Talking Religion...

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

A few minutes ago I had an answer written out then I tried to post it, and it said I wasn't logged in. Oh well. Let me try again.

I hate when that happens....

I didn't post much earlier because I was blessed to teach 6, 7, and 8 year olds about Jonah. Gave me some perspective.

The idea that man was created to sin is the problem. What I believe is that man was created to have a relationship with God, to commune with Him. With that being said, God knew man would ultimately sin. That is a clear distinction though. Even still God provided man who ultimately chose to not commune with Him (man's sole purpose) a second chance in way that satisfies justice. It's not like God's a reactionary, though. He had a plan from the beginning for dealing with man's sin.

Gator covered what could be my response pretty well already. How do you reconcile that? You asked me what I don't like about the Christian version of G-d, and this is one of those things... he creates things knowing he will only end up sending it away for torment? And then... he tells that thing "but.... I love you?" Bull... Shit.... I have two kids, and I can say with authority, that I would NEVER subject my own children... my creation... to an eternity of horrors... or as LV would say "ceasing to be...." for any reason. ANY reason (trying to stave off a parade of horribles .... my answer is the same "Yes, I let my children back in") The Christian G-d can't bring himself to behave this way, or so it seems, and I feel it an inferior way to treat children.... that is to say, I personally disagree with a god who behaves in such a way in the same way I disagree with any man who would easily discard his own children for whatever "crimes" against him.... I consider such a "god" inferior to even me and therefore unworthy of my worship. Such a god should be asking me where I get MY resevior of love from since his own can't sustain his own creation without damnantion of his "bad apples"

(aside: I don't believe God is bound by time. I believe he perceives time just as we perceive length, width, and depth, but only He can do it all at once, and I'm trying to describe the infinite with my very finite understanding, anyway)

As for Jesus, one who isn't depraved has no use for a Saviour.

I agree about G-d's lack of time boundery.

Since I have no use for a savior, I guess I'm not depraved.

As for the triune God, I don't understand why the one and only God couldn't manifest Himself in 3 different ways.

There might be any number of reasons why..... First, is the jewish fundational idea (again, paraphrasing the book I mention above re: Maimonides) that G-d is ONE... he cannot be anyting other than the whole of himself... that is to say, if you were to look at one side of G-d whatever you saw, would look exactly like if you looked at him from any other.... but... even beyond that... it wouldn't "look exactly like" it would, in fact, BE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.... even when viewed from a different angle...

Now, we take that foundation, and immedaitely carve out three "manifestations?" Leaving alone the fact that an all powerful G-d need not "manifest" himself at all to get work done.... where is the authority in pre-christian traditions which allows for such a thing? It's allegedly Jewish authority.... But, every Jew I have discussed the idea with thinks the idea of G-d being anything other than 1 complete whole is ridiculous.

So, at best, I think Christians are talking about any of 3 "aspects" of G-d as a Jew might talk about any of the "aspects" they identify as parts of the whole. The difference, I think, is that Jews NEVER worship any PART of the whole - which they simply use for discussion purposes - but only ever the whole... Chirstians not only worship Jesus, they believe that they can't even approach G-d without Jesus' intervention.... So, that's why I say Christians are "blasephemous" because, even if Jesus was G-d, he was only an ASPECT of G-d.... I don't worship aspects of G-d... Indeed, I might as well worship this coffee cup to the extent that G-d is present in it (as he's "present in all things," right?) If I am to worship anything, it will be the WHOLE ONE G-d.

But... I don't believe that Jesus is any more an aspect of G-d than I myself am. What I think is Jesus is a story made to help pagans of 2000 years ago understand or assimilate a new breed of Judiasm. The ancient Greeks... the Vikings.... all these people had gods who not only acted like men (only with absoulte power) but ran around getting human women pregnant. It's laughable to think Zues fucked some Greek chick. It's laughable to think Krishna is nailing some Hindu lady.... but I'm to believe the ONE G-d impregnated Mary?

Bull.... Shit....

There is simply NO REASON that an all powerful G-d 'goes through the motions' If he wanted to save us, all he had to do was decide it so. If he wanted to give a grace, all he had to do was decide to do so.... He didn't need to nail flesh to wood... he didn't need to torture his son... or his self... all he had to do is say, "Well, fuck 'n A, I'm all powerful... They want grace, I want to give em grace.. poof.. there.. they've got grace... " Instead... you're idea of G-d continues his practice of what can only be described as a morbid facination with human torture and cause of pain to accomplish the task. Once again, if this is G-d... you can have him. He's not worthy of MY worship.

