Athanasius, don't you have to be Christ size to wear Christ's pants. What is the point in putting somebody on if you don't fit his skin. Does Christ offer you an image of God for you to immulate, or does he offer you polish for your mirror. What does it mean that we were created in his image? With a the perfect mirror, is there one thing or two?
I guess you all missed the story on CNN. There was not enough of God's blessing to go around, so what blessings they could muster up are being given away via the Publisher's Clearing House SweepStakes. Makes you wish you had not thrown that envelope away, yes?
<< Athanasius, don't you have to be Christ size to wear Christ's pants. What is the point in putting somebody on if you don't fit his skin. >>
Why does the little boy dress up like a fireman? Because he hopes to be one someday.
There are two kinds of "putting on." One is hypocritical and so very adult-like while the other encapsules the naked brilliance of the child. I can say, "Well, it is pointless for me to be like Christ because I am not like Christ."
Or I can say, "I know I am not like Christ, but I want to be. " Sometimes the best way to actually become something is to act like you already are that thing. As long as I talk about laws and religion, I can find plenty of ground with the best of humanity. But I won't find Christ that way. I won't find the Logos, or Meaning, or the Way, or whatever I might call Him. In Christ, I see God's goal for humanity. I see, in one man, the architect's design unfold. And I like what I see.
I am the boy who wants to be a fireman someday, so I pretend to be one now. Maybe someday the pretense will become a reality. If not, then I am still a boy having fun (and boys take their fun quite seriously), which gives more meaning to life than all of the scientist's theories.
<< Does Christ offer you an image of God for you to immulate, or does he offer you polish for your mirror? What does it mean that we were created in his image? With a the perfect mirror, is there one thing or two? >>
I am not sure what you mean here. What does it mean to be created in God's image? I think it means we were created to think, because God is the Great Thinker. My heart tells me we exist to feel, because God has a Great Heart. I should choose the right thing because God always chooses the Right Thing.
Christ is the Image of the Invisible God. He is the Infinite putting on the garment of matter.
I am its opposite in a truly mirror-image sense: I am matter trying to be reconnected to the Infinite.
Christ is Eternity stepping into Time.
I am in Time hoping to encounter Eternity.
He is the Uncorruptible clothing Himself in dust so that dust might share in his incorruptibility.
I feel like it means we should live life with Passion, because God is the Passion and the Fire that sustains all life. I love the promise it offers of Objective Love existing, because God is Love. I could guess more about what it means.
As far as whether there are two things or one, I would say that, as much as it is possible to be two really independent things, there are two things. Everything that gives one individuality (mind, will, emotions, etc) is really my own. But that doesn't explain the source of my being. "In Him we live and move and have our being."
<< you are dealing with a very shrude and slippry character and you don't want to be chewing on pretzels or anything when you read his replies. >>
Yeah, learned that the hard way. Retainer snapped in half.
<<
evolution is a scientific fact and any other kind of fact because it makes deep logical sense and explains what is evident in the rocks of the earth
>>
"deep logical sense." We're going to have to talk about that one. How is it logical that I came from complete disordered system? How is it logical that something as complex as the simplest form of life arose naturally by random sorting and selecting? Isn't that like taking a stack of notecards up about 5,000 feet and dropping them out the window, hoping that they will randomly sort and select themselves so that they spell "Anandtech" in the parking lot below? And what is evident in the rocks of the earth, anyway? It sure isn't any kind of transitional fossil evidence filling out the fossil record to show a step-by-step progession between species.
Athanasius, nice post. Couldn't have written it better myself.
Athanasius, don't you have to be Christ size to wear Christ's pants. What is the point in putting somebody on if you don't fit his skin. Does Christ offer you an image of God for you to immulate, or does he offer you polish for your mirror. What does it mean that we were created in his image? With a the perfect mirror, is there one thing or two?
As an unfortunate side-effect of the nature of these discussions, we often lose sight of what is really important. This post posed a question about God blessing the USA, largely in response to the phrase becoming a mere expression, with no real meaning. This post was also targeted at those of us who really want God to bless America, but realize that due to our national sins he probably won't.
We have really left that part of the discussion well behind. This has turned into a question of God's existence, nature, and importance/relevance.
There is one thing that needs to be said, and is largely in response to Moonbeams latest post. Christianity is about a relationship. Moonbeam ask some very good questions, and I think that to answer I need to share a bit of how I came to be a Christian.
Warning: The following is not designed to convince anybody of anything, it is simply for those interested in understanding might gain some insight into the Faith.
Until my early twenties I would have been agnostic. That is, if I ever gave religion any thought. The only time I really considered it was when I was mocking the faith of others. I remember discussions about how the stories in the Bible were just that, stories. I had friends who were Catholic, though none were practicing. They did sometimes go to the Midnight service around Christmas, but that was usually because of somebody else urging them to go. It is, after all, a very beautiful service.
As I went thru college, Auburn University and Troy State University, my main goals were having fun. This usually meant dating (a lot) and drinking. I still love Jack & Coke. I had no real direction, so I majored in mathematics and biology. Mathematics because I thought it would help me learn to think, and biology because I love nature. I never worried what I would do for a living, I had never had problem finding a job.
I think that it was the combination of math/biology that finally lead me to start thinking about religion. Most of the upper lever bio classes had chapters on evolution, and it was while discussing this in class that I realized that this was a bunch of hooey. The final clincher was as I was viewing a tape of a discussion between proponents of the "designer" gene and punctuated equilibrium. Both of these theories are attempts to cover the gaping holes in evolutionary theory. The weird thing was that both of these guys based their theories on the ABSENCE of evidence. These theories were advanced to stabilize a rapidly declining general theory of evolution. Some very intelligent people were accepting these theories (as well as others that have since gone by the wayside). It was so obviously a bunch of BS.
