Divine Intervention v. Divine Inspiration

[wil]

That's a very convenient escape clause though, isn't it?

And really, the statement is entirely logical and coherent with the rest of the materials — the last thing Jesus was saying was, "Yeah, whatever floats your boat."

God bless

Thomas

hmmm...love it when you get twisted. But the ones that stick in my head are...we are all his brothers and sisters, children of the divine, and that everything he has done we will do and more....which all adds upto I and the father are one...and we are all one.... then of course there is the forgive them for they know not what they do....

But I can see the man who walks on water and tells folks to cast their nets on the 'right'eous side saying.."Yeah, whatever floats your boat" or maybe the misheard him....."Yeah, water floats your boat" or the sea of potentiality that supports a sustaining state of consciousness for those seeking light, strength and healing...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

I believe 'I am' to be the vine.

It's not a question of what you want to believe, it's what Scripture says, and it doesn't say that.

"I am" in the New Testament points to the "I am" revelation of Mount Sinai. In both cases "I am" signifies the self-subsistence of the Speaker (cf John 8:58). We are not self-subsistent, nor can we become self-subsisting.

Moreover it seems rather prideful to me ... I would go so far as to say it's the sin of Adam, assuming an equality with God. You sure no-one's been whispering in your ear?

I believe abiding in him to be larger than him.

You mean Jesus is better off by your presence?
Again, Scripture refutes this notion (cf Matthew 25:34, Ephesians 1:4).

So far, you're offering me an inversion of doctrine. You're reducing God to something finite, and promoting yourself into the infinite, so that you can claim equality with God. Given time, and you'll be telling me God will do whatever you tell Him.

I believe he said, without the father (I am) he can do nothing.

And without Him, we can do nothing, and no-one comes to the father, but through Him, so the line of dependence is there — nothing about we doing it by ourselves.

... that we are his family, we are also sons and daughters of the most high.

It's interesting that you stand by Scripture when it suits, according to your own meaning which nigh-on all scholarship points out as an error, and that you dismiss it as fireside nonsense when it doesn't.

If half of what you say of Scripture is false because it is incredulous, then this most certainly falls by that same standard.

Ah, but Thomas, that is not the way it works for you. Because of what you choose to believe. That is your choice my brother. It is the way it works for me and mine that roll in the glory of G!d.

But don't kid yourself by calling it Christian, it isn't.

I rather think from what yiou say, you and yours roll in the glory of your own imaginings. The God has precious little to do with it, and precious little say in the matter, either.

A 'nontheist Christian'? That's fantasy in anyone's book. (I would have thought the Buddha was more in your line of thinking?)

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste Thomas, it appears I've answered you entire post with my last response... so I'll just address this.

Hi Wil —

It's not a question of what you want to believe, it's what Scripture says, and it doesn't say that.

Respectively. Bull crap. But you know this. There are plenty of scriptures where you will argue cannot be taken litterally, that have deeper meaning, that are metaphorical, allegorical and even mythical.

But you as all of us pick and choose, and it appears none of us likes what the other picks and chooses.

You don't appreciate everything I have done you will do and more, no biggy. You have your beliefs, no worries, I am fine that you and yours have your beliefs and understandings...

What I find interesting is that you have issues that folks like I have our understandings, and we are not alone. Thousands of denomoniations, each with something to argue about. Millions of ex Catholics, each because they don't buy it anymore...maybe it is the contraceptive thing, or the judging of homosexuals....or that women can't be priests....

But what is the root of the differences?? We all want to think we are closer to G!d, that my feet fit in Jesus's footprints better?

Why??

Why not just revel in the fact that others have a connection?

Why not just enjoy your own connection?

Why be envious of others beliefs?

A 'nontheist Christian'? That's fantasy in anyone's book. (I would have thought the Buddha was more in your line of thinking?)

I've never studied Bhudda to any extent, peripherally here and there....I've studied Jesus and the bible...are you indicating that you believe Jesus and the Bible has lead me to Bhudda?

As for the nontheistic Christian....no fantasy, fantasy to me is what so many believe of someone keeping a spreadsheet on everyone who has been naughty and nice, throwing out plagues, floods, pesitilence or bumper crops and BMWs depending on whether he's got his meds right or not, I don't believe in Thor or Santy Clause (well the spirit of Santa) but face it, most Christians cannot not anthropomophize G!D as either physical figure or an emotional being....I don't buy it...and that is the theism, the standard theism that most every schoolboy and schoolgirl is taught and most still have stuck in their psyche....

