Something wrong with Christianity?

[juantoo3]

It's fun how everyone has agreed I'm the problem.

There's an old Spanish proverb:

If one or two people call you an ass, think nothing of it.

If three people call you an ass, put on a bridle.


I deal with people all the time that think EVERYONE else is at fault, the problems are never theirs, yet the problems all seem to focus on the one individual. That's not groupthink, that's one person's insanity.

Frank Wisdom (Sophia) is mislabeled. Frank, as in laying it out there for all to see, is genuine and correct. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion and interpretation.

I would suggest you are confusing intelligence with wisdom. Intelligence is knowing tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato in a fruit salad.

Every single one of the Paul detractors to pass through here, as if they knew something, could never answer one question I always put to them. This includes Mr Garaffa, whom I hold in high esteem - far more learned than you, and immeasurably more polite in his presentation - could not answer what Christianity is supposed to look like minus Paul, or what possible benefit for removing Paul. The end conclusion is for one to become fully observant Jewish, or Deist if you want to continue eating pork.

My refutation of Mr Garaffa's extensive essay is available here, so any implication that a rebuttal isn't even possible is demonstrably false. But I haven't the time or the energy to review it all with you personally, so you will simply have to look at it yourself.

 

[FrankSophia]

Prisms are amazing eh?

Are you saying this because you aren't familiar with the Noah story?

You have some interesting points, looks like could easily be some valuable discussion, but your bedside manner needs more work. So far it appears you don't have the intent or ability to stay around. I hope I am wrong.

It's funny because you also seem like a waste of time to engage.

 

[FrankSophia]

I would suggest you are confusing intelligence with wisdom.

Wisdom is the practical application of oneness to everyday life...

 

[juantoo3]

You dodged the question, like every other Paul detractor.

The link again to my refutation of Mr Garaffa's essay:

A Response to Summary of the Pauline Conspiracy – Interfaith

www.interfaith.org

 

[FrankSophia]

You dodged the question, like every other Paul detractor.

Why do people think I'm speaking against Paul?

I'm saying Christianity has largely ignored him and it has been a huge mistake.

Explain how you're even arriving at a contrary conclusion.

 

[wil]

Dang you read the thread he provided quickly...one minute..

Wisdom is the practical application of oneness to everyday life...

I will do my best to avoid.

 

[wil]

Isn't writing dismissive and arrogant dismissive and arrogant?

A

 

[juantoo3]

The rainbow is a sign that God changed his mind, that he regretted his actions... why do you think he cannot?

Perhaps that is your interpretation, it is one I do not share.

For if G!d changes His mind (or is even capable), how would He be any different than the various pagan gods whose whim and avarice was doled out randomly and unapologetically? How can a G!d who spoke the universe into existence "change His mind?" - and what, have the universe disappear?

If the G!d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were so inclined as to reneg on His Word, what point is Salvation? Is Salvation merely a false promise to get us to behave? Atheists seem to think so...

The Rainbow was a promise, not a regret. And the cultural misappropriation was a great (and deliberate) slap in the face.

 

[FrankSophia]

Perhaps that is your interpretation, it is one I do not share.

For if G!d changes His mind (or is even capable), how would He be any different than the various pagan gods whose whim and avarice was doled out randomly and unapologetically? How can a G!d who spoke the universe into existence "change His mind?" - and what, have the universe disappear?

If the G!d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were so inclined as to reneg on His Word, what point is Salvation? Is Salvation merely a false promise to get us to behave? Atheists seem to think so...

The Rainbow was a promise, not a regret. And the cultural misappropriation was a great (and deliberate) slap in the face.

That actually has me chuckling, don't you know that Genesis 1 is not original but was written during exile in Babylon and takes its method of creation from stories of Marduk's superiority? I would however argue that the unchanging God is prior to form and attributes, as soon as something of God arises that portion is temporary too... God is thus pure potential in his absolute nature.

The bible changes basic theology repeatedly, so why are you suddenly now taking issue with changes over time?

Salvation is the experience of oneness, and through identification with it we know we are the eternal nature of being itself appearing as this for now.

If God didn't regret killing all of humanity why provide a sign to say it won't happen again?

 

[juantoo3]

Why do people think I'm speaking against Paul?

I'm saying Christianity has largely ignored him and it has been a huge mistake.