I started to wonder then if evolutionary theory is so weak, is there any basis for Creation Science. Well, it didn't take long for me to realize that the Young Earth Creationist were more full of it than were the evolutionary apologist. What then was one to believe? This became a consuming passion of mine for about five years. I had begun to wonder if maybe the newer evolutionary theories were not as lame as they first appeared, but it only took a bit of research to find that the holes had gotten bigger and the apologetic covering was also getting stretched a bit thin.
I then happened on some of the writings of J. Vernon McGee. Dr McGee is a preacher who had a radio show, I believe it is till on the air even though he is dead. Someone used his Thru the Bible show to write commentaries by the same name. While visiting my in-laws, I read his commentary on Genesis and was struck to find that there was other views on Creation that did not necessitate a Young Earth view, nor did it require checking you brain at the door. The whole thing just suddenly made sense.
You see, the earth really is old. Very old. Incredibly old. Much older than the 6000+ years some Christians claim. There was this disaster at some point after God created the Universe, and before the events of Genesis 1:3. What happened during this time? Well, you see, the Bible is silent on that. And you know what, Dr. McGee said that it was OK to look to science to learn about something that the Bible is silent about. In fact, his view on the Genesis account allows for all the geologic ages, all the species that rose and fell, and even for evolutionary process to have produced much of this primitive creation.
Ok, what did this do for me? For the first time in my life I realized that there was no basic conflict between religion and science. It was Ok to take a realistic look at religion. Being very pragmatic, I spent a good bit of time looking at a large variety of religions. I figured that if God was real, then he must have revealed himself to someone. I spent some time playing at the occult. It was a lot of fun. We spent some time in graveyards late at night, burning candles and chanting. I particularly liked the Wiccan religion. Dated a girl at Auburn who was a witch, called herself Moonbeam. It seems that sex is a big part of being a witch.
While all this was fun, I was getting sidetracked from what I wanted to learn. Are there any answers as to who God is, and why he is important to me? To make a long story shorter, in comparing religions I found certain unique traits to Christianity. One thing that was important was a realistic creation account. I did not want two gods having sex and producing the world. In Christianity God commanded and nature obeyed. This is what I would expect from an all-powerful God. The other biggie is about salvation. Not that I really knew what that meant at the time. What was I being saved from? Fun? In Christianity salvation isn't earned, it's given. A gift from God to bring you closer to him. I didn't want to make pilgrimages. I didn't want to have to really do anything. I was looking for answers, not another activity to take up time.
I went to church, and I went to sleep. In church, I mean. I had never been so bored in my life. When it was finally over I went home. I could not believe anyone would put themselves thru that intentionally, much less over and over. Problem was, I was still looking for answers. I had come to a point where I was willing to believe in a religion, if I could find anything believable.
Once again, to shorten the story, I'll jump ahead. A year or so later, a girl invited me to church. She was a looker, so I thought I'd impress her and go. This time it was a lot different. I was truly touched by the divine. As the speaker spoke, his every word rang true. He was giving his testimony. His story was my story. When the preacher gave an invitation to accept Jesus as Savior, I decided I'd give it a try.I asked God that if he was real, that he would let me know and that he would make me his. He did.
As an unfortunate side-effect of the nature of these discussions, we often lose sight of what is really important. This post posed a question about God blessing the USA, largely in response to the phrase becoming a mere expression, with no real meaning. This post was also targeted at those of us who really want God to bless America, but realize that due to our national sins he probably won't.
We have really left that part of the discussion well behind. This has turned into a question of God's existence, nature, and importance/relevance.
There is one thing that needs to be said, and is largely in response to Moonbeams latest post. Christianity is about a relationship. Moonbeam ask some very good questions, and I think that to answer I need to share a bit of how I came to be a Christian.
Warning: The following is not designed to convince anybody of anything, it is simply for those interested in understanding might gain some insight into the Faith.
Until my early twenties I would have been agnostic. That is, if I ever gave religion any thought. The only time I really considered it was when I was mocking the faith of others. I remember discussions about how the stories in the Bible were just that, stories. I had friends who were Catholic, though none were practicing. They did sometimes go to the Midnight service around Christmas, but that was usually because of somebody else urging them to go. It is, after all, a very beautiful service.
As I went thru college, Auburn University and Troy State University, my main goals were having fun. This usually meant dating (a lot) and drinking. I still love Jack & Coke. I had no real direction, so I majored in mathematics and biology. Mathematics because I thought it would help me learn to think, and biology because I love nature. I never worried what I would do for a living, I had never had problem finding a job.
I think that it was the combination of math/biology that finally lead me to start thinking about religion. Most of the upper lever bio classes had chapters on evolution, and it was while discussing this in class that I realized that this was a bunch of hooey. The final clincher was as I was viewing a tape of a discussion between proponents of the "designer" gene and punctuated equilibrium. Both of these theories are attempts to cover the gaping holes in evolutionary theory. The weird thing was that both of these guys based their theories on the ABSENCE of evidence. These theories were advanced to stabilize a rapidly declining general theory of evolution. Some very intelligent people were accepting these theories (as well as others that have since gone by the wayside). It was so obviously a bunch of BS.
I started to wonder then if evolutionary theory is so weak, is there any basis for Creation Science. Well, it didn't take long for me to realize that the Young Earth Creationist were more full of it than were the evolutionary apologist. What then was one to believe? This became a consuming passion of mine for about five years. I had begun to wonder if maybe the newer evolutionary theories were not as lame as they first appeared, but it only took a bit of research to find that the holes had gotten bigger and the apologetic covering was also getting stretched a bit thin.
I then happened on some of the writings of J. Vernon McGee. Dr McGee is a preacher who had a radio show, I believe it is till on the air even though he is dead. Someone used his Thru the Bible show to write commentaries by the same name. While visiting my in-laws, I read his commentary on Genesis and was struck to find that there was other views on Creation that did not necessitate a Young Earth view, nor did it require checking you brain at the door. The whole thing just suddenly made sense.
