can even begin with the credibility of the evidence. That can be a detailed process. If we are trying to win a case. . . we have to understand what it is we are trying to defend.
With the gospel. . . it is that the bible is true. . . and that we just have to believe it? Is that really what the gospel is?
It is the message contained within. That this is God's plan for humanity. We can actually tell this story, without quoting a single verse. And sometimes we even have to begin with the reasonableness of one truth. Sometimes we have to begin sharing the gospel by looking at a thought process and what truth is? MAke sense?
I think that to present a loving God to someone who has been in a situation like we all have. . . . we have to love them, respect that they differ, and reason out why WE accept these things to be true. Not just that they are. Call me crazy.
Man's great spiritual battle with God, is not that the bible is true. . . it is if they accept Jesus as Lord to accept a relationship with Him. That they accept Jesus as the only way.
But the whole point is. . . . God so LOVED the world that He did this. It is a stunning story with great hope and depth and staggering sacrifice. It really is the greatest story ever told. What is important is the meaning of it. . . . the heart behind it. . . . the author of the book.
Consider this. . . we can end up worshipping our knowledge of God limited to what we have been able to grasp thus far in our study of the word. . . . that is why Paul had to say the depth and riches of Christ are beyond understanding . . . . this is why we worship Him, not our knowledge of Him. . . knowledge fails.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
To add: Man's basic spiritual problem is that they don't believe the integrity of God's word?
How about. . . . if you continue in my word. . . . you are my disciples indeed. He that is of God, hears Gods words. . . . you hear them not because you are not of God.
The bible was written FOR the believer, not the disbeliever. . . .
Man's basic spiritual problem according to SCRIPTURE is that they love the darkness rather than light. Jesus wasn't rejected because He was a lousy bible teacher. . . He wowed em with the scriptures. . . people want to go their own way.
The rich young ruler quoted the scriptures to Jesus. . . verbatim as a matter of fact, he knew they were true. . . He believed. . . but He didn't want to follow Jesus at the expense of his own way.
The bible has been quoted and known for centuries. . . it isn't until the last hundred years and the advent of postmodern thinking that the idea of an objective truth has been questioned. . . the bible has been a respected book. Thomas Jefferson KNEW the bible. . . loved it so much. . . he made his own version. . . BUT, he missed the point.
What was the problem of the eunuch? That he didn't respect the scriptures? No. . . the eunuch's problem was "what is the point of the scriptures?".
VP's problem wasn't that he was a plagiarist. . . . it was that he WRONG. And this BTW, is how we all came to worship the bible. . . always God and His word. . . the word, the word, and nothing but the word. . . where is Jesus in this litany? Where is the reality behind "The Word?"
WHY are God's ways perfect and better than our own. . . cause the bible says so? We are defenders of the FAITH, not a book.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
It means to give an answer with meekness and fear, knowing that the whole of GOD cannot even be contained in His Word...How often I have spoken of His LOVE, Grace and mercy and Forgiveness. Recognizing that all have fallen short of the glory of GOD, To All he shows His Love and All have feelings and have been abused and continue to be abused in many hurtful ways...Including me!!!. It means to choose to believe GOD by knowing Him and having a relationship with Him; to believe His testimony, the evidence of His Word both written and practised; or to believe as you choose to believe or to define GOD as you choose to define Him. The battle is saying what GOD testifies of Himself is alterable to what You choose and that it is okay to alter ones own perception of His Word or GOD; that he doesn't care if we do this...that His integrity is within the questionings, standards and judgments of mankind.
RG, I don't even understand this. How does one know? How does one choose to believe God by KNOWING Him? Don't we believe first and then see then know Him? Isn't that the paradox? Isn't it why we defend our faith in Him? We don't defend the book. We can put forth the reasonable case for why it is a believable testimony. . . what is that? Is it the relevance, uniqueness, cannon, reliability, prophecy, historical and archaeological evidence. Sometimes it takes going back that far. . . No?
Now, why would the battle get as far as saying that what God's testimony of Himself is alterable? Because it is our nature to make our own way. . . to reject His way?. . . a good apologist will defend His way. That can take time and patience. Don't you agree?
It isn't wrong to preach, or to teach, or to pastor, or to walk in Love, grace forgiveness and empathy. etc...in full knowledge that GOD alone is the ONLY Righteous Judge. It is a God given responsibility. Preaching, teaching, pastoring and sharing are all essential if done in GOD's LOVE.
I never said otherwise but to be straight, we pastor the flock.