But that is me....now for others, if that floats there boat....a G!d stomping thru the garden calling fee fi fo fum, I can't find Adam and Eve.... that is fine for them.

I would go so far as to say it's the sin of Adam, assuming an equality with God. You sure no-one's been whispering in your ear?

Exactly my brother! I don't believe in Adam, or your devil, that is ego whispering, our own adversary, no critter slithering....

I wasn't born in original sin, I was born in original blessing....thank G!d!!

 

[wil]

It does appear this thread is beginning to define the difference between Divine Inspriation and Divine Intervention....

Or Man's inspiration and Man's Intervention...

Gotta love it...

or

Godda love it...

or

G!d I love it!

 

[radarmark]

This is a very very good thread. The dialogue between Wil and Thomas really stakes out the marches between Divine and Man and Intervention and Inspiration.

It is interesting that for many Christians (esp here in the USA where Wil and I live) any deviation from "what I was taught" is either unthinkable or false or heresy. That is really what it all comes down to, can you find room in your tent for every vaiety of Christian? We "liberal Quakers" are made fun of by other denominations because we really actually believe that "G!d in in everyone" and "in my Father's house there are many mansions". Yep, that means we welcome the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Jew, the agnostic, the atheist, the nontheistic christian, the unitarian, the universalist, the Wiccan and more. Just not very focused on triumnphalism or domination or exclusivity. Not better, not worse, just different.

Pax et armore vincunt omnia--Radarmark.

 

[donnann]

Namaste Thomas, it appears I've answered you entire post with my last response... so I'll just address this.
Respectively. Bull crap. But you know this. There are plenty of scriptures where you will argue cannot be taken litterally, that have deeper meaning, that are metaphorical, allegorical and even mythical.

But you as all of us pick and choose, and it appears none of us likes what the other picks and chooses.

You don't appreciate everything I have done you will do and more, no biggy. You have your beliefs, no worries, I am fine that you and yours have your beliefs and understandings...

What I find interesting is that you have issues that folks like I have our understandings, and we are not alone. Thousands of denomoniations, each with something to argue about. Millions of ex Catholics, each because they don't buy it anymore...maybe it is the contraceptive thing, or the judging of homosexuals....or that women can't be priests....

But what is the root of the differences?? We all want to think we are closer to G!d, that my feet fit in Jesus's footprints better?

Why??

Why not just revel in the fact that others have a connection?

Why not just enjoy your own connection?

Why be envious of others beliefs?



I've never studied Bhudda to any extent, peripherally here and there....I've studied Jesus and the bible...are you indicating that you believe Jesus and the Bible has lead me to Bhudda?

As for the nontheistic Christian....no fantasy, fantasy to me is what so many believe of someone keeping a spreadsheet on everyone who has been naughty and nice, throwing out plagues, floods, pesitilence or bumper crops and BMWs depending on whether he's got his meds right or not, I don't believe in Thor or Santy Clause (well the spirit of Santa) but face it, most Christians cannot not anthropomophize G!D as either physical figure or an emotional being....I don't buy it...and that is the theism, the standard theism that most every schoolboy and schoolgirl is taught and most still have stuck in their psyche....

But that is me....now for others, if that floats there boat....a G!d stomping thru the garden calling fee fi fo fum, I can't find Adam and Eve.... that is fine for them. Exactly my brother! I don't believe in Adam, or your devil, that is ego whispering, our own adversary, no critter slithering....

I wasn't born in original sin, I was born in original blessing....thank G!d!!

All life is a blessing . What they mean by original sin is that the soul and spirit are not ONE with the body due to the fall and that we are in this condition. It doesnt mean that life isnt sacred. It means we simply are not in the original human state of being, immortal.

 

[donnann]

Namaste Thomas, it appears I've answered you entire post with my last response... so I'll just address this.
Respectively. Bull crap. But you know this. There are plenty of scriptures where you will argue cannot be taken litterally, that have deeper meaning, that are metaphorical, allegorical and even mythical.

But you as all of us pick and choose, and it appears none of us likes what the other picks and chooses.

You don't appreciate everything I have done you will do and more, no biggy. You have your beliefs, no worries, I am fine that you and yours have your beliefs and understandings...

What I find interesting is that you have issues that folks like I have our understandings, and we are not alone. Thousands of denomoniations, each with something to argue about. Millions of ex Catholics, each because they don't buy it anymore...maybe it is the contraceptive thing, or the judging of homosexuals....or that women can't be priests....