You see, the earth really is old. Very old. Incredibly old. Much older than the 6000+ years some Christians claim. There was this disaster at some point after God created the Universe, and before the events of Genesis 1:3. What happened during this time? Well, you see, the Bible is silent on that. And you know what, Dr. McGee said that it was OK to look to science to learn about something that the Bible is silent about. In fact, his view on the Genesis account allows for all the geologic ages, all the species that rose and fell, and even for evolutionary process to have produced much of this primitive creation.
Ok, what did this do for me? For the first time in my life I realized that there was no basic conflict between religion and science. It was Ok to take a realistic look at religion. Being very pragmatic, I spent a good bit of time looking at a large variety of religions. I figured that if God was real, then he must have revealed himself to someone. I spent some time playing at the occult. It was a lot of fun. We spent some time in graveyards late at night, burning candles and chanting. I particularly liked the Wiccan religion. Dated a girl at Auburn who was a witch, called herself Moonbeam. It seems that sex is a big part of being a witch.
While all this was fun, I was getting sidetracked from what I wanted to learn. Are there any answers as to who God is, and why he is important to me? To make a long story shorter, in comparing religions I found certain unique traits to Christianity. One thing that was important was a realistic creation account. I did not want two gods having sex and producing the world. In Christianity God commanded and nature obeyed. This is what I would expect from an all-powerful God. The other biggie is about salvation. Not that I really knew what that meant at the time. What was I being saved from? Fun? In Christianity salvation isn't earned, it's given. A gift from God to bring you closer to him. I didn't want to make pilgrimages. I didn't want to have to really do anything. I was looking for answers, not another activity to take up time.
I went to church, and I went to sleep. In church, I mean. I had never been so bored in my life. When it was finally over I went home. I could not believe anyone would put themselves thru that intentionally, much less over and over. Problem was, I was still looking for answers. I had come to a point where I was willing to believe in a religion, if I could find anything believable.
Once again, to shorten the story, I'll jump ahead. A year or so later, a girl invited me to church. She was a looker, so I thought I'd impress her and go. This time it was a lot different. I was truly touched by the divine. As the speaker spoke, his every word rang true. He was giving his testimony. His story was my story. When the preacher gave an invitation to accept Jesus as Savior, I decided I'd give it a try.I asked God that if he was real, that he would let me know and that he would make me his. He did.
Well, I may disagree with PastorDon on some things, but I don't think that he was suggesting that the Bible isn't needed.
That's what I'm suggesting myself. Since we've established that God has written his laws into the hearts of men, "accepting Christ" is just a superficiality. A Buddhist monk who spends his life helping villagers, tending to his garden, the Bible would have me believe that he's not going to be "saved", even though in all regards he is following God's laws. In more regards than most Christian westerners in fact.
Oh, of course, God himself says that he's a jealous God. But wait, jealousy is a condition of imperfect man...so what kind of God is this that the bible speaks of?
That's what I'm suggesting myself. Since we've established that God has written his laws into the hearts of men, "accepting Christ" is just a superficiality. A Buddhist monk who spends his life helping villagers, tending to his garden, the Bible would have me believe that he's not going to be "saved", even though in all regards he is following God's laws. In more regards than most Christian westerners in fact.
Oh, of course, God himself says that he's a jealous God. But wait, jealousy is a condition of imperfect man...so what kind of God is this that the bible speaks of?
That's what I'm suggesting myself. Since we've established that God has written his laws into the hearts of men, "accepting Christ" is just a superficiality. A Buddhist monk who spends his life helping villagers, tending to his garden, the Bible would have me believe that he's not going to be "saved", even though in all regards he is following God's laws. In more regards than most Christian westerners in fact.
It is certainly a mistake to base your entire theology from one verse. While it is possible for someone to come to a point of Salvation without hearing the name Jesus, the leap to Christ being a superficiality is clearly wrong. If you have heard of Christ and you have heard the Gospel. then you are responsible for making a decision based on this.
Oh, of course, God himself says that he's a jealous God. But wait, jealousy is a condition of imperfect man...so what kind of God is this that the bible speaks of?
It is obviously your intention to mock. You choose to attack using techniques rather than substance. I am confident that your presence would not have been missed.
It is certainly a mistake to base your entire theology from one verse. While it is possible for someone to come to a point of Salvation without hearing the name Jesus, the leap to Christ being a superficiality is clearly wrong. If you have heard of Christ and you have heard the Gospel. then you are responsible for making a decision based on this.
Oh, of course, God himself says that he's a jealous God. But wait, jealousy is a condition of imperfect man...so what kind of God is this that the bible speaks of?
It is obviously your intention to mock. You choose to attack using techniques rather than substance. I am confident that your presence would not have been missed.
Athanasius, do you not claim that Christ was God and man. If so when the God became man the infinite became finite and when the man became God it was the other way around. One is the image of the other. Is the love of God your love for him or His love for you? "I see, in one man, the architect's design unfold. And I like what I see." Why do you like what you see. From whence comes such good judgment. Like calls to like? I have argued that the sickness is self contempt. A facinating conundrum would be if the Devil could convince you that to think yourself a god is evil, particularly so if that you are was the real message (edit: of real religion).
<< Athanasius, do you not claim that Christ was God and man. If so when the God became man the infinite became finite and when the man became God it was the other way around. One is the image of the other. Is the love of God your love for him or His love for you? "I see, in one man, the architect's design unfold. And I like what I see." Why do you like what you see. From whence comes such good judgment. Like calls to like? I have argued that the sickness is self contempt. A facinating conundrum would be if the Devil could convince you that to think yourself a god is evil, particularly so if that you are was the real message. >>
Moonbeam, I don't think He was arguing that God changed in his essence. I think Athanasius was thinking of Christ as one "who" but two "whats" -- the divine essence and the human essence in one being. I don't think he was arguing that one became the other and vice versa. Humans don't become divine. I think I need a lot of alcohol to understand most of the rest of your post, and I don't drink. But I did catch this idea you brought up -- The Devil tries to convince me that thinking myself a god is evil, and perhaps the idea that I'm a god is the real message. The real message of whom? God? The devil? If God's trying to convince me I'm a god, He's done a really lousy job of it. And why would the devil try to get me to think that thinking myself a god would be evil? The devil would like little better than to convince me that it's perfectly acceptable to think of myself as a god, because pride goes before destruction. It happened to him, and I'm sure he'd like to take me down with him. Besides, thinking of myself as a god would promote rebellion. Satan's all about getting us to rebel against God. I'm not seeing how your point makes any sense, primarily because it's obvious to me that 1) I'm not a god, and 2) if anybody wants to doubt that, all they have to do is play me in basketball. I got killed on the court tonight.