 

[MaxBuck]

... If he wanted to give a grace, all he had to do was decide to do so.... He didn't need to nail flesh to wood... he didn't need to torture his son... or his self... all he had to do is say, "Well, [censored] 'n A, I'm all powerful... They want grace, I want to give em grace.. poof.. there.. they've got grace... " Instead... you're idea of G-d continues his practice of what can only be described as a morbid facination with human torture and cause of pain to accomplish the task.

My answer to this can be found in the lyrics to this Joan Osborne song:

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home

To me, Jesus's place on earth was to provide tangible evidence to us humans that God knows, experientially, what we struggle with and what choices we're faced with, every day. I don't perceive anything morbid about His life and death on the cross at all.

I'm not trying to argue with you, bkb, just trying to communicate to you how one faithful believer in the deity of Jesus Christ feels. BTW, I also am at odds with those Christians who believe themselves to be "of heaven, not of earth." My point of view is that God wants us to experience fully life on earth; why else put us here?

 

[buckeyegrad]

This commentary is utterly at odds with what I was taught about Satan and Jesus's struggles with him. Do you not see Satan as the adversary of God, and "evil" as the adversary of "good?" Maybe I'm missing your point here.

I can believe that is what you have been taught as much of Christianity believes this; however, from the standpoint of Scripture it is completely unsupported and is a false doctrine that comes from Greek ideas being mixed with the teachings of the Old Testament, Jesus, and his disciples.

To say that Satan is the advesary of God is to make him into a god and therefore to create a false idolotry. The real relationship between God and Satan can be seen in the first couple chapters of Job, where we see that Satan can do nothing without God allowing it. Satan has no ability to tempt Job until God grants permission, and only then can he deal with Job based upon the parameters God sets. This is why I stated that Satan is an advesary to us, not God.

As for the conflict between good and evil, that again exists within humans and is our conflict. There is no conflict in the sense of God as good is in conflict with something that is evil. How can there be conflict with God?

 

[MaxBuck]

To say that Satan is the advesary of God is to make him into a god and therefore to create a false idolotry.

This is not logically supportable. As an example, the Skunkbears are clearly the adversaries of the Buckeyes, yet by saying so we are not making them into "Buckeyes." They are, and will always be, inferior in every way.

By saying one entity is adversarial to another entity, we are not thereby implying the two entities have equal footing in any regard.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Now, we take that foundation, and immedaitely carve out three "manifestations?" Leaving alone the fact that an all powerful G-d need not "manifest" himself at all to get work done.... where is the authority in pre-christian traditions which allows for such a thing? It's allegedly Jewish authority.... But, every Jew I have discussed the idea with thinks the idea of G-d being anything other than 1 complete whole is ridiculous.

So, at best, I think Christians are talking about any of 3 "aspects" of G-d as a Jew might talk about any of the "aspects" they identify as parts of the whole. The difference, I think, is that Jews NEVER worship any PART of the whole - which they simply use for discussion purposes - but only ever the whole... Chirstians not only worship Jesus, they believe that they can't even approach G-d without Jesus' intervention.... So, that's why I say Christians are "blasephemous" because, even if Jesus was G-d, he was only an ASPECT of G-d.... I don't worship aspects of G-d... Indeed, I might as well worship this coffee cup to the extent that G-d is present in it (as he's "present in all things," right?) If I am to worship anything, it will be the WHOLE ONE G-d.

BKB, you have to be careful when defining the Christian conception of the trinity, as there is no "one conception", but many different ones--some that disagree with each other.

Of course, I believe that Jesus was God as flesh. However, your description above doesn't even come close to my comprehension of what that means. I understand this confusion because you are taking one understanding of the concept of the triune God that is out there, but as I said, not all Christians have this same view.

My biggest problem with the description you give above is that Jesus is only an aspect of God. I don't agree with this at all, as I hold that Jesus was the "whole, one God" in the flesh. In other words, the entire infinite complexity that is God is represented completely and equally in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no division of the aspects of God among these three.

My understanding of the triune nature of God therefore is relational and in each of these three relations, the full expression of God is present. For example in your relations, you are father to your children, son to your parents, and husband to you wife. This doesn't mean that any aspect of you is absent in any of these relations, but that the "whole, one BKB" relates differently in different circumstances.