I have always had a loving relationship with GOD even when I knew nothing much about him, I knew not to blame Him. I knew to trust Him. I knew that He is my Heavenly Father and that He is more Loving, Wise, All knowing and capable than I or anyother man could ever totally understand!!! Within the relation with Him, He has taught me with His Love, by His demonstrated example and with scripture. Only in a relationship of Love do you truly see a heart. As pointed out this is a forum for discussion of many diverse viewpoints and beliefs. I know only what they express to me, although I give their hearts, lives and experiences much Love and respect...whether it is seen or not seen. Often that is far more than I receive back. I give my best in Love!!!
RG, YOU didn't do any of these things. God did. The glory and praise belongs to Him for your witness and testimony. . . not you. You and I. . . . we were never good enough or pure enough or righteous or MEEK enough to know these things on our own. If that is the case, God did that for you. Jews believe children are born pure. . . Christians believe we are fallen. We don't find Him. . . He finds us.
Paul reasoned with people from OUT of the scriptures. . . he didn't reason the scriptures with them. Acts 17. . . he identified to reason with them.
I do both!!!
Well, that's great then. But, God declares Himself in scripture, never defends His integrity. . . . We defend our faith in Him. . . the gospel message, God's integrity needs no defense.
Jesus actually had to reprove the Pharisees for their worshiping of the laws or the SCRIPTURES. . . He reproved them for missing the whole point.
They were angry people who passed a lot of judgments while reciting long strings of passages.
I don't worship the Word of GOD. I worship GOD!!!
Are you a Pharisee? Because if you are not. . . then I don't know why you would defend an accusation against them?
Depending upon the circumstance Jesus Christ and His apostles and disciples did both, by example, demonstration and quoting scritures... It is written...He preached the word, He taught the Word, and demonstrated the Word. He send out His disciples to do the same and to pastor them in Love. He held them accountable in the responsibilities he gave them as well!!!
He is the word. He declared God. He taught from the scripture concerning Himself.
That is a heavy accusation to lay at anyone's feet. If You are alluding that I worship leather and ink; I can defend myself and say that I don't. I am known by my fruits which you may or may not see. GOD knows and that is enough for me!!!
We all worshipped the bible in TWI, that is what it was. . . . bible worship. I didn't say you are doing this now. . . . did I ?
True by GOD and Jesus Christ are Supercedant and Superior to any of man's abilities and not under the same limited constraints; and even this is based on need, circumstances and conditions and the member of the body of Christ's particular abilities, knowledge and experiences. We ALL are imperfect, we all fall short...that is why we are not appointed judges...too big and too important a job for any man to even consider. Only GOD is perfect and judges absolutely rightly!!!
I have NO idea what this means. . . does it mean we never speak? Converse? Reason? What? God's integrity is NEVER the question. . . EVER. . . we defend the GOSPEL to the best of our ability? God doesn't need US to defend Him or His integrity. . . it is without question
With the gospel. . . it is that the bible is true. . . and that we just have to believe it? Is that really what the gospel is?
It is in part that and the example and demonstration of GOD's Love!!!
The love of God is demonstrated through the message of the gospel. . . that God so loved the world. . . or that God reconciled the world unto Himself. . . if this is not the case. . . we end up arguing about words and lose the message.
Sometimes!!! But without the knowledge where is wisdom and understanding to even know!!!
What do you think beginning with the idea of one truth is. . . not knowledge? Not understanding? What is your point? Could it not be wisdom to begin where someone is and converse from there? Isn't that what God did with us?
I think presenting a whole GOD is even greater and even more necessary and even more timely!!!
I don't even know what this means? YOU don't know a whole God. . . we know in part. . . we know the gospel. We preach Christ. Why God so loved the world through Him. It is the WHOLE point of the bible. Our hope is to be fixed on Him not our great knowledge of semantics. . . otherwise we quibble about WORDS
Without evidence and testimony it can certainly be perceived as only a story, only a doctrine,only a religion, etc.....
Which is why we present the evidence. But, that can be a long road. It can begin with a defining of one truth, can't it? If one cannot even accept the logic of objective truth, to defend our faith, don't we begin there? So, how do you jump right in to do the impossible and present a "Whole" God. Just say, the bible says it. . . I believe it. . . that settles it? Where is the reasoning from the scripture there?
Consider this. . . we can end up worshiping our knowledge of God limited to what we have been able to grasp thus far in our study of the word. . . . that is why Paul had to say the depth and riches of Christ are beyond understanding . . . . this is why we worship Him, not our knowledge of Him. . . knowledge fails.
True. I am very secure in my Worship of GOD - with All my Heart, soul, mind and strength...not my own reasonings nor understanding!!!
Okay, but we don't defend ourselves. . . we defend the faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.