But what is the root of the differences?? We all want to think we are closer to G!d, that my feet fit in Jesus's footprints better?

Why??

Why not just revel in the fact that others have a connection?

Why not just enjoy your own connection?

Why be envious of others beliefs?



I've never studied Bhudda to any extent, peripherally here and there....I've studied Jesus and the bible...are you indicating that you believe Jesus and the Bible has lead me to Bhudda?

As for the nontheistic Christian....no fantasy, fantasy to me is what so many believe of someone keeping a spreadsheet on everyone who has been naughty and nice, throwing out plagues, floods, pesitilence or bumper crops and BMWs depending on whether he's got his meds right or not, I don't believe in Thor or Santy Clause (well the spirit of Santa) but face it, most Christians cannot not anthropomophize G!D as either physical figure or an emotional being....I don't buy it...and that is the theism, the standard theism that most every schoolboy and schoolgirl is taught and most still have stuck in their psyche....

But that is me....now for others, if that floats there boat....a G!d stomping thru the garden calling fee fi fo fum, I can't find Adam and Eve.... that is fine for them. Exactly my brother! I don't believe in Adam, or your devil, that is ego whispering, our own adversary, no critter slithering....

I wasn't born in original sin, I was born in original blessing....thank G!d!!

Any being that was incarnated into the human body does still have immortal elements, thats how jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Abdullah]

I have a good question about Islam. I see simularity between your book and the jewish and christian and yes even hindu and buddhist. What is the one disagreeing factor between Islam and the other religions? If you could address each religion separately and compare it to Islam and let me know what the disagreements are it would be much appreciated.

That is a very good question


THE MAIN DIFFERENCES ARE:

Islam says that the definition of monotheism is to unify God is one's understanding, and this is to hold God litterally beyond conceptualisation, i.e whatever comes to mind, God is not that but far above it, hence God does not consist of parts, partners, image, shape, or does not resemble anything like the creation in the slightest; this all interprets into that God is ONE, without partners/associates

The Christians have rendered the concept of God into parts of the creation, i.e the man jesus [pbuh], a created concept of a 'spirit', and even the main part of their God is anthropomorphised, i.e a father figure which men are the image of

the jews anthropomorphise God as their is a lot of anthropomorphism in their scriptures; this all is a deviation from the original message preached by Moses [pbuh] and jesus [pbuh]

The muslims believe in all of Gods messengers and regard them as the best of humanity and sinless, i.e, they commited no sin while on earth

Jews and Christians believe that some of Gods messengers commited henious sins and they desbelieve in some Messengers, such as Jesus [pbuh] and Muhammad [saw]; the Christians reject jesus [pbuh] as the hundred percent man who was only a messenger just lik e other messengers, and they deify him instead

Muslims have set rituals which range from being obligatory to optional

jews have some rituals [I think] but not as frequent and stressed as is in islam

Christians live by moral principles and consider themselves to have a 'personal relationship' with God

Islam has theocracy as part of it's guidance whereas Christians and jews keep state and religion seperate

then there are the legal rulings regarding the permissable and the forbidden which differ in all three religions and some of the unlawfull which any of the three share, Islam takes them much more seriously than the others, such as fornication and usury, etc,

ps: the most important disagreement will be, Islam has clarified that the description of Muhammad [saw] was/is in the original Torah and Bible [and the guidance to follow him once he makes his advent]; also the Quran unequivically mentions that the last Messenger Muhammad [saw] was sent for all mankind [whereas previous prophets, including jesus [pbuh] and moses [pbuh] were sent to specific nations only; the latter two to the jews], abrogating all previously revealed religions, hence in addition to the abvoe mentioned 'deviancies', the Christians and jews remain out of the folds of the one and only Truth by not converting to islam; this ofcourse applies to whoever of them that have heard about islam; here is a more detailed explanation:



Would Allah put someone in the hellfire merely for worshipping in another religion besides Islam? This question is answered by traditional Islam according to two possibilities:


(1) There are some peoples who have not been reached by the message of the Prophet of Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace) that we must worship the One God alone, associating nothing else with Him. Such people are innocent, and will not be punished no matter what they do. Allah says in surat al-Isra',

"We do not punish until We send a Messenger" (Qur'an 17:15).
​

These include, for example, Christians and others who lived in the period after the spread of the myth of Jesus godhood, until the time of the prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), who renewed the call to pure monotheism.