Sorry, Pastor. Your thread has brought up all kinds of other issues about God, but ones that make sense. How can God bless anyone if He doesn't exist? We kinda have to start with the more basic topic of whether or not God exists, because if He doesn't, nobody's going to understand why anybody needs His blessing.
Well, I hope it's been somewhat coherent tonight. My crayon box is missing a few colors... time to do some homework and get some sleep.
I was debating the question with myself, so I presented the obvious counter, I'm not trying to mock.
I still contend that "accepting Christ" is a superficiality, being that we are mortal men. The notion that we would earn "salvation" based on an unaltruistic claim, doesn't sit well.
Why would someone growing up in India accept Christ? He's obviously immersed in his native culture, his native religion. Why would a westerner accept the notion of Dharma? We absorb what we are presented with, what is nearest by. But Jesus says...but Mohammed says...the meaning of what they say is only what you've assigned to it. How would you suggest that it is the responsibility of others to rise above the culture and traditions they hold as fundamentally as you do yours. Could you give up Christianity and become Hindu? Why would you expect the reverse? If you look at this predictament you can see that religion stretches above and beyond the over-simplified literal translations we take for granted.
I still contend that "accepting Christ" is a superficiality, being that we are mortal men. The notion that we would earn "salvation" based on an unaltruistic claim, doesn't sit well.
Why would someone growing up in India accept Christ? He's obviously immersed in his native culture, his native religion. Why would a westerner accept the notion of Dharma? We absorb what we are presented with, what is nearest by. But Jesus says...but Mohammed says...the meaning of what they say is only what you've assigned to it. How would you suggest that it is the responsibility of others to rise above the culture and traditions they hold as fundamentally as you do yours. Could you give up Christianity and become Hindu? Why would you expect the reverse? If you look at this predictament you can see that religion stretches above and beyond the over-simplified literal translations we take for granted.
xirtam, my question arises independent of whether it was something Athanasius was or wasn't arguing. He poses the condition of two one way streets. I'm saying that in pouring from a pitcher into a glass perspectives differ for water in the glass and water in the pitcher, but the acton is the same. I'm saying that the central core fact of religion is utterly terrifying in its implications for responsibility, so terrifying that terror hid from us our real purpose, not to play at being a fireman but to enter a burning building and die. The job of the Enemy is to convince us we are small. His subtilty was to trick us into thinging that to think big is to sin. What an irony that those who talk of the devil quoting scripture have fallen into his trap.
These points are important if Christianity is a Truth and not The Truth. In that way there is room for other Truths, the Moslems, Jews amd a million others. Without room and respect for others, without real insight into fumdamentals, we will continue to kill each other in the name of our truth. We will continue to demonstrate and disgrace before the rest of the world the stupidity of religious exclucivity and shut the only well distributed indications of a higher spirituality off for the millions who continue day by day to drift away.
These points are important if Christianity is a Truth and not The Truth. In that way there is room for other Truths, the Moslems, Jews amd a million others. Without room and respect for others, without real insight into fumdamentals, we will continue to kill each other in the name of our truth. We will continue to demonstrate and disgrace before the rest of the world the stupidity of religious exclucivity and shut the only well distributed indications of a higher spirituality off for the millions who continue day by day to drift away.
Moonbeam Quote:
<< xirtam, my question arises independent of whether it was something Athanasius was or wasn't arguing. He poses the condition of two one way streets. I'm saying that in pouring from a pitcher into a glass perspectives differ for water in the glass and water in the pitcher, but the acton is the same. I'm saying that the central core fact of religion is utterly terrifying in its implications for responsibility, so terrifying that terror hid from us our real purpose, not to play at being a fireman but to enter a burning building and die. The job of the Enemy is to convince us we are small. His subtilty was to trick us into thinging that to think big is to sin. What an irony that those who talk of the devil quoting scripture have fallen into his trap.
These points are important if Christianity is a Truth and not The Truth. In that way there is room for other Truths, the Moslems, Jews amd a million others. Without room and respect for others, without real insight into fumdamentals, we will continue to kill each other in the name of our truth. We will continue to demonstrate and disgrace before the rest of the world the stupidity of religious exclucivity and shut the only well distributed indications of a higher spirituality off for the millions who continue day by day to drift away. >>
Well Moonbeam, I think I've read enough of your posts to know where you are coming from. Your point is that we cannot know whether an objective reality exists that has its own nature and characteristics. All we can know is our own perception of our own individualized encounters with what some have thought was an objective entity. As far as that goes, I agree with you. Hence, it is pointless to kill or persecute or belittle or minimize someone whose perceptions of "another reality" are different than ours because the only thing we can know at all at this point is that a transforming experience exists.
There is no scientific way to test the validity of some people's claims about the nature of this other reality or even if that reality exists. So, for you, the "truth" is the experience of joy or transformation itself. The "truth" is what happens to the Self, not the particulars of how that Self percieves what happens to the Self.
In other words, there is no current way to test the objectivity of this "Other Reality" so why hinder the greater experience of it with seeming exclusivity? After all, the experience is what is paramount anyway, isn't it?
