|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 13, 2010 16:26:13 GMT -8
Kirby,
A question for you.
So, if you hold to a view of a generic* God who is love, what are the implications for your view on certain religious figures who appear to have claimed much more than that about Him, like Jesus or Muhammed for example? Does your respect for these individuals begin to erode when they start making particular claims about the identity of God and the details of sin and salvation?
*This is probably not the best word because it sounds like a criticism, so feel free and provide a word that better describes your perspective. What I mean by the term is that you seem to believe in a God that doesn't reveal himself specifically through a particular religion, domga, or set of defined beliefs. Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 2, 2010 17:58:20 GMT -8
I'm not sure what can be "more than" love.
I think that every action and thought of God is, in essence, love at its very core.
Claims about the identity of God and details about sin and salvation are for our (humans) benefit to explain and understand that which is unexplainable and unable to be understood. Just because I do not understand a particular aspect does not qualify it to be untrue, or unloving.
As to individuals making claims, my respect tends to erode when the explanations, details, and understandings turn from the metaphysical (Deeper Magic, if you will) to the physical (rituals, symbolism etc. Deep Magic...to complete the metaphor)
Generic probably isn't the best term, but I get your drift. I have to wonder, though, if you thought I meant a "generic" love. How can God be anything but (or more than) love? I guess we need to define love.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 2, 2010 19:55:05 GMT -8
When I mentioned religious figures who claimed more about god than love I meant in addition to not beyond, if you get my drift.
So, is Jesus claim to be the only way to the Father an appeal to deep magic or deeper magic, or something you don't think he actually said?
As to your last point, The word. Generic in my poorly worded question related to God not love.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 2, 2010 21:30:33 GMT -8
Deeper magic.
The claim in John 14:6 is important in this context not because of "except through me", but rather because of the "man comes to the father" That is the deeper magic, and what is important to me: not that there is a bridge but that I can get there at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 2, 2010 21:57:14 GMT -8
Yes. What a revelation that one can actually get there- agreed. But how can you then think the bridge is unimportant?
It's like being elated that there is a way off a sinking ship but not caring to find the actual lifeboat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 3, 2010 9:28:34 GMT -8
not unimportant, less important. more later.
**EDIT**
(grad school interview done. Nailed it!)
I think that the "bridge" here does not require a literal interpretation of what Jesus is saying. The symbolism of his sacrifice (whether historical or not, it doesn't really matter in this context) and his deeds are demonstrative of the "way". In other words, I don't need to "ask Jesus into my heart", get baptized, participate in the eucharist etc. (physical and ritualistic, deep magic) to commune with the father, but rather attempt to understand the symbolism (metaphysical, deeper magic).
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 4, 2010 15:39:07 GMT -8
This leads me to wonder, are you saying it's enough for God to desire to redeem us and send us a "mythos" about his costly sacrifice to do so, which he actually doesn't enact?
To my mind, that means Jesus' actual death was unnecessary. Not only so, but the doctrine of the atonement becomes mere masochism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 4, 2010 20:38:21 GMT -8
Atonement does seem masochistic. I mean, why did God invent a system that involves bloodshed?
I think blood is simply symbolic of sacrifice. (which is what love is...)
Whether the gospel is historical or a "mythos" is moot to me, since it is the message of love (sacrifice) that is important.
From my view, I think you are ascribing too much meaning to doctrine, which in my mind puts human defined limits on the nature of God. I understand the desire for understanding, but I also can admit when the glass remains dark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 7, 2010 10:16:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 7, 2010 19:21:59 GMT -8
If God is love and love requires sacrifice, just what is it that your God (who won't condescend to come in the flesh) actually sacrifices for us? Sacrifice isn't a sentiment, it's a costly action.
On another vein along these lines, Jesus death for us is an evidence of God's love for us, in a world that often seems to send a message to the contrary.
On this issue I don't see how the "glass remains dark". We have all the evidence we need to believe that God, by His Son, came among men in the flesh, gave up his life as a sacrifice for us (predicted by the Scriptures) and rose again. Myth became fact, and it's much "sexier" that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Aug 9, 2010 17:39:18 GMT -8
I mean, why did God invent a system that involves bloodshed? Not so sure He did 'invent' it. The blood sacrifice is a necessary response to the situation, not a design flaw. It is a distasteful effect of the reality our choice created. If I have a gun in my house for self-defense, the gun itself is not a nasty, sinful thing. Even using it may, or may not be a bad thing. It might be fun to go out and shoot targets! But if I end up having to use it to kill an intruder to protect my family, does that mean I designed the situation, or did I respond to the situation with the given tool? It's a bad example, but it's the only thing I could think of off the top of my head!  |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 10, 2010 9:43:26 GMT -8
I read through the other thread...it did little to convince me. Again you drop "scripture bombs"  that, IMO, is begging the question. I have to dwell on this one. You may have me here. No disagreement here. A myth describing the "perfect" sacrifice describes that well. And, the reality of the crucifixion illustrates that well too. That's my point: it doesn't matter to me whether it is historical fact or not. My glass darkly remark was meant to be taken more in general. You seem to need logic, history and science, to make real all of your beliefs. What room is there for faith then? I know we have somewhat discussed this before, but faith is the absence of logic, faith is belief in spite of the dark glass. Really? I think myth is much sexier than fact, because myth requires faith. rbbailey wrote: I see what you are trying to say here, but this reads funny to me. Are you saying that there is some sort of natural law that existed before God that he has to follow? On another note, I would argue that it is a nasty, sinful thing, but that is another conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2010 10:04:40 GMT -8
How is a myth without substance a "costly action"?
Yes, we've been over this before. I don't get why you think faith is the "absence" of logic.
Evidence is what separates "wishful thinking" from "something worthy of putting your faith in" and faith is what is required when the available evidence still doesn't prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Whoops. Harry almost had that one!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2010 10:12:17 GMT -8
It's not "scripture bombs"! * Moritz said the Christian claims (from Scripture) were contradictory. I showed him, from Scripture and logic , how they aren't. The whole discussion presupposed for the sake of the argument the validity of the Scripture. * I note neither you or Marcus has answered me on my challenge regarding Scripture bombs: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=generalbible&action=display&thread=2954 |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 10, 2010 10:12:18 GMT -8
huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2010 10:17:59 GMT -8
harryfiasco is my "proxy" log-in to make sure that what I'm seeing on the forums is what you are all seeing. Sometimes I forget I'm logged in as him and I'll make a post and then have to re-post it as myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2010 10:19:07 GMT -8
BTW, we need a better title for this thread. Any suggestions?
How about Myth or Fact or Both?
or
Myth or Fact: Which is sexier?
;D
|
|
that, IMO, is begging the question.