The great Muslim scholar, Imam Ghazali, includes in this category those who have only been reached with a distorted picture of the Messenger of Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace), presumably including many people in the West today who know nothing about Allah's religion but newspaper stories about Ayatollahs and mad Muslim bombers. Is it within such people's capacity to believe? In Ghazali's view, such people are excused until after they have had an opportunity to learn the undistorted truth about Islam (Ghazali: "Faysal al-tafriqa," Majmu'a rasa'il al-Imam al-Ghazali, 3.96). This of course does not alter our own obligation as Muslims to reach them with the da'wa.

(2) A second group of people consists of those who turn away from God's divine message of Islam, rejecting the command to make their worship God's alone; whether because of blindly imitating the religion of their ancestors, or for some other reason. These are people to whom God has sent a prophetic messenger and reached with His message, and to whom He has given hearing and an intellect with which to grasp it but after all this, persist in associating others with Allah, either by actually worshipping another, or by rejecting the laws brought by His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), which associates their own customs with His prerogative to be worshipped as He directs. Such people have violated God's rights, and have accepted to go to hell, which is precisely what His messengers have warned them of, so they have no excuse:

"Truly, Allah does not forgive that any be associated with Him; but He forgives what is less than that to whomever He wills" (Qur'an 4:48).
​

In either case, Allah's mercy exists, though for non-Muslims unreached by the message, it is a question of divine amnesty for their ignorance, not a confirmation of their religions validity.

Universal Validity of Religions


As for Bhudism and Hinduism, it is not confirmed in islam wether their religions started off with an originally revealed religion from Allah, hence we do not say for sure that they did, however now it's clear to see they are full of idolatry and mythology, hence they too would suffer the same fate as explained above

it says in that article that those unreached by the message of islam will not be punished for whatever they do, this is true, but such people will be put to a test on the Day of judgement and it's outcome will decide their fate of wether they are saved or not; those who IF they had come across the message of islam would have converted, they would pass the test and those who would not have would fail and end up in hell:

Al-Bazzar and al-Tirmidhi who graded it hasan narrated that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: The one who died in Fatra, the retard, and the infant will say respectively: No Book or Messenger reached me; You gave me no mind wherewith to understand good or evil; I did not have a chance to do anything. A fire will be presented to them and they will be told to enter it. Those who would have done well in life will obey and enter it (temporarily) while those who would have disobeyed in life will refuse. Allah will tell them: You disobey Me (seeing Me), so how could you obey My Messengers in My absence? (Abu Sa`id al-Khudri)

Al-Tabarani and Abu Nu`aym narrated that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: The retard will come on the Day of Judgment together with the one who died in fatra and the infant etc. (same as(e)) They will keep coming back although the fire would not have hurt them, and Allah will say: I knew your actions from afore, so take them (O Fire).

www.abc.se/~m9783/fiqhi/sp2-gfh_e.html#4

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

"We do not punish until We send a Messenger" (Qur'an 17:15).

in islam God is anthropomorphised as a punisher which is a human trait.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

This is a very very good thread. The dialogue between Wil and Thomas really stakes out the marches between Divine and Man and Intervention and Inspiration.

It is interesting that for many Christians (esp here in the USA where Wil and I live) any deviation from "what I was taught" is either unthinkable or false or heresy. That is really what it all comes down to, can you find room in your tent for every vaiety of Christian? We "liberal Quakers" are made fun of by other denominations because we really actually believe that "G!d in in everyone" and "in my Father's house there are many mansions". Yep, that means we welcome the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Jew, the agnostic, the atheist, the nontheistic christian, the unitarian, the universalist, the Wiccan and more. Just not very focused on triumnphalism or domination or exclusivity. Not better, not worse, just different.

Pax et armore vincunt omnia--Radarmark.

do you Quakers consider yourself Christians ?

 

[donnann]

That is a very good question


THE MAIN DIFFERENCES ARE:

Islam says that the definition of monotheism is to unify God is one's understanding, and this is to hold God litterally beyond conceptualisation, i.e whatever comes to mind, God is not that but far above it, hence God does not consist of parts, partners, image, shape, or does not resemble anything like the creation in the slightest; this all interprets into that God is ONE, without partners/associates

The Christians have rendered the concept of God into parts of the creation, i.e the man jesus [pbuh], a created concept of a 'spirit', and even the main part of their God is anthropomorphised, i.e a father figure which men are the image of

the jews anthropomorphise God as their is a lot of anthropomorphism in their scriptures; this all is a deviation from the original message preached by Moses [pbuh] and jesus [pbuh]