Well, to a point I agree with you. It is certainly a great evil to persecute in any way someone whose perception of "transformation" is different than one's own. But that doesn't mean that an objective element doesn't exist, or that we have no responsbility to make that objective element as clear and as acccurate as we can.
Surely it seems self-evident that, if this transforming act has any objective, independent nature apart from humanity, than the clearer we can make that nature the more it will be available to people.
I am convinced that there is some objective content. There is evidence that the "myth" that has haunted so many cultures has, in one culture at one time in one place, become fact. I would refer you to a short essay by C.S. Lewis that touches on this very concept. It is entitled, "Myth Become Fact." If, in that one culture in that one time and at that one place the Myth-Truth became Fact-Truth, then there is an objectivity that doesn't make Myth-Truth Untruth, but rather makes Myth-Truth become tangible in a way that makes it availble to all who hear of it. This doesn't damn everyone who aspires to Myth-Truth. Rather, it puts the onus on those who have Fact-Truth to live it and share it.
It isn't that Fact-Truth is superior to Myth-Truth, because both exist because of the same Logos that Haunts the Myth and Incarnates the Fact. But the Logos behind Myth-Truth and Science-Truth became Historical-Truth. It spent 2000 years preparing one particular people to be its womb. It entered this world emptied of all of its glory so that it could show the greatest glory of all, benevolent love. It developed as a fetus and went through the trauma of childbirth. It developed as a human and awakened to a greater awareness when it hit puberty at age 12 in the temple. It lived in poverty and need and want. It walked and slept and got tired. It experienced misunderstanding and rejection and abuse. It rushed into the burning house of crucifixion and died.
And people witnessed this. They ate with him. They touched him. They misunderstood him. They saw him killed.
Most of all, they saw that same body live again. They loved him. They shared what they saw. And they (for the most part) shared His fate. But they were only in the position to love him because he had crossed so many barriers to love them first. And these men recognized that he was Unique. He was Objective. He was Real. He was Free. Hence, they could be Free too. They realized that even those who had become Free by Myth-Truth had been set free by the same person who was now Fact-Truth. This was so obvious to those who had both Myth and Fact that one of them could say:
<< Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God made the myth-truth of love become the fact-truth of love in our midst: He sent his unique geeration of Himself into the world that we might live through Him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His son to cure our disease. dear friends, since God went to such great lengths to make the myth-truth of love become a fact, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another than God lives in us and his existence is made a fact in us. . . And we have seen and testify that God the Ground of All Being has sent His Unique Manifestation of Himself, His "Son," to be the Saviour of the world. (Athanasius' paraphrase of 1 John 4:7-12, 14b) >>
And there is no evidence that that original message has been changed. It has an historical objectivity to it that is a thorn in people's sides. Most of us don't want the Transforming Act to have its own objective nature revealed in plain flesh and blood. Then we have to critique our own encounters with it. But the ones who knew Jesus best bear a testimony. One listens to their testimony, looks at their lives, and renders a verdict: did they bear false witness? Certainly the Reality they encountered was radically different than the one they had become culturally accustomed to expect. Jesus blew their minds away. He was not the subjective Messiah Jewish minds had come to expect. Jesus was less palatable to the Myth-Truth of Jewish culture than he was to many of the Myth-Truths of surrounding cultures. But He was the Messiah. He was and Is "Universal Unmanifested Wave Myth-Truth" Become "Individual Manifested Particle Fact Truth."
Can I prove that the Reality that lies behind all Transforming Acts is Objective? No. Do I have evidence that it is? Yes.
If I choose to accept their testimony, then I can draw certain basic conclusions about Reality. And I can do this without jettisoning the wonders of Myth-Truth that haunt all cultures, including the Old Testament Jewish one.
OK, my head is spinning now.
<< xirtam, my question arises independent of whether it was something Athanasius was or wasn't arguing. He poses the condition of two one way streets. I'm saying that in pouring from a pitcher into a glass perspectives differ for water in the glass and water in the pitcher, but the acton is the same. I'm saying that the central core fact of religion is utterly terrifying in its implications for responsibility, so terrifying that terror hid from us our real purpose, not to play at being a fireman but to enter a burning building and die. The job of the Enemy is to convince us we are small. His subtilty was to trick us into thinging that to think big is to sin. What an irony that those who talk of the devil quoting scripture have fallen into his trap.
These points are important if Christianity is a Truth and not The Truth. In that way there is room for other Truths, the Moslems, Jews amd a million others. Without room and respect for others, without real insight into fumdamentals, we will continue to kill each other in the name of our truth. We will continue to demonstrate and disgrace before the rest of the world the stupidity of religious exclucivity and shut the only well distributed indications of a higher spirituality off for the millions who continue day by day to drift away. >>
Well Moonbeam, I think I've read enough of your posts to know where you are coming from. Your point is that we cannot know whether an objective reality exists that has its own nature and characteristics. All we can know is our own perception of our own individualized encounters with what some have thought was an objective entity. As far as that goes, I agree with you. Hence, it is pointless to kill or persecute or belittle or minimize someone whose perceptions of "another reality" are different than ours because the only thing we can know at all at this point is that a transforming experience exists.
There is no scientific way to test the validity of some people's claims about the nature of this other reality or even if that reality exists. So, for you, the "truth" is the experience of joy or transformation itself. The "truth" is what happens to the Self, not the particulars of how that Self percieves what happens to the Self.
In other words, there is no current way to test the objectivity of this "Other Reality" so why hinder the greater experience of it with seeming exclusivity? After all, the experience is what is paramount anyway, isn't it?
Well, to a point I agree with you. It is certainly a great evil to persecute in any way someone whose perception of "transformation" is different than one's own. But that doesn't mean that an objective element doesn't exist, or that we have no responsbility to make that objective element as clear and as acccurate as we can.
Surely it seems self-evident that, if this transforming act has any objective, independent nature apart from humanity, than the clearer we can make that nature the more it will be available to people.
