RB07OSU;1422631; said:
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.
Welcome to the discussion.... My only question for you at the moment would be that suffering is the equivalent of love. I show my children I love them, and it doesn't take suffering... or anything remotely close.
buckeyegrad;1422724; said:
You clearly misunderstood what I meant by facts. The facts I am referring to is that the texts say "X". For instance, it is a fact that the book of Matthew (5:17) reports Jesus as saying, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Therefore, any interpretation of Jesus' relationship to the Torah cannot overlook this fact. An interpretation that does is less complete, and therefore more flawed, than one that does include it. Thus, it is easily shown that not all interpretations are equal.
Fair enough.... but.. it may not be as easy as your conclusion suggests as the ultimate arbiter of what interpretation is the "best" or most "consistent" or whatever are individuals.... and they might well disagree... and do... Take your own version of Christianity, and compare it to Catholicism, for example... Hell.. they've got the POPE for crying out loud... to the extent that your version of Christianity and his disagree... well.... who am I to believe?
As I said in the previous post, a relationship with God through Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is necessary for any relationship with the "whole, one God". If you are missing one of these three, or do not treat them as equal, then you are missing something--not because God is not fully complete in each of the relationships, but because our limited, finite abilities as humans do not allow us to begin to grasp (we won't ever fully achieve it) the entire complexity of God through just one relationship. Just as when you were a child, you only saw your mother as mother and not as also a friend; although her complete self was there in the relationship of mother-son, you couldn't perceive her completeness as the friend-friend relationship was not yet present, which brought you to a greater understanding of her completeness.
Right, I agree.... but... my observation also contemplated how WE approach G-d and not just how G-d maintains his oneness despite being 3 also... As I said, to me it just confuses the issue...
Have you ever honestly tried to view God from this perspective?
Yes. I have honestly tried. On scrutiny it failed to do anything but make me mad that I was being expected to believe something so far removed from what I observe in reality.... and it lacked credibility... That's not to say it doesn't work for people.... but it doesn't work for me...
It reminds me of why I don't go thru the motions of sitting in a church any more.... Church is supposed to bring us together... make us feel good feelings... unity... all that.... well... it doesn't do that for me... it straight pisses me off. That's not the Church's problem, really.... but... it doesn't work for me... it doesn't make me a better person... it makes me an angry person. It doesn't teach me joy and happiness or any such thing, it makes me hate. Again... that's not an indictment of church... it's an honest assessment as to what "organized religion" does to me. It makes me a worse person... and that's the truth as plain as I can state it.
You do know that Christians believe that while Jesus was here on earth, he had the dual nature of both God and man, yes? And in that dual nature, the incarnation became subject to the laws of creation, including growth and development. This doesn't mean the God-nature of the Son changed or learned anything; it only means that the man-nature of Jesus did. Nor does it mean that the man-nature added to or subtracted from the oneness of God.
Rather than a contradiction, what Malachi 3:6 does is provide a greater understanding of the "one, whole God" as flesh. It helps us to understand that although God experienced life as man, no aspect of God changed as a result of that experience--that's extremely important in understanding what God was doing as Jesus and how His love for us occurs. As such, Malachi 3:6, rather than contradicting Luke 2:52, actually increases our understanding of the verse--in other words, the more correct intepretation of this verse deals with the fact of Malachi 3:6, whereas the inferior fails to account for it. Therefore, we can reject the idea that God learned anything new during his time on Earth in the flesh. If this is the case, then how do we make sense of Luke 2:52.? The interpretation that appears most appropriate is that it is telling us that God as flesh experienced fully what it is to be human. (There are verses in Hebrews and several of Paul's letters that as facts of the text support this view.)
Truth is, I was kinda setting you up to illustrate the points we're discussing in the first paragraphs. You have your view as to what you think these passages mean... I have mine.... While you believe yours to be consistent, and superior to mine... I likewise believe I'm on sturdier ground.... so, it depends almost exclusively on WHO is doing the interpreting and not what the words are....
Besides, taking the Luke verse out of it.. If Malachi is correct, then G-d cannot not be Jesus on earth at one point in time, and then be Jesus on earth at some other point in time. That is, G-d existed in whatever form from the beginning to Jesus' birth.... to believe he became a man (for whatever purpose) you have to belive he "changed" in some way because he went from not being a man to being a man.... even if still a G-d.
Anyway... I suppose you can argue your way around this objection as well as I have very little aniticpation that any objection I make will leave much of a mark as to your world-view. But, suffice to say, for ME... it's far cleaner to believe in a G-d that makes sense than one who does not (in my view, that is). This version of G-d in the Bible... it makes sense to you... and there's no harm in that, I concede.... But, that doesn't mean it should (or even does) make sense to me..... Again, as I said above, it fails at virtually every turn in my analysis.
I realize you figure I just interpret the Bible incorreclty.... but... as I said earlier, on issues of faith and G-d, I trust ME, not you... and.. th Bible's version of G-d just doesn't withstand scrutiny so far as I'm concerned.... as my comments over the last few years should illustrate.
Your belief in the multiverse might allow for such a possiblity, but as I reject the idea of the multiverse, I think such hypotheticals are meaningless. I do not consider the situation into which I was born and the experiences I have had in life as a result of chance. You are somewhat correct that my beliefs are chosen, but they were not chosen entirely by me.
And I take great comfort knowing that my "belief" in the multiverse is in accord with modern science and still my G-d has not been proven to have been impossible. Look, I don't know if there are multiple universes... but I can say, the math high powered thinkers use to figure out how this all works points to the fact that there are... For my part, I think your ignorance at to the theory of multiple universes is ridiculous. I mean, you're purposely avoiding the consequences of something that might very well be true..... you have to DENY this particular reality for your G-d to survive.... My G-d lives even if there is 1 universe, or a billion... or an infinity of them.... yours does not. I don't mean that as anecdotal evidence that I'm "right" I just mean that I can assimilate today's best science with a belief in G-d.... you seem to choose ignorance. (I don't intend that word as carrying negative emotion, it's just a word)
All I know is G-d makes sense to me when I view him the way I do. Likewise, the WORLD makes sense when I view it the way I do... and I don't have to believe that man and dinos lived together (not saying you do, just giving an example) ... I can believe that they're probably right about 11 dimensions of space time (I surely can't prove them wrong).. and still have G-d on top of it all.... I feel good about it, and it makes me a better person. Completely unlike Christianity.
As for the suggestion that you are where you are not by chance... that might as well be a "meaningless hypothetical" failing any proof... which, of course, you cannot provide. You're free to believe it, of course... it may even be true (Truth is, I actually leave ample room for the possibility)... But.. as it is today, it's little more than a way to give meaning to everything else you believe.
you're a sick man