The muslims believe in all of Gods messengers and regard them as the best of humanity and sinless, i.e, they commited no sin while on earth

Jews and Christians believe that some of Gods messengers commited henious sins and they desbelieve in some Messengers, such as Jesus [pbuh] and Muhammad [saw]; the Christians reject jesus [pbuh] as the hundred percent man who was only a messenger just lik e other messengers, and they deify him instead

Muslims have set rituals which range from being obligatory to optional

jews have some rituals [I think] but not as frequent and stressed as is in islam

Christians live by moral principles and consider themselves to have a 'personal relationship' with God

Islam has theocracy as part of it's guidance whereas Christians and jews keep state and religion seperate

then there are the legal rulings regarding the permissable and the forbidden which differ in all three religions and some of the unlawfull which any of the three share, Islam takes them much more seriously than the others, such as fornication and usury, etc,

ps: the most important disagreement will be, Islam has clarified that the description of Muhammad [saw] was/is in the original Torah and Bible [and the guidance to follow him once he makes his advent]; also the Quran unequivically mentions that the last Messenger Muhammad [saw] was sent for all mankind [whereas previous prophets, including jesus [pbuh] and moses [pbuh] were sent to specific nations only; the latter two to the jews], abrogating all previously revealed religions, hence in addition to the abvoe mentioned 'deviancies', the Christians and jews remain out of the folds of the one and only Truth by not converting to islam; this ofcourse applies to whoever of them that have heard about islam; here is a more detailed explanation:



Would Allah put someone in the hellfire merely for worshipping in another religion besides Islam? This question is answered by traditional Islam according to two possibilities:


(1) There are some peoples who have not been reached by the message of the Prophet of Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace) that we must worship the One God alone, associating nothing else with Him. Such people are innocent, and will not be punished no matter what they do. Allah says in surat al-Isra',

"We do not punish until We send a Messenger" (Qur'an 17:15).
​

These include, for example, Christians and others who lived in the period after the spread of the myth of Jesus godhood, until the time of the prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), who renewed the call to pure monotheism.

The great Muslim scholar, Imam Ghazali, includes in this category those who have only been reached with a distorted picture of the Messenger of Islam (Allah bless him and give him peace), presumably including many people in the West today who know nothing about Allah's religion but newspaper stories about Ayatollahs and mad Muslim bombers. Is it within such people's capacity to believe? In Ghazali's view, such people are excused until after they have had an opportunity to learn the undistorted truth about Islam (Ghazali: "Faysal al-tafriqa," Majmu'a rasa'il al-Imam al-Ghazali, 3.96). This of course does not alter our own obligation as Muslims to reach them with the da'wa.

(2) A second group of people consists of those who turn away from God's divine message of Islam, rejecting the command to make their worship God's alone; whether because of blindly imitating the religion of their ancestors, or for some other reason. These are people to whom God has sent a prophetic messenger and reached with His message, and to whom He has given hearing and an intellect with which to grasp it but after all this, persist in associating others with Allah, either by actually worshipping another, or by rejecting the laws brought by His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), which associates their own customs with His prerogative to be worshipped as He directs. Such people have violated God's rights, and have accepted to go to hell, which is precisely what His messengers have warned them of, so they have no excuse:

"Truly, Allah does not forgive that any be associated with Him; but He forgives what is less than that to whomever He wills" (Qur'an 4:48).
​

In either case, Allah's mercy exists, though for non-Muslims unreached by the message, it is a question of divine amnesty for their ignorance, not a confirmation of their religions validity.

Universal Validity of Religions


As for Bhudism and Hinduism, it is not confirmed in islam wether their religions started off with an originally revealed religion from Allah, hence we do not say for sure that they did, however now it's clear to see they are full of idolatry and mythology, hence they too would suffer the same fate as explained above

it says in that article that those unreached by the message of islam will not be punished for whatever they do, this is true, but such people will be put to a test on the Day of judgement and it's outcome will decide their fate of wether they are saved or not; those who IF they had come across the message of islam would have converted, they would pass the test and those who would not have would fail and end up in hell:

Al-Bazzar and al-Tirmidhi who graded it hasan narrated that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: The one who died in Fatra, the retard, and the infant will say respectively: No Book or Messenger reached me; You gave me no mind wherewith to understand good or evil; I did not have a chance to do anything. A fire will be presented to them and they will be told to enter it. Those who would have done well in life will obey and enter it (temporarily) while those who would have disobeyed in life will refuse. Allah will tell them: You disobey Me (seeing Me), so how could you obey My Messengers in My absence? (Abu Sa`id al-Khudri)

Al-Tabarani and Abu Nu`aym narrated that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: The retard will come on the Day of Judgment together with the one who died in fatra and the infant etc. (same as(e)) They will keep coming back although the fire would not have hurt them, and Allah will say: I knew your actions from afore, so take them (O Fire).