I am convinced that there is some objective content. There is evidence that the "myth" that has haunted so many cultures has, in one culture at one time in one place, become fact. I would refer you to a short essay by C.S. Lewis that touches on this very concept. It is entitled, "Myth Become Fact." If, in that one culture in that one time and at that one place the Myth-Truth became Fact-Truth, then there is an objectivity that doesn't make Myth-Truth Untruth, but rather makes Myth-Truth become tangible in a way that makes it availble to all who hear of it. This doesn't damn everyone who aspires to Myth-Truth. Rather, it puts the onus on those who have Fact-Truth to live it and share it.
It isn't that Fact-Truth is superior to Myth-Truth, because both exist because of the same Logos that Haunts the Myth and Incarnates the Fact. But the Logos behind Myth-Truth and Science-Truth became Historical-Truth. It spent 2000 years preparing one particular people to be its womb. It entered this world emptied of all of its glory so that it could show the greatest glory of all, benevolent love. It developed as a fetus and went through the trauma of childbirth. It developed as a human and awakened to a greater awareness when it hit puberty at age 12 in the temple. It lived in poverty and need and want. It walked and slept and got tired. It experienced misunderstanding and rejection and abuse. It rushed into the burning house of crucifixion and died.
And people witnessed this. They ate with him. They touched him. They misunderstood him. They saw him killed.
Most of all, they saw that same body live again. They loved him. They shared what they saw. And they (for the most part) shared His fate. But they were only in the position to love him because he had crossed so many barriers to love them first. And these men recognized that he was Unique. He was Objective. He was Real. He was Free. Hence, they could be Free too. They realized that even those who had become Free by Myth-Truth had been set free by the same person who was now Fact-Truth. This was so obvious to those who had both Myth and Fact that one of them could say:
<< Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God made the myth-truth of love become the fact-truth of love in our midst: He sent his unique geeration of Himself into the world that we might live through Him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His son to cure our disease. dear friends, since God went to such great lengths to make the myth-truth of love become a fact, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another than God lives in us and his existence is made a fact in us. . . And we have seen and testify that God the Ground of All Being has sent His Unique Manifestation of Himself, His "Son," to be the Saviour of the world. (Athanasius' paraphrase of 1 John 4:7-12, 14b) >>
And there is no evidence that that original message has been changed. It has an historical objectivity to it that is a thorn in people's sides. Most of us don't want the Transforming Act to have its own objective nature revealed in plain flesh and blood. Then we have to critique our own encounters with it. But the ones who knew Jesus best bear a testimony. One listens to their testimony, looks at their lives, and renders a verdict: did they bear false witness? Certainly the Reality they encountered was radically different than the one they had become culturally accustomed to expect. Jesus blew their minds away. He was not the subjective Messiah Jewish minds had come to expect. Jesus was less palatable to the Myth-Truth of Jewish culture than he was to many of the Myth-Truths of surrounding cultures. But He was the Messiah. He was and Is "Universal Unmanifested Wave Myth-Truth" Become "Individual Manifested Particle Fact Truth."
Can I prove that the Reality that lies behind all Transforming Acts is Objective? No. Do I have evidence that it is? Yes.
If I choose to accept their testimony, then I can draw certain basic conclusions about Reality. And I can do this without jettisoning the wonders of Myth-Truth that haunt all cultures, including the Old Testament Jewish one.
OK, my head is spinning now.
Athanasius, I think it likely that the phenomena of the people Tibet up till recently was much more impressive than anything produced by Christianity. I think that Islam is the final word from the phase of religious thrust that began in Judism, a revelation that reverses the Christian claim to a myth figure that was God. Don't know much about that. but I remember something about there being somebody called the Comforter, predicted in the Bible. And naturally, I agree with you on the love part. What I question is how much love is lost to the lack of recognition that the purpose of religion is to transform on a much deeper and more profound level than you have implied or seem to suspect even while acknowledging my great respect for what I think is wonderful insight. We have nothing really to go by but the resonance of our own hearts, poor navigational devices indeed with the work of the Enemy so profound, but I can't help but question as I do, because I knew a Mind Blower Lover personally.
Well, I am glad that you touched on the "Comforter" part. jesus told us that the "Comforter" would be God's own Spirit that would take residence in hearts (or at least some human hearts) because of what Jesus accomplished.
The Apostles experienced this Spirit fifty days after Jesus rose from the dead.
Islamic faith claims that Mohammed is the Comforter, so once again you have some exclusivity. Jesus and the Apostles taught that the Comforter was the Spirit and the Presence of God dwelling in the people of God in a way that did not occur before Jesus. Not simply another prophet, but a New Kind of Life available to all people. Both cannot be true.
Either the Comforter is what Jesus and the Apostles taught and brings a divine presence into the life of all who love God or the Comforter is one more prophet in along line of proclaimed prophets. Or both groups were ignorant of "Spiritual Fact-Truth."
When the Apostles encountered that New Kind of Life, they changed. They were already godly men. They became world-transformers. Not that the world appreciated it. When they saw these "New Men," they were astonished and took note that these men had been taught by that irritating Jesus fellow that they thought they had done away with (see Acts 4:13-22).
So, they began to "do away with" the Apostles.
Moonbeam quote:
<< What I question is how much love is lost to the lack of recognition that the purpose of religion is to transform on a much deeper and more profound level than you have implied or seem to suspect even while acknowledging my great respect for what I think is wonderful insight. >>
Well, as far as questioning, that is fine with me. Question away. Keep asking. I am reminded of a song:
<< In the ebb and flow of living,
As we wander through the years,
We're told to listen to a Voice
We can't hear with our ears.
They say to live by something
That you can't see with your eyes
Is there really any purpose to this foolish exercise?
Could it be You make Your Presence known
So often by Your Absence?
Could it be that questions tell us more
Than answers ever do?
Could it be that You would really
Rather die than live without us?
Could it be the only answer that means anything is You?