(As for the whole Jewish thing...and I say this with caution due to my run-ins with Muffler on these boards, and I don't want to start anything with him--but surely you must acknowledge that the Judaism of today or even 1000 years ago is not the Judaism of Jesus' time or the Judaism of when the Torah was written; just as Christianity today is not the Christianity of the crusades or the Chrisitainty of the first-century followers of Jesus. Simply because Jews reject the idea today does not mean that the concept would have been foreign to the Jews of 2000 years ago. In fact, there are numerous examples throughout the Old Testament that can be interpreted as showing that God can and does take flesh. It is only 2000 years of Christian and Jewish theology debating and responding to each other, and also being influenced by other philosophies and religions in which they come into contact, that has brought us to the place of what you describe above. If you take the time to desconstruct these theological discussion on both sides of the debate, you may find something very different than what you present above as the two sides.)

 

[buckeyegrad]

This is not logically supportable. As an example, the Skunkbears are clearly the adversaries of the Buckeyes, yet by saying so we are not making them into "Buckeyes." They are, and will always be, inferior in every way.

By saying one entity is adversarial to another entity, we are not thereby implying the two entities have equal footing in any regard.

But here is the flaw of your comparison. I said that to see Satan as an advesary of God is to elevate him to the level of a god, not THE God. Therefore, to say that the Skunkbears are our adversary is not say that they are Buckeyes, but it is to acknowledge that they are a university with a football team that has some similar characterisitcs....but, obviously not the same degree of quality!

Again, I see nothing in Scripture--Old or New Testament--to support the idea that God has an advesary.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

BKB, you have to be careful when defining the Christian conception of the trinity, as there is no "one conception", but many different ones--some that disagree with each other.

Of course, I believe that Jesus was God as flesh. However, your description above doesn't even come close to my comprehension of what that means. I understand this confusion because you are taking one understanding of the concept of the triune God that is out there, but as I said, not all Christians have this same view.

My biggest problem with the description you give above is that Jesus is only an aspect of God. I don't agree with this at all, as I hold that Jesus was the "whole, one God" in the flesh. In other words, the entire infinite complexity that is God is represented completely and equally in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no division of the aspects of God among these three.

My understanding of the triune nature of God therefore is relational and in each of these three relations, the full expression of God is present. For example in your relations, you are father to your children, son to your parents, and husband to you wife. This doesn't mean that any aspect of you is absent in any of these relations, but that the "whole, one BKB" relates differently in different circumstances.

(As for the whole Jewish thing...and I say this with caution due to my run-ins with Muffler on these boards, and I don't want to start anything with him--but surely you must acknowledge that the Judaism of today or even 1000 years ago is not the Judaism of Jesus' time or the Judaism of when the Torah was written; just as Christianity today is not the Christianity of the crusades or the Chrisitainty of the first-century followers of Jesus. Simply because Jews reject the idea today does not mean that the concept would have been foreign to the Jews of 2000 years ago. In fact, there are numerous examples throughout the Old Testament that can be interpreted as showing that God can and does take flesh. It is only 2000 years of Christian and Jewish theology debating and responding to each other, and also being influenced by other philosophies and religions in which they come into contact, that has brought us to the place of what you describe above. If you take the time to desconstruct these theological discussion on both sides of the debate, you may find something very different than what you present above as the two sides.)

Agreed...
BGrad just explains it so much better.
Edit:
Though one more thing. The idea that no matter where you look at God you always see the same thing causes problems when I think about it. You are limiting God's ability to only reveal certain things about Himself at certain times.

To be clear on agreeance with BGrad. I also believe Jesus is fully God, not an aspect. Jesus is one way in which God showed himself to us.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

But here is the flaw of your comparison. I said that to see Satan as an advesary of God is to elevate him to the level of a god, not THE God. Therefore, to say that the Skunkbears are our adversary is not say that they are Buckeyes, but it is to acknowledge that they are a university with a football team that has some similar characterisitcs....but, obviously not the same degree of quality!

Again, I see nothing in Scripture--Old or New Testament--to support the idea that God has an advesary.

Agreed.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

My answer to this can be found in the lyrics to this Joan Osborne song:

To me, Jesus's place on earth was to provide tangible evidence to us humans that God knows, experientially, what we struggle with and what choices we're faced with, every day. I don't perceive anything morbid about His life and death on the cross at all.