[URL="http://www.abc.se/~m9783/fiqhi/sp2-gfh_e.html#4"]www.abc.se/~m9783/fiqhi/sp2-gfh_e.html#4[/URL]

Thank you for the information. I appreciate the time you took to tell me the differences. One question though. According to Islam what is the last messangers purpose?

 

[bob x]

That's a very convenient escape clause though, isn't it?

You are presuming that the default should be "Believe whatever the organization tells you"; and that anybody who doesn't begin from that standpoint must be (illegitimately) trying to "escape". I wasn't raised within any organizational church, and so I take any exclusivist claims with a grain of salt.

And really, the statement is entirely logical and coherent with the rest of the materials — the last thing Jesus was saying was, "Yeah, whatever floats your boat."

I believe Jesus taught that you can accomplish anything, if you have steadfastness of purpose; a far cry from the helpless dependency advocated in John. Let me commend to you, if I have not before, James Breech's The Silence of Jesus, which focuses on the parables (the "silence" is the lack of explicit explanation about what the parables mean; he does not think much of the passages where supposedly Jesus gives explanations in private, and I don't either). He notes that "the kingdom of heaven" is always likened to a person undertaking some style of action: "For the kingdom is like a man who found a pearl of great price, and went and sold everything he had, to obtain that pearl." It is commonly misunderstood that the "pearl" is the kingdom: no, the steadfastness of purpose of the "man who" bought the pearl is the kingdom. Compare: "For the kingdom is like a man who found a treasure in a field, and covered it up, until he could raise the money to buy that piece of land." If the kingdom was the "treasure", why is the man covering it up? Isn't that opposite to the usual injunction to spread the teachings? Is covering up the treasure a mite dishonest? The point is, the "man who" knows what he wants, and will do whatever it takes to get it.

Thus, Breech does not think that the parable of the sower is really talking about "preaching the word" specifically (as the "explanatory" gloss has it). Rather it is talking about any kind of activity: one who is living "in the kingdom" tries, constantly, tries all kinds of things, knowing and accepting that most projects fail-- but something will work. This is then like "cast your bread on the waters, and in seven days it will come back"; and opposed to an odd parable found only in gospel of Thomas, "For the kingdom is like a woman who bought a measure of grain, and put it in a jug with a hole by the ear, so that as she carried it home, grain by grain it all slipped out, and she had only the jug." That, too, is the law of "the kingdom": take your eye off the ball, and you lose everything. "Be therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect, who makes the rain to fall on the just as on the unjust, and the sun also to rise on the evil as on the good": be consistent, to all people at all times, ever striving.

The "Jesus" depicted in the gospel of John never speaks in parables, and talks little about what we should do, only about what we should "believe" and how we should submit to Himself. It is a totally different character from the Jesus we find in other sources; an essentially fictional character in my view, the creation of later authors.

 

[Thomas]

You are presuming that the default should be "Believe whatever the organization tells you"; and that anybody who doesn't begin from that standpoint must be (illegitimately) trying to "escape".

Not at all ... your arguments are well founded and well-reasoned, and I respect them, but most other arguments here are founded on little more than opinion or subjective choice.

And it is very easy to say, you have to admit it.

My own view is either accept it, or reject it ... but to partially accept bits and pieces, based on little more than subjective opinion, and then build a pie-in-the-sky theory on the back of it ... that's an 'escape' into one's own fantasy.

I believe Jesus taught ...

Why? If one argues that some of the text is spurious, intended to deceive (consciously or otherwise) then one can argue that all of it is. The whole thing could be a fabrication.

Let me commend to you, if I have not before, James Breech's The Silence of Jesus, which focuses on the parables (the "silence" is the lack of explicit explanation about what the parables mean; he does not think much of the passages where supposedly Jesus gives explanations in private, and I don't either).

A thesis, I suppose ... but there are hundreds out there ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Respectively. Bull crap.

I agree there is interpretation ... but intuiting a text to mean the precise opposite of what it says ... that's bull-crap.

But you as all of us pick and choose, and it appears none of us likes what the other picks and chooses.