In our words and in our silence
In our pride and in our shame
To the genius and the scholar
To the foolish and insane
To the ones who care to seek you
To the ones who never will
You are the only answer even still. >>
As far as "transforming on a much deeper level than you implied or seem to suspect," I would only respond to that with what I have already said in my previous post about the image of God.
I am curious as to how you would respond to this statement I made:
<< Surely it seems self-evident that, if this transforming act has any objective, independent nature apart from humanity, than the clearer we can make that nature the more it will be available to people. >>
The Apostles experienced this Spirit fifty days after Jesus rose from the dead.
Islamic faith claims that Mohammed is the Comforter, so once again you have some exclusivity. Jesus and the Apostles taught that the Comforter was the Spirit and the Presence of God dwelling in the people of God in a way that did not occur before Jesus. Not simply another prophet, but a New Kind of Life available to all people. Both cannot be true.
Either the Comforter is what Jesus and the Apostles taught and brings a divine presence into the life of all who love God or the Comforter is one more prophet in along line of proclaimed prophets. Or both groups were ignorant of "Spiritual Fact-Truth."
When the Apostles encountered that New Kind of Life, they changed. They were already godly men. They became world-transformers. Not that the world appreciated it. When they saw these "New Men," they were astonished and took note that these men had been taught by that irritating Jesus fellow that they thought they had done away with (see Acts 4:13-22).
So, they began to "do away with" the Apostles.
Moonbeam quote:
<< What I question is how much love is lost to the lack of recognition that the purpose of religion is to transform on a much deeper and more profound level than you have implied or seem to suspect even while acknowledging my great respect for what I think is wonderful insight. >>
Well, as far as questioning, that is fine with me. Question away. Keep asking. I am reminded of a song:
<< In the ebb and flow of living,
As we wander through the years,
We're told to listen to a Voice
We can't hear with our ears.
They say to live by something
That you can't see with your eyes
Is there really any purpose to this foolish exercise?
Could it be You make Your Presence known
So often by Your Absence?
Could it be that questions tell us more
Than answers ever do?
Could it be that You would really
Rather die than live without us?
Could it be the only answer that means anything is You?
In our words and in our silence
In our pride and in our shame
To the genius and the scholar
To the foolish and insane
To the ones who care to seek you
To the ones who never will
You are the only answer even still. >>
As far as "transforming on a much deeper level than you implied or seem to suspect," I would only respond to that with what I have already said in my previous post about the image of God.
I am curious as to how you would respond to this statement I made:
<< Surely it seems self-evident that, if this transforming act has any objective, independent nature apart from humanity, than the clearer we can make that nature the more it will be available to people. >>
Why Should God Bless America?
Because we are all about to sneeze in your direction. Go get a towel.
Because we are all about to sneeze in your direction. Go get a towel.
People who spout stuff like this make me dislike religion (not any specific religion, just the whole thing in general). Perhaps that's why I stay atheist.
AncientPC you need to identify 'People who spout stuff like this' with more precission otherwise lots of us won't realize you were refering to yourself.
xirtam, I have seen that atheism is a religion thingi bocoup before, but I think it's sort of sophistry or something and a trick or silly trap of logic. To believe or not to believe are both believing. OK fine. But if somebody tells me they don't believe I think they mean that don't believe.
To: Surely it seems self-evident that, if this transforming act has any objective, independent nature apart from humanity, than the clearer we can make that nature the more it will be available to people. I would respond as follows:
First of all is the matter of the if, if the transforming act .......apart from humanity. I'm not sure why you would separate the act from the acted on. There can be no transformation separate for somebody being transformed. So maybe I'm not getting your intention or something else is escaping me here. So maby rather that go too much farther, I should maybe see what I'm missing. As for getting clearer on it's nature, this has long been my feeling, that it will be more available the more clear it is. I have thought to myself on this in this visual form. If truth is a dot, then all the teachings and theories in the world are like moths circling it, attracted because if it's inate centrality. You use words like mind logos etc for this central thing whereas I just use truth here, or Truth. So we have this thing Truth which is a point, it has no dimensions in the field of language, because it is, and it is, especially, when words aren't. Everything is just fingers pointiong at it, form close and from far away, depending. We get descriptions, philosophies, religions, etc which circle around it. The clearer or more direct a description is, the more accurate, the tighter the circle, the more pointlike, it becomes. So for me, the religious description, God etc, is a not too tight of a circle. It requires faith and some kind of personal knowing of God to work really well. I think my truth is quite tight. It doesn't require faith, but still some kinds of experience are required. My truth fits a scientific view of the world, or doesn't require any leaps of faith that some of us can't seem to not be bothered by. Had that been me in PastorDon's shoes, nothing would have happened if I went up to accept Jesus. Been there done that, nada. I truth is that we are Christ in potential. We are identical to him in how we can perceive the world. There is a form of consciousness that can be arrived at where duality ceases. With the 'I' gone we see reality. Reality evokes love because we cannot help but love it. Reality is life and it is infinitely beautiful. Why do we not see this? Because we are split. Here is required a scientific investigation of childhood, seeing what happens to children and (the experience part) remembering what happened to us. We were all put down with words, made to feel bad about ourselves, unimaginagbly horrible about ourselves. The horror is so great that almost nobody is capable of focusing here long enough to see anything. We are totally motivated to avoid this data. He who can relive his childhood back to the divide and see the utter lie we were fed can heal the split. I have read that in the Apocraphia Jesus is reported to have had his deciples dance much like the dervishes and chant a chant that contained the words, "Did you but suffer, Ye would not suffer." I think Jesus was a Knower. I think his death and his mission to bring forgiveness for sin was directly related to our childhood acquired and incorrect self hate. I think our world is moving blindly backwards into self extinction in a desparate unconscious attempt to get close to our childhood catastrophy out there in the world so we can bring up those profoundly burried feelings screaming inside us for expression. But because we are looking out there for the enemy instead if inside, we will inevitably pull the trigger. All this is easily varifiable. All that is required is knowing what you feel. How do you feel?
xirtam, I have seen that atheism is a religion thingi bocoup before, but I think it's sort of sophistry or something and a trick or silly trap of logic. To believe or not to believe are both believing. OK fine. But if somebody tells me they don't believe I think they mean that don't believe.