I'm not trying to argue with you, bkb, just trying to communicate to you how one faithful believer in the deity of Jesus Christ feels. BTW, I also am at odds with those Christians who believe themselves to be "of heaven, not of earth." My point of view is that God wants us to experience fully life on earth; why else put us here?

Fair enough, and on your final point, I would tend to agree (experience life is "good"). Would you agree, however, if we are able to "appreciate" that an all knowing G-d can know what "we struggle with" without the "tangible evidence" of Jesus, that one who ignores Jesus is no worse off than one who "learns" this particular lesson?

BKB, you have to be careful when defining the Christian conception of the trinity, as there is no "one conception", but many different ones--some that disagree with each other.

Quite true. One wonders, however, since each particular Christian is just as able to argue their version is the "true" version just as fiercely as any other, we're pretty well at a complete loss to make any decision based on any more "authority" than what I have done in my own life? That is to say, if we're given a number of "choices" about which brand of Christianity to choose, ultimately it is WE who make the choice as to which brand is most sensible to us... and in choosing one version over another, at its core, really is a comment about our OWN beliefs, and not so much G-ds.

Of course, I believe that Jesus was God as flesh. However, your description above doesn't even come close to my comprehension of what that means. I understand this confusion because you are taking one understanding of the concept of the triune God that is out there, but as I said, not all Christians have this same view.

My biggest problem with the description you give above is that Jesus is only an aspect of God. I don't agree with this at all, as I hold that Jesus was the "whole, one God" in the flesh. In other words, the entire infinite complexity that is God is represented completely and equally in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no division of the aspects of God among these three.

My understanding of the triune nature of God therefore is relational and in each of these three relations, the full expression of God is present. For example in your relations, you are father to your children, son to your parents, and husband to you wife. This doesn't mean that any aspect of you is absent in any of these relations, but that the "whole, one BKB" relates differently in different circumstances.

Your final paragraph actually - to me - says exactly what I was meaning by "aspect" It is indeed true that I can play multiple roles, as father, son, husband, etc. but that these are each descriptors of the whole of ME... however... the problem in the example comes when we include "Worship."

When you choose to give significance to G-d's "role" as "Son" you necessarily fail to appreciate the whole. That is, when I was a child, I view my mother as my mother... But, when I aged, I later understood my mother as a "friend..." among other things... that is to say... I did not completely and totally focus ONLY on her role as my mother... as if that constituted her entireity. I learned to understand her WHOLE better... which, to me, seems to be the goal... When you focus on "Jesus" - and even crediting that "role" even if I personally think it factually incorrect - you necessarily fail to examine the whole and thereby choose to understand only one small part of the whole.

That's not problematic for what it's worth... in fact, as I think about it, it makes some degree of sense (thinking about it as one might "specialize" in a subdiscipline of law (for example))... but.. the other difference is - in including the whole concept of salvation, you go to the next step of saying "Not only is it "better" to focus on only this small aspect of G-d, but doing so is what is required of us to obtain some sort of reward." Exclusively... (and that's the key word, I think.. exclusively) I think it "better" to appreciate the WHOLE of the entity in question to the extent that I am able... rather than focusing strictly on one part of it. I think it part of a "maturation" process (as illustrated with my relationship with my mother...)

Likewise, the idea that this PART of the WHOLE provides salavation, whereas examination of some other PART of the WHOLE does not strikes me as wholly indefensible.

(As for the whole Jewish thing...and I say this with caution due to my run-ins with Muffler on these boards, and I don't want to start anything with him--but surely you must acknowledge that the Judaism of today or even 1000 years ago is not the Judaism of Jesus' time or the Judaism of when the Torah was written; just as Christianity today is not the Christianity of the crusades or the Chrisitainty of the first-century followers of Jesus. Simply because Jews reject the idea today does not mean that the concept would have been foreign to the Jews of 2000 years ago. In fact, there are numerous examples throughout the Old Testament that can be interpreted as showing that God can and does take flesh. It is only 2000 years of Christian and Jewish theology debating and responding to each other, and also being influenced by other philosophies and religions in which they come into contact, that has brought us to the place of what you describe above. If you take the time to desconstruct these theological discussion on both sides of the debate, you may find something very different than what you present above as the two sides.)

I can easily enough agree with everything you've said here.... however, the consequence of that opinion seems to me for you to have to admit that perhaps the Gnostic view of Jesus deserves credit.... that is - while you're completely free to examine their postion now some 2000 years later, and you're complete free to determine what they "believed" is erroneous... you have to leave room that A) you're making an error in your conclusion about wat they ACTUALLy believed B) You're unsure as to what they actually believed because what you know about their beliefs have been influenced heavily by a "campaign" (which you, as it tuns out, do believe) against those beliefs (that's not to say that it was a organized "campaign" necessarily) and D) that - essentially - gnosticsm as it might exist today (in fact or in analysis) is clouded in the same way.

In short.... we all have our "conclusions" about how any "group" thought or thinks about a problem... and it's equally true that "not all Xs necessarily had belief A" as you objected to me.... So, I have to wonder why you'd be so sure that - in our respective cases - YOU get salvation, and I do not.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

All this talk of Iraneaus and the Arian heresy and the Cathars has the old-school Catholic in me foaming at the mouth. To us these differences may seem quaint and trivial and just quibbling over words but back then they had enormous repercussions. Good discussion guys!

 

[buckeyegrad]

Quite true. One wonders, however, since each particular Christian is just as able to argue their version is the "true" version just as fiercely as any other, we're pretty well at a complete loss to make any decision based on any more "authority" than what I have done in my own life? That is to say, if we're given a number of "choices" about which brand of Christianity to choose, ultimately it is WE who make the choice as to which brand is most sensible to us... and in choosing one version over another, at its core, really is a comment about our OWN beliefs, and not so much G-ds.

Yes and no. Since Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, are ultimately based upon a Book (or collection of books) that is held to be divinely inspired, there has to be an acknowledgement that some understandings of the Book's teachings are more accurate than others. It is utterly naive to say that all interpretations are equal. Facts are stubborn things as they say, and they cannot be ignored, nor dismissed because one person likes one interpretation over another of the text.

When you choose to give significance to G-d's "role" as "Son" you necessarily fail to appreciate the whole. That is, when I was a child, I view my mother as my mother... But, when I aged, I later understood my mother as a "friend..." among other things... that is to say... I did not completely and totally focus ONLY on her role as my mother... as if that constituted her entireity. I learned to understand her WHOLE better... which, to me, seems to be the goal... When you focus on "Jesus" - and even crediting that "role" even if I personally think it factually incorrect - you necessarily fail to examine the whole and thereby choose to understand only one small part of the whole.

That's not problematic for what it's worth... in fact, as I think about it, it makes some degree of sense (thinking about it as one might "specialize" in a subdiscipline of law (for example))... but.. the other difference is - in including the whole concept of salvation, you go to the next step of saying "Not only is it "better" to focus on only this small aspect of G-d, but doing so is what is required of us to obtain some sort of reward." Exclusively... (and that's the key word, I think.. exclusively) I think it "better" to appreciate the WHOLE of the entity in question to the extent that I am able... rather than focusing strictly on one part of it. I think it part of a "maturation" process (as illustrated with my relationship with my mother...)

I guess I am lost as to why you are saying, if you are saying this, that acknowledging Jesus as God somehow causes one to miss the whole of God. I don't hold Jesus as higher or lower, more important or less important, than the Father or the Holy Spirit. As I said, the "whole, one God" is equally and completely present in each of these relationships. As such, I work to make sure that I do not elevate or emphasize one over the other in my worship. (Again, I realize that for some Christians this may not be the case and Jesus might be emphasized to too great of an extent--and as such, I try to correct my Christian brothers and sisters when I see such an error).

The reason Jesus does play a role in Christian worship of the "whole, one God" is that since we can have a relationship with God as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit, if we are to truly have a relationship, it must be through all three. If you reject any of these relationships, because they are all equal and God is completely expressed in each, you in essence reject any relationship. As Jesus asked, how can you love the Father if you hate (i.e. reject) the Son? Likewise, I hold that those who would reject the Father, but love the Son (e.g. gnostic Christians) also don't have a relationship. Just as those who would reject the Holy Spirit do not either.

Likewise, the idea that this PART of the WHOLE provides salavation, whereas examination of some other PART of the WHOLE does not strikes me as wholly indefensible.

You lose me when you say Jesus is only a "part of the whole". He is not only a part, he is the whole! I can't emphasize that enough! What the New Testament teaches is that it is through the Son-relationship with the "one, whole God, that one receives salvation.