I fail to see how you can make this statement. Allowing that I am not perfect, and from time to time have been known to misunderstand, perhaps you can explain?

From my vantage, and again I have written extensively here before, the Christianity of today would not have been possible without Paul. How Christianity can ignore Paul seems to me not possible.

 

[juantoo3]

That actually has me chuckling, don't you know that Genesis 1 is not original but was written during exile in Babylon and takes its method of creation from stories of Marduk's superiority? I would however argue that the unchanging God is prior to form and attributes, as soon as something of God arises that portion is temporary too... God is thus pure potential in his absolute nature.

The bible changes basic theology repeatedly, so why are you suddenly now taking issue with changes over time?

Salvation is the experience of oneness, and through identification with it we know we are the eternal nature of being itself appearing as this for now.

If God didn't regret killing all of humanity why provide a sign to say it won't happen again?

I know a good deal more than your ignorance implies.

I think we are through here. I made an attempt, and you belittle me. I have neither the time or patience for your impertinence.

Ad hominem defense is a sure fire sign your arguments are found wanting. As long as you continue to put tomato in a fruit salad the evidence will make itself known.

 

[FrankSophia]

I fail to see how you can make this statement. Allowing that I am not perfect, and from time to time have been known to misunderstand, perhaps you can explain?

From my vantage, and again I have written extensively here before, the Christianity of today would not have been possible without Paul. How Christianity can ignore Paul seems to me not possible.

You suggest you haven't read much of Paul yourself if you can't tell how Christianity is ignoring him...

Look at 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 for instance and we learn that reading the Torah at all dulls our minds and veils our hearts, in places like Galatians 4:19-31 we learn that we are not under the law but are free by the promise... Galatians 5:4 continues the theme along with 5:18... Romans 13:9-10 says the same, that love already fulfills the law... he also goes on saying essentially that the law is just a list of ideas for bad people to engage, which is continued in Hebrews 7:1-28 where he says Levitical law cannot perfect at all...

From all of this we somehow land under the law as if Jesus never sacrificed himself at all... Galatians 2:19-21

 

[Thomas]

The rainbow is a sign that God changed his mind, that he regretted his actions... why do you think he cannot?

I think there were rainbows before the flood ...

For God to change His mind suggests God exists in a temporal context – a change requires a priori a before and an after.

God, in the Christian Tradition, is 'outside' and 'above' time and temporal contingency. So God changing his mind is how we explain it to ourselves (rightly or wrongly).

Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite (St Denys in the Orthodox Traditions) says:
"We therefore maintain that the universal and transcendent Cause of all things is neither without being nor without life, nor without reason or intelligence; nor is it a body, nor has it form or shape, quality, quantity or weight; nor has it any localized, visible or tangible existence; it is not sensible or perceptible; nor is it subject to any disorder or inordination nor influenced by any earthly passion; neither is it rendered impotent through the effects of material causes and events; it needs no light; it suffers no change, corruption, division, privation or flux; none of these things can either be identified with or attributed unto it."
(The Mystical Theology, Chapter 5)

I don't really understand what point you're making here,

Ah, I think we are at cross purposes. The point I was making was that St Paul talks about 'his' Gospel – and the communities, even those he established from scratch, would hear his gospel and the gospel of the Apostles.His was not the only teaching at the time of his ministry.

Galatians 1:8 directly asserts that any GOSPEL contrary to it is cursed.

Never suggested otherwise.

The thing is I have no respect for Jewish mysticism at all.

Oh, that's a shame. But if that's the case, I can see why you'd assume a correlation between John's use of Logos and the Greeks. You have to know, to appreciate the distinctions.

By the same token, much is made of Paul and explicit Stoic references in his writings ... but it would be a step too far to say Paul was a Stoic.

The whole Jewish concept of monotheism comes from the Greeks, it never was before this interaction...

You think the Jews were polytheists?

Curious, based on Scripture, I regret that the western mindset absorbed a little too much of Hellenic dualism, and paid not enough attention to Hebrew holism – that has cost us a great deal.

I rather see the journey as one from polytheism to monotheism ...

So you're just not aware of the Stoic concept?

The what-now?

 

[FrankSophia]

I think there were rainbows before the flood ...

Way to miss the point, if God felt good about it why wouldn't he consider doing so again?

For God to change His mind suggests God exists in a temporal context – a change requires a priori a before and an after.

Does the Father/Son arrangement not already provide a temporal context before the beginning?