No, I've stuck with the same line for the last 2,000 years ... it's you who is inventing something entirely new.

But what is the root of the differences?? We all want to think we are closer to G!d, that my feet fit in Jesus's footprints better?

The root is, people want Jesus to be a projection of themselves.

Why be envious of others beliefs?

Envious? Are you kidding? Of what? Get over yourself, Wil, what you preach seems utterly banal to me.

I find it illogical, let alone untheological.

but face it, most Christians cannot not anthropomophize G!D as either physical figure or an emotional being...

Good grief Wil, can't you see that's entirely what you're doing? Your Jesus is a projection of an ideal human nature, nothing more, it's a projection of a sentimental ideal ... it's a total anthropomorphism. You've discounted God, so what else can it be?

Wil, in your arguments you just go back to a blind faith in a couple of statements (taken out of context) you repeat endlessly ... 'ye are gods' / 'greater things', the sons and daughter thing, but sons and daughters of whom, of what? You've ridiculed all that bit away.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Wil —

You still haven't explained why your g!d takes a hand in committing atrocities.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Respectively. Bull crap.

I suggest there's a significant difference between not taking something literally, and taking it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

But you as all of us pick and choose, and it appears none of us likes what the other picks and chooses.

Actually, the Catholic/Orthodox Traditions don't pick and choose ... we accept the whole lot. It's everyone else who's being selective.

Your doctrine, for example, is founded on a very, very selective reading of a very few texts, which are unquestioned. The rest, you declare, is all old men's bull and nonsense.

You don't appreciate everything I have done you will do and more...

Actually I do, but Jesus wasn't talking about you, Will.

What I find interesting is that you have issues that folks like I have our understandings, and we are not alone.

No, you're not ... d'you know there are some 70+ 'New Thought' schools listed in wiki, each with its own interpretation ... Jesus is everything from a normal human being, to an alien from some distant galaxy ... and you think every version is as true and as meaninful as every other?

What I find interesting is why you feel it necessary to receive a doctrine from someone, then change it because it doesn't suit your tastes, then insist that your interpretation is the right one, even when contradicted by the matrerial evidence.

Thousands of denomoniations, each with something to argue about.

I know ... there is no doubt that with the establishment of religious freedom in America, the proliferation of denominations took off. Everyone intent on making a dollar saw how much money could be made, and went for it.

Millions of ex Catholics...

I'm not saying we're perfect ... but that's no reason to invent a religion to suit yourself.

But what is the root of the differences??

You tell me Will ... Seems like the American Dream to me ... power and money.

Why be envious of others beliefs?

You are kidding, right?

You've got nothing I want, Will. But what I do resist is the insidious 'all things to all people' approach to truth, whereby you can net as many people as possible, it's what politicians do ... it's good for buysiness, good for the bottom line.

As for the nontheistic Christian....

So you reckon Jesus didn't really believe in God? All that God nonsense of the Jews ... all bull crap?

but face it, most Christians cannot not anthropomophize G!D as either physical figure or an emotional being...

Will ... don't you see ... you've anthropomorphised God utterly! Youy've determined God according to yourself.

And hey — if not anthropomorphising, what's this 'sons and daughters' nonsense you claim? How can you not anthropomorphise, yet claim an anthropomorphic connection?

I'm the one denying anthropomorphism, you're the one insisting on it.

Go figure

Thomas

 

[IowaGuy]

You still haven't explained why your g!d takes a hand in committing atrocities.

Hi Thomas, I really appreciate your input on this forum, I am agnostic but have learned a lot about theology and the history of Christianity by reading the archives and past discussions between you, Wil, BobX, etc.

Would you agree that "everything happens for a reason" or that "everything is part of God's plan"? Why or why not?

I seem to hear this sentiment often in modern Christianity. i.e. when someone dies a tragic death, peace of mind is often sought "we might not understand it, but it's part of God's plan", or when someone is greatly suffering then "God works in mysterious ways", etc...

My Southern Baptist church taught these concepts, but seemingly gave "God" all the credit (miracles, survivors of natural disasters, prayers answered, etc) but none of the blame (prayers not answered, sexual abuse, famine, flood, atrocities, etc).

Doesn't God have a hand in atrocities if everything is part of his plan? If nothing else, if God is omniscient and omnipotent then doesn't he have a hand in it by simply letting atrocities happen?

 

[wil]

Wil —

You still haven't explained why your g!d takes a hand in committing atrocities.

God bless,

Thomas

G!d doesn't 'take a hand' in anything.