I can easily enough agree with everything you've said here.... however, the consequence of that opinion seems to me for you to have to admit that perhaps the Gnostic view of Jesus deserves credit.... that is - while you're completely free to examine their postion now some 2000 years later, and you're complete free to determine what they "believed" is erroneous... you have to leave room that A) you're making an error in your conclusion about wat they ACTUALLy believed B) You're unsure as to what they actually believed because what you know about their beliefs have been influenced heavily by a "campaign" (which you, as it tuns out, do believe) against those beliefs (that's not to say that it was a organized "campaign" necessarily) and D) that - essentially - gnosticsm as it might exist today (in fact or in analysis) is clouded in the same way.

I have never come across anything in the history of Gnosticism that I have read that would even suggest that they did not rejected the Father (i.e. YHVH of the Old Testament)--nothing in their own writings or in the writings of historians--secular or religious. As such, I see no reason until presented otherwise, to give credit to their beliefs. This is very different than Jewish and Christian theologies, where I can see different views on the nature of God develop over time. Now granted, perhaps such a view has been lost to history, but we can't assume it existed without evidence. If such evidence would ever come to light, then a re-evaluation of the Gnostics might be in order...not saying that they would then be correct because of that one issue, but maybe a different understanding of how they were not correct.

In short.... we all have our "conclusions" about how any "group" thought or thinks about a problem... and it's equally true that "not all Xs necessarily had belief A" as you objected to me.... So, I have to wonder why you'd be so sure that - in our respective cases - YOU get salvation, and I do not.

And I would be left wondering why you'd be so sure that salvation is not necessary for you or me. The fact that I can acknowledge differences of "opinion" and the degrees of those differences is irrelevant to what we believe is correct or incorrect.

 

[MaxBuck]

Fair enough, and on your final point, I would tend to agree (experience life is "good"). Would you agree, however, if we are able to "appreciate" that an all knowing G-d can know what "we struggle with" without the "tangible evidence" of Jesus, that one who ignores Jesus is no worse off than one who "learns" this particular lesson?

... I have to wonder why you'd be so sure that - in our respective cases - YOU get salvation, and I do not.

To your first point, I believe God had good reasons for becoming incarnate and living on earth; I can surmise as to what those might be, and can come up with reasons that make sense to me, but His reasons are His alone, and not necessarily revealed to me.

To your second point - that's one of the theological struggles I've always had. Evangelists have often used John 14:6 as the basis for "saving souls" through proselytizing, and in some cases bullying, people into "accepting Christ:"

6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Their inference is that unless one accepts the deity of Jesus, then salvation is not possible. And that is the orthodox Christian view; to believe otherwise is heretical. Yet I do believe otherwise; the Gospel records of His preachings do not indicate that Jesus advised us that we must, while on earth, vow obeisance or fealty to His kingship. That "obligation" came from others, and I don't accept it as a valid basis for coercing people into becoming Christians. I interpret what Jesus said as simply this: when man wishes to know the desires of God the Father for our lives, man has a simple reference: Jesus, His life, and His teachings.

From my perspective, I try to communicate what joy and inner peace comes from the knowledge that Jesus loved me personally enough to die for me on the cross, and to thereby atone for my own shortcomings. My faith relates primarily to my personal relationship with God. (I also regard the terms "salvation" and "eternal life" a little differently from most people, too, but that's a topic for another day.)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yes and no. Since Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, are ultimately based upon a Book (or collection of books) that is held to be divinely inspired, there has to be an acknowledgement that some understandings of the Book's teachings are more accurate than others. It is utterly naive to say that all interpretations are equal. Facts are stubborn things as they say, and they cannot be ignored, nor dismissed because one person likes one interpretation over another of the text.

I'm torn on how to treat this as will probably become clear below.

My first inclining is to note that you're taking the mere existence of a book (or collection of them) and thereby turning those stories contained therein in to - on some level - unassailable facts by the end of your paragraph. We might as well read the Hobbit and treat its characters and assertions as facts

As it is, all you have as interpretation of whatever is said in the Bible. What's more, to the extent that the Bible is not a historical text book, MUCH is left to interpretation... and a consistency to you may well be an inconsistency to someone else. Who's right? I don't know.... but it's hard from cut and dry as you suggest.