God, in the Christian Tradition, is 'outside' and 'above' time and temporal contingency. So God changing his mind is how we explain it to ourselves (rightly or wrongly).

God also comes into Eden and can't find Adam and Eve so this is just another case of tradition not being able to deal with subtlety.

Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite (St Denys in the Orthodox Traditions) says:
"We therefore maintain that the universal and transcendent Cause of all things is neither without being nor without life, nor without reason or intelligence; nor is it a body, nor has it form or shape, quality, quantity or weight; nor has it any localized, visible or tangible existence; it is not sensible or perceptible; nor is it subject to any disorder or inordination nor influenced by any earthly passion; neither is it rendered impotent through the effects of material causes and events; it needs no light; it suffers no change, corruption, division, privation or flux; none of these things can either be identified with or attributed unto it."
(The Mystical Theology, Chapter 5)

This is talking about God as essence... it is all of this...

The Trinity share this essence but are functions of Gods energia... hence they act and even take on form etc... this aspect can change, it is constantly in flux as everything around us... there is nothing else...

Ah, I think we are at cross purposes. The point I was making was that St Paul talks about 'his' Gospel – and the communities, even those he established from scratch, would hear his gospel and the gospel of the Apostles.His was not the only teaching at the time of his ministry.

Galatians tells us about teachings contrary to this one and is an attempt to avoid that continuing...

It is still the first time the actual Christian message is put to paper.

You think the Jews were polytheists?

Look into Canaanite mythology, but even in the bible who do you think Ba'al etc are? It seems to have no problem accepting the existence of other Gods, it's just a strong henotheism at best.

It's interesting though that El for the Canaanites was Father of the Gods which seems in line with the Christian conception, while Yahweh was the God of war which seems to have been the principle fruit of his faith.

Curious, based on Scripture, I regret that the western mindset absorbed a little too much of Hellenic dualism, and paid not enough attention to Hebrew holism – that has cost us a great deal.

I rather see the journey as one from polytheism to monotheism ...

It's such an odd statement because Christianity is still essentially dualistic...

There is still an absolute boundary between the essence of God and the potential of man, this divide is never overcome without punishment in this society...

From this your conclusion is that the people teaching henosis, absolute unity, are the dualistic ones?

 

[FrankSophia]

The whole complaint of Judaism and Islam about Jesus is that God cannot come into the world...

This is again because of a basic underlying duality...

It is the principle consistency of the Abrahamic line, God is always other.

Are you somehow suggesting this doesn't count as dualism?

 

[Thomas]

Way to miss the point...

Ad hominem ... you fail.

Does the Father/Son arrangement not already provide a temporal context before the beginning?

Arianism now? Short answer ... no ... Contemplate the monad. The Father eternally begets the Son, God was never not Triune.

God also comes into Eden and can't find Adam and Eve so this is just another case of tradition not being able to deal with subtlety.

Oh dear ... Ad hominem again.

What's your take on it?

This is talking about God as essence... it is all of this...

OK ...

The Trinity share this essence but are functions of Gods energia... hence they act and even take on form etc... this aspect can change, it is constantly in flux as everything around us... there is nothing else...

Indeed, I assume you're talking Gregory Palamas here?

Nevertheless, the Three Persons enjoy the one unchanging essence, so the Divine Will never changes – God is always Good – where we apply anthropological determinations to God – anger, joy, etc., – these serve as kataphatic 'affirmations' statements, but they should not be predicated of the Divine as such. Therein lies the distinction between the Immanent and Economic Trinity in the West, which I believe is also understood in the East.

Galatians tells us about teachings contrary to this one and is an attempt to avoid that continuing...

OK. The other point notwithstanding.

It is still the first time the actual Christian message is put to paper.

OK

Look into Canaanite mythology, but even in the bible who do you think Ba'al etc are? It seems to have no problem accepting the existence of other Gods, it's just a strong henotheism at best.

Well, I disagree. I think it polytheism to monotheism.

It's interesting though that El for the Canaanites was Father of the Gods which seems in line with the Christian conception, while Yahweh was the God of war which seems to have been the principle fruit of his faith.

OK

It's such an odd statement because Christianity is still essentially dualistic...

Not odd, really ... just perhaps sad. If we hadn't of fallen out with the Jews, we might have had a better balance of Hellenism.

From this your conclusion is that the people teaching henosis, absolute unity, are the dualistic ones?

Oh no. I always argue that for the concept of Unity and Union, Oneness, Theosis, etc., then there must in principle be an a priori henosis in the Godhead, albeit undivided and undifferentiated, a union transcending all distinction...

 

[FrankSophia]

Ad hominem ... you fail.

I was pointing out how your theory about rainbows prior to the flood is utterly irrelevant to anything...

It is an example of God realizing he made a mistake and feeling remorse for his actions, thus disproving your simplistic statements.

Arianism now? Short answer ... no ... Contemplate the monad. The Father eternally begets the Son, God was never not Triune.

I am torn between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox because the former Christology ends in a duality... yet even living by the divine nature the Spirit remains with me, is this the duality the latter is pointing at?

Monad directly translates as "alone", everything we think we know rests on dualistic comparison... obvious examples are hot and cold, neither say anything about reality itself yet we feel informed about the temperature. This goes on and on until eventually nothing remains and the mind itself drops, and in this dropping of the separate self - often called death of ego - the reality of God is revealed directly. This you suppose Christianity has the superior of but at best it restates in an unnecessarily complicated way.

Indeed, I assume you're talking Gregory Palamas here?

I actually like the Oriental Orthodox complaints against Palamas because he is making Hesychasm too much of a doing...

Nevertheless, the Three Persons enjoy the one unchanging essence, so the Divine Will never changes – God is always Good – where we apply anthropological determinations to God – anger, joy, etc., – these serve as kataphatic 'affirmations' statements, but they should not be predicated of the Divine as such. Therein lies the distinction between the Immanent and Economic Trinity in the West, which I believe is also understood in the East.

You have not understood that the essence is PURE POTENTIAL and hence hesychasm actually brings us to God because our own activities and distinctions are dropping, this is how union arises at all otherwise we are just upholding separations and calling it holy.

Well, I disagree. I think it polytheism to monotheism.

For me the solution to Polytheism that has been exercised here is erroneous in itself, by combining gods into a single personality all sorts of subtlety and diversity falls away too... even in the Hindu tradition we see the Guadiya sampradaya becoming very closed minded around their insistence on Krishna but the Smarta tradition takes many forms as the same underlying reality and so for them the whole debate about superior gods look foolish...

For me it is far more fruitful and intelligent to convey in this way because now the realized practioner is just another form of that reality, but through Christianity you are left with a complicated concept about becoming parts of one body.

Not odd, really ... just perhaps sad. If we hadn't of fallen out with the Jews, we might have had a better balance of Hellenism.

For me there is not nearly enough Hellenism, we avoid salvation because it's considered Pagan despite Ephesians 2:11-22 making the point of Jesus our union beyond distinctions.

Oh no. I always argue that for the concept of Unity and Union, Oneness, Theosis, etc., then there must in principle be an a priori henosis in the Godhead, albeit undivided and undifferentiated, a union transcending all distinction...

For me ultimately all these distinctions are just the mind pretending to have a clue.

When they all break down there is just union itself.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I would suggest you are confusing intelligence with wisdom. Intelligence is knowing tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato in a fruit salad.

Awesome analogy

 

[moralorel]

If we look at Hebrews 7:1-28 we can understand that Christians are no longer to have anything to do with the lesser covenant, that it cannot perfect us while Jesus can...

If we look at 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 this is driven home, going so far as to say relying on texts - especially those of Moses - dulls the mind and veils the heart...

If we look at Ephesians 2:11-22 we find that by dropping Jewish commandments and regulations we are bridging the divide between peoples...

Essentially the whole of Galatians is nothing but commentary on this topic...

Why is all of this ignored today?

Why is Christianity not about perfecting love, but rather continues to cling to condemnation?

We see in places like John 17:20-26 that the goal is complete unity, the same glory Jesus had.

We see in 1 John 4:7-21 how to prepare for judgement, becoming as he was.

Where is any of this in modern Christiany?

Nothing to do with it? So a person could murder, commit adultery, curse God, lie, covet, etc. because they aren't supposed to follow the "lesser covenant"? Christians aren't supposed to have anything to do with the OT, so I guess let's eat some shellfish and start sacrificing babies!

 

[Thomas]

so I guess let's eat some shellfish and start sacrificing babies!

Yehaa! (Oh, Lord, did I just say that out loud? )