G!d is Thomas.

You seem to be referring to the anthropomorphic bilblical being that sends his son to slaughter, floods the world, sends out plagues and pestulance...have I not said I don't buy that?

 

[Thomas]

Actually, Will ... it's really not that I don't like the idea you don't believe what I believe, far from it.

It's just I can't make sense of what you believe — so can I ask a couple of questions:
If you're a nontheist ... why do you talk about God?
If you refute anthropomorphism ... why do you say we are sons and daughters of the most high?
If you believe in the power of man, why bother with God at all?

For example, when you say 'I don't believe in miracles, everything's a miracle' — it sounds nice, but it just renders the term 'miracle' meaningless. If everything is a miracle, then there's nothing about a miracle that distinguishes it from anything else, so the term is void and paradoxical.

Miracle has a particular semantic meaning.

(And the question about why your g!d would choose to participate in atrocities.)

God bless.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I suggest there's a significant difference between not taking something literally, and taking it to mean the exact opposite of what it says.

ya think?

Actually, the Catholic/Orthodox Traditions don't pick and choose ... we accept the whole lot. It's everyone else who's being selective.

Is that why until the past generation there was only the Catechism taught and the bible was ignored?

Your doctrine, for example, is founded on a very, very selective reading of a very few texts, which are unquestioned. The rest, you declare, is all old men's bull and nonsense.

doctrine, dogma, me? nah...and bible as bull and nonsense...nah... parables, mythology, metaphor, metaphysical scripture, historical fiction, yes... and every bit has value.

Actually I do, but Jesus wasn't talking about you, Will.

No?

No, you're not ... d'you know there are some 70+ 'New Thought' schools listed in wiki, each with its own interpretation ... Jesus is everything from a normal human being, to an alien from some distant galaxy ... and you think every version is as true and as meaninful as every other?

To their followers? Yes. Just as some put power in drops of water, sips of wine and bread, chanting, incense, icons hanging from their necks...each have thier beliefs and notions that comfort them.

What I find interesting is why you feel it necessary to receive a doctrine from someone, then change it because it doesn't suit your tastes, then insist that your interpretation is the right one, even when contradicted by the matrerial evidence.

Sounds like Galileo talking to the Pope.

I know ... there is no doubt that with the establishment of religious freedom in America, the proliferation of denominations took off. Everyone intent on making a dollar saw how much money could be made, and went for it.

Proliferation of denominations happenned before they landed here. Persecution of various beliefs from your shores is why people risked their lives in cramped little boats and ate maggot laden meat just to get away from it.

I'm not saying we're perfect ... but that's no reason to invent a religion to suit yourself.

Not perfect? If your religion is not a perfect fit why would anyone stick with it?

You tell me Will ... Seems like the American Dream to me ... power and money.

Come on Thomas, seriously? Surely you don't think there is any footing there. Which church has the most money and power? Best defense is a good offense? My question was what is the diffference in religions, we all are seeking to get closer to G!d....but that is not through the aquistion of land and the coffers...

You are kidding, right?

You've got nothing I want, Will. But what I do resist is the insidious 'all things to all people' approach to truth, whereby you can net as many people as possible, it's what politicians do ... it's good for buysiness, good for the bottom line.

Now I am insidious and netting all people? Big change from you insisting I was pulling the rug out from under folks by blowing down their house of cards.

Thomas I have no isssues if you are Hindu, Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Buddhist, Jain, Taoist, Shinto or whatever..... guess I cast a pretty wide net trying to be all things while allowing everyone to find their own path.

So you reckon Jesus didn't really believe in God? All that God nonsense of the Jews ... all bull crap?

Once he discovered his oneness with all that is, he tried to express it in his words, while carefully dancing on the line of propriety in the eyes of those watching

Will ... don't you see ... you've anthropomorphised God utterly! Youy've determined God according to yourself.

Be still and know that I am G!d.... Isn't it a blessing? I am one with G!d, G!d is in me, and I am in G!d, in G!d we live and breathe and have our being. There is your big net Thomas, we are all in the midst, let us join hands and sing!

And hey — if not anthropomorphising, what's this 'sons and daughters' nonsense you claim? How can you not anthropomorphise, yet claim an anthropomorphic connection?

I take it that is either rhetorical or simply out of frustration with me.

I'm the one denying anthropomorphism, you're the one insisting on it.

Go figure

Thomas

I got a go figure instead of a G!d bless this time.

Namaste my brother, I can see the light shining in you!