I guess I am lost as to why you are saying, if you are saying this, that acknowledging Jesus as God somehow causes one to miss the whole of God. I don't hold Jesus as higher or lower, more important or less important, than the Father or the Holy Spirit. As I said, the "whole, one God" is equally and completely present in each of these relationships. As such, I work to make sure that I do not elevate or emphasize one over the other in my worship. (Again, I realize that for some Christians this may not be the case and Jesus might be emphasized to too great of an extent--and as such, I try to correct my Christian brothers and sisters when I see such an error).

Very well.... Then I am hard pressed to understand why there would be any emphasis on Christianity (your version, or any other) as compared to any other religion which also contemplates the WHOLE of G-d. As it is, however, you believe something very different... you believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) the only way to salvation is through Jesus.... But, if you concede that there are other ways to appreciate G-d's WHOLENESS... well... I think you see where that leads.... Christianity is no more valid than any other method of understand (or attempting to) G-d. As such, there should be little cause for you or any other Christian to "convert" anyone... or teach anyone your view... since any view is just as valid. (Not saying that's your goal, necessarily, just making the observation as it concerns a belief that one view is "more right" than some other)

The reason Jesus does play a role in Christian worship of the "whole, one God" is that since we can have a relationship with God as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit, if we are to truly have a relationship, it must be through all three. If you reject any of these relationships, because they are all equal and God is completely expressed in each, you in essence reject any relationship. As Jesus asked, how can you love the Father if you hate (i.e. reject) the Son? Likewise, I hold that those who would reject the Father, but love the Son (e.g. gnostic Christians) also don't have a relationship. Just as those who would reject the Holy Spirit do not either.

I see no reason to divide G-d up in any such way. I personally obtain NO benefit from viewing G-d in such a fashion... indeed, it does little but confuse the issue so far as I'm concerned.

You lose me when you say Jesus is only a "part of the whole". He is not only a part, he is the whole! I can't emphasize that enough! What the New Testament teaches is that it is through the Son-relationship with the "one, whole God, that one receives salvation.

This is simply not possible if we are to credit the Bible in toto.

Malachi argues that G-d is unchanging (Malachi 3:6) In describing Jesus, who again, you claim is the WHOLE of G-d, Luke observes Jesus increasing in stature and wisdom (Luke 2:52) Discard the Stature part.... If Jesus learned ONE thing... any ONE thing... he cannot have been G-d. Luke said there was an increase in wisdom. This means that Jesus was at some point less wise than at some other point. This means that if Jesus IS G-d, then G-d "changed" at some point... from less wise to more wise... (Again, leaving the "stature" part out of it entirely)

I have never come across anything in the history of Gnosticism that I have read that would even suggest that they did not rejected the Father (i.e. YHVH of the Old Testament)--nothing in their own writings or in the writings of historians--secular or religious. As such, I see no reason until presented otherwise, to give credit to their beliefs. This is very different than Jewish and Christian theologies, where I can see different views on the nature of God develop over time. Now granted, perhaps such a view has been lost to history, but we can't assume it existed without evidence. If such evidence would ever come to light, then a re-evaluation of the Gnostics might be in order...not saying that they would then be correct because of that one issue, but maybe a different understanding of how they were not correct.

All I'm saying is you have choosen to credit or discard information - rationally or otherwise - based on little more than whether you find it agreeable or not. Surely even you can concede that you might have adopted some view OTHER than the views you currently have if your life had been different than its been... to trivialize.... if you grew up in Ann Arbor, to a family who was staunch Michigan fans, you might well be on GoBlue.com right now...

Your beliefs, sadly, are not COMPELLED... they are chosen.

And I would be left wondering why you'd be so sure that salvation is not necessary for you or me. The fact that I can acknowledge differences of "opinion" and the degrees of those differences is irrelevant to what we believe is correct or incorrect.

I would say there's no such thing as salavation much less that it's necessary on any level. As I discussed with T-Scott... I see nothing in the human condiditon which needs "saving" from.... to me... it is what it is... nothing more, nothing less.... Indeed, I can't understand how you resolve a creator G-d who creates a thing that needs to be saved in the first place....

 

[RB07OSU]

This is compounded by Jew's belief (which Christianity purports to be based on) that the idea of a "man-G-d" (or G-d in human form) is ridiculous (maybe Muffler can help me out with the biblical support for that view)... which is in accord with my belief that a "man god" or G-d as man... is something of a "why the [censored] would he do that?" issue. I mean, as I've expressed before... I just don't see the point... if G-d wanted to "save us" or give us "grace" all he had to do was say "You're saved...." or "you get grace" This nailing himself to a cross and suffering and all that just doesn't make sense.... he's G-d for Christ's sake... not the kind of guy who has to "go thru motions" for "show"

Anyway... as a confirmed catholic, I can say that I have explored these ideas of mine with a certain sense of dread... but ultimately, I have come to the conclusino that G-d is important enough to me that I will take HIS word as spoken to me, through ME instead of thru others..... That may well be a trust issue, I guess... but.. I believe in me... I trust me... I don't bull[censored] myself... As to others... well... I can never be certain. Ibelieve G-d is not so very hard to find if you look... indeed, one cannot help but find G-d because there is truly nothing else....

To be sure, I still have problems reconsiling my personal behavior with my personal belief as it realtes to the consequences of my conclusions....... but.. I am trying

Edit: See also, this post:

First off, since this is my first post in this thread, I am a Christian. The cross (to me) is just a desperate, yet necessary, way of showing God's love for us. God himself suffering for us was the perfect example of humility, passion, and sacrifice He wants us to return to Him. He did this knowing how many would spit in his face and deny Him. He did this knowing that those who would accept it would still fall far short of what He gave. However, being the loving creator I believe God to be, I think he wants to give everyone the possibility of accepting Him.

Now "accepting Him" is a whole different ball game to me than many Christians and lines up identically to Catholic doctrine. As I stated earlier, God wants to be with us at all costs. He wants everyone to share eternity with Him. However, I don't believe that only Christians will be able to. It only makes sense to me that if God wants to be with us so bad, He is going to try and appeal to each individual in the most relevant manner possible. I believe that each person is born with the desire to know their creator. I believe each person knows there is a creator, whether they know who/what it is or not. Obviously, there have been generations of tribes and peoples who never even heard of Jesus, or the Judea Christian "God." Some of those people may have worshipped a tree they deemed as God. The Native Americans i.e. worshipped many natural objects. Since God is also just (on top of loving), He is going to take that into account. If God knows a person is legitimately trying to search His truth, I believe He will give each person the opportunity to accept His love, in one form or another. As you can tell, region and culture tend to shape choice of religion and I believe that is no accident. God simply appeals to everyone in some form.

Given all of this, I still believe Jesus is the way and the truth. I believe He is the way to salvation. However, I find it hard to follow what I think God wants even with Jesus on my side, so I think it would be nearly impossible without Him. It isn't impossible in my opinion, just more difficult. So to each person I discuss this with, I explain that I don't think they are condemned to hell if they haven't accepted Jesus. However, I encourage them to explore it more because that is what God asks us to do and many refuse to, so the fact that you force yourself to think about it is WAY more advanced than most. Most will sweep behavior and spiritual thoughts to the side for comfort. Beyond all of this, I personally stay out of the "condemnation" talk because I just need to focus on my own salvation to hopefully influence others to pursue it. I don't know who is and isn't condemned, so I live accordingly. Only we ourselves can work out our salvation.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

To your first point, I believe God had good reasons for becoming incarnate and living on earth; I can surmise as to what those might be, and can come up with reasons that make sense to me, but His reasons are His alone, and not necessarily revealed to me.

To your second point - that's one of the theological struggles I've always had. Evangelists have often used John 14:6 as the basis for "saving souls" through proselytizing, and in some cases bullying, people into "accepting Christ:"

Their inference is that unless one accepts the deity of Jesus, then salvation is not possible. And that is the orthodox Christian view; to believe otherwise is heretical. Yet I do believe otherwise; the Gospel records of His preachings do not indicate that Jesus advised us that we must, while on earth, vow obeisance or fealty to His kingship. That "obligation" came from others, and I don't accept it as a valid basis for coercing people into becoming Christians. I interpret what Jesus said as simply this: when man wishes to know the desires of God the Father for our lives, man has a simple reference: Jesus, His life, and His teachings.

From my perspective, I try to communicate what joy and inner peace comes from the knowledge that Jesus loved me personally enough to die for me on the cross, and to thereby atone for my own shortcomings. My faith relates primarily to my personal relationship with God. (I also regard the terms "salvation" and "eternal life" a little differently from most people, too, but that's a topic for another day.)

That is a very liberal interpretation of that verse considering the article translated "the" in the Greek means "the one and only"

So I believe Jesus is saying "I am the one and only way, the one and only truth,l am the one and only life." But then you have the second half of the verse, I don't know how it could be any clearer.