To: Surely it seems self-evident that, if this transforming act has any objective, independent nature apart from humanity, than the clearer we can make that nature the more it will be available to people. I would respond as follows:
First of all is the matter of the if, if the transforming act .......apart from humanity. I'm not sure why you would separate the act from the acted on. There can be no transformation separate for somebody being transformed. So maybe I'm not getting your intention or something else is escaping me here. So maby rather that go too much farther, I should maybe see what I'm missing. As for getting clearer on it's nature, this has long been my feeling, that it will be more available the more clear it is. I have thought to myself on this in this visual form. If truth is a dot, then all the teachings and theories in the world are like moths circling it, attracted because if it's inate centrality. You use words like mind logos etc for this central thing whereas I just use truth here, or Truth. So we have this thing Truth which is a point, it has no dimensions in the field of language, because it is, and it is, especially, when words aren't. Everything is just fingers pointiong at it, form close and from far away, depending. We get descriptions, philosophies, religions, etc which circle around it. The clearer or more direct a description is, the more accurate, the tighter the circle, the more pointlike, it becomes. So for me, the religious description, God etc, is a not too tight of a circle. It requires faith and some kind of personal knowing of God to work really well. I think my truth is quite tight. It doesn't require faith, but still some kinds of experience are required. My truth fits a scientific view of the world, or doesn't require any leaps of faith that some of us can't seem to not be bothered by. Had that been me in PastorDon's shoes, nothing would have happened if I went up to accept Jesus. Been there done that, nada. I truth is that we are Christ in potential. We are identical to him in how we can perceive the world. There is a form of consciousness that can be arrived at where duality ceases. With the 'I' gone we see reality. Reality evokes love because we cannot help but love it. Reality is life and it is infinitely beautiful. Why do we not see this? Because we are split. Here is required a scientific investigation of childhood, seeing what happens to children and (the experience part) remembering what happened to us. We were all put down with words, made to feel bad about ourselves, unimaginagbly horrible about ourselves. The horror is so great that almost nobody is capable of focusing here long enough to see anything. We are totally motivated to avoid this data. He who can relive his childhood back to the divide and see the utter lie we were fed can heal the split. I have read that in the Apocraphia Jesus is reported to have had his deciples dance much like the dervishes and chant a chant that contained the words, "Did you but suffer, Ye would not suffer." I think Jesus was a Knower. I think his death and his mission to bring forgiveness for sin was directly related to our childhood acquired and incorrect self hate. I think our world is moving blindly backwards into self extinction in a desparate unconscious attempt to get close to our childhood catastrophy out there in the world so we can bring up those profoundly burried feelings screaming inside us for expression. But because we are looking out there for the enemy instead if inside, we will inevitably pull the trigger. All this is easily varifiable. All that is required is knowing what you feel. How do you feel?
Legendary
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2002
- 7,020
- 1
- 0
All I have to say is that...to the person who wondered if Hinduism is a religion...well...I suggest you STUDY IT BEFORE YOU ASK. If you know Hinduism, the answer to that "question" is simple. Also, everyone here is fighting a battle sought to be won for basically the entire existence of religion by both sides...
Likewise...religion is something people are taught, brought up with, and sometimes even shape themselves around. It is not so easy to change their beliefs from a faceless piece of text on a message board, lengthy, partially plagiarized and sometimes biased. You will not change the opinions of anyone here, and you are arguing a moot point with no specific scientific evidence to go either way. You can't prove God, you can't disprove God.
And a long time ago, on the first page, the question was if the God in "God Bless America" should bless America, because under Christian rules he shouldn't. (At least, I think that was it.) Well, according to Amendment 1, religion is for everyone...I think we capitalize the God because Christians don't like it when their God isn't capitalized but Hindus (LIKE MYSELF), Muslims and the rest don't mind if it's capitalized, and this way we please all sides (unless you don't believe in God). Like right here, I'm capitalizing all the Gods in my post just to make all you Christian folk happy. I think it's the same with the song.
Likewise...religion is something people are taught, brought up with, and sometimes even shape themselves around. It is not so easy to change their beliefs from a faceless piece of text on a message board, lengthy, partially plagiarized and sometimes biased. You will not change the opinions of anyone here, and you are arguing a moot point with no specific scientific evidence to go either way. You can't prove God, you can't disprove God.
And a long time ago, on the first page, the question was if the God in "God Bless America" should bless America, because under Christian rules he shouldn't. (At least, I think that was it.) Well, according to Amendment 1, religion is for everyone...I think we capitalize the God because Christians don't like it when their God isn't capitalized but Hindus (LIKE MYSELF), Muslims and the rest don't mind if it's capitalized, and this way we please all sides (unless you don't believe in God). Like right here, I'm capitalizing all the Gods in my post just to make all you Christian folk happy. I think it's the same with the song.
Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,651
- 100
- 91
Why Should God Bless America?
Why should America be so obsessed with only its own people being blessed? As a predominantly Christian nation I find it ironic that we aren't more concerned about God blessing everyone and less concerned about it being contained by some geographical boundary. So God bless everyone!
Why should America be so obsessed with only its own people being blessed? As a predominantly Christian nation I find it ironic that we aren't more concerned about God blessing everyone and less concerned about it being contained by some geographical boundary. So God bless everyone!
<< Why Should God Bless America?
Why should America be so obsessed with only its own people being blessed? As a predominantly Christian nation I find it ironic that we aren't more concerned about God blessing everyone and less concerned about it being contained by some geographical boundary. So God bless everyone! >>
yeah you said it, god bless everyone........wait.......except the jackassses. Yeah so basically god bless no one.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter