21 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdVistesd,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, jaywill. You have argued cogently before for such a soteriology of transformation, as opposed to the “getting myself to heaven” kind of thinking.
Interestingly—and I make no attempt to conflate the two systems!—Buddhism is also about a soteriology of transformation. Buddhists, however (although in a way not to ___________
This may not be a very clearly presented post, but hopefully you get the idea.[/b]
I have a little trouble fleshing out there exactly what the problem is that you're refering to.
Maybe your way of expression is bit too sophisticated for anything but a double or triple re-read.
The response of allowing the indwelling Christ to saturate our personlity is both an expression of love towards God and towards the brethren AND the fellow man.
The best that we can offer God is Christ wrought into us. And for sure the highest and best we can offer both the brotherhood and our fellow man is the Christ that God works into out personality.
Does this touch on your thoughts at all ?
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by jaywillWell, it strikes me that maybe we’re just talking past one another a bit, and my objection may have been far off the mark. Let me think about it some more...
Vistesd,
I have a little trouble fleshing out there exactly what the problem is that you're refering to.
Maybe your way of expression is bit too sophisticated for anything but a double or triple re-read.
The response of allowing the indwelling Christ to saturate our personlity is both an expression of love towards God and towards the ...[text shortened]... s the Christ that God works into out personality.
Does this touch on your thoughts at all ?
22 Dec 07
Originally posted by jaywillNo.
Do you believe that Jesus is a living Person ?
In the We there is no longer any “I” to go around believing. “I” is a complex of thoughts and memories. What is there before any thinking at all, and hence before believing or not believing?
Many people on here say that Christian faith is not simply a matter of what you think or believe. If that is the case, then faith is an existential condition prior to whatever you think or believe—or else it is simply confidence in what you choose to think and believe. We get so caught up in what we think and believe, that we can forget that the real is prior to whatever we think or believe about it, else we only think about thoughts, and believe about beliefs—which is pretty much what we do on here.
So, what is more important? What you believe, or that you love?
That We is a threatening thing to the ego-self that wants to preserve its sense of separateness. That is why it is easier for anyone—you, me or anyone—to believe than to love so deeply and intimately that the “I” expands into something larger, the whole of which it is. And yet—
How silly for the flame to fear
annihilation in the fire.
22 Dec 07
Originally posted by jaywillHow could unbelief have any meaning at all? It's devoid of meaning, it always has been.
[b]==========================
Because faith is meaningless if we have no free will. And if God is omniscient, we have no free will - we cannot contradict anything he a priori knows we'll do.
==============================
Does that mean that unbelief is meaningless also?
If that is the case then it is impossible to be a real athiest if God exists.
Your unbelief would be meaningless.[/b]
22 Dec 07
Originally posted by stokerI'm not sure if you didn't read it, or just didn't understand.
We have free will and god takes delight when we use it to worship him.
If the problem is he knows what we will do, then you carnt blame him as we do it, but if we change then there is great happyness in his kingdom.
The entire argument is that God already knows what we'll do before we do it.
Think of it like this.
You wind up a clockwork monkey (the ones with the cymbals). Release it. Are you delighted by its choice, when it "chooses" to bang the cymbals together? Of course not. It has no choice but to do what it is doing. You might be initially amused by the noise and the mechanical action, but hopefully (especially if you are an omniscient, omnipotent being) the novelty soon wears off.
22 Dec 07
Originally posted by vistesdVistesd,
No.
In the We there is no longer any “I” to go around believing. “I” is a complex of thoughts and memories. What is there before any thinking at all, and hence before believing or not believing?
Many people on here say that Christian faith is not simply a matter of what you think or believe. If that is the case, then faith is an existential ...[text shortened]... he whole of which it is. And yet—
How silly for the flame to fear
annihilation in the fire.
Thankyou for a very clear and direct answer.
But if you don't believe that Jesus is a living Person then, honestly speaking, whatever you have to replace the knowledge of Jesus AS a living Person, is just an idol.
What "wisdom" or what "philosophy" or even what religion or world view you have, is just a lifeless idol.
You have to come back and start all over again. The trajectory of your life is calibrated off towards vanity and an idol.
The whole experience of reality depends on the realization that Christ rose from the dead and is knowable:
"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Little children, guard yourselves from idols." (1 John 5:20,21)
Through the blood of Jesus we have to enter into the realm of the resurrected Christ Who is real and approachable and knowable because - ".. the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Without Him in our spirit as the life giving Spirit , the resurrected Son of God, it is all idolatry. All the "things" wise or foolish cannot give life and cannot give real divine love. And these things can never give a man real peace within.
22 Dec 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopYou talk as though something is wrong with anger. Show me someone who does not bet angry in this world and I will show you someone without a pulse! I mean, you would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb or worse not to get angry about some of the goings on in this world. For me, a God that did not get angry would be a God who simply does not care.
god getting angry... is this really true..? if so, that implies god feels emotion... if he feels it, he is also - to a certain extent, controlled by it... therefore not even god can rise above feeling...
also, if god created the world, that means he's been with us ever since, he's seen it all... and yet he still gets angry!!!
...and if god gets ang ...[text shortened]... ves by talking of this all powerful everlasting god, yet also suggesting he is prone to moods
22 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzGreat question!!! In fact, the same question could be asked of us. If our body is functioning but no one is "home", so to speak, are they alive? Well their body is even though their mind may not be functioning. Many would say that since their mind is gone they should be considered "dead". On the other hand, when we consider "life forms" like bacteria we refer to them as living even though they have no known intellectual capacity.
Is that in the same way that "heart" means.... well, I don't know exactly.
Is God "alive"? By what definition?
As for myself, God would be defined as the source of all life. In effect, he simply "is". That would be my definition. In fact, God once used the words, "I am that I am" to use as a name to aptly define himself. If you are looking for a scientific definition do bear in mind that science only concerns itself with the material world. Therefore, how could a self professed imaterial God define himself confined to the material world?
23 Dec 07
Originally posted by whodeyWell, in science we have a number of criteria which must be fulfilled for something to be declared "alive".
Great question!!! In fact, the same question could be asked of us. If our body is functioning but no one is "home", so to speak, are they alive? Well their body is even though their mind may not be functioning. Many would say that since their mind is gone they should be considered "dead". On the other hand, when we consider "life forms" like bacteria we ...[text shortened]... ow could a self professed imaterial God define himself confined to the material world?
God does not fulfill a number of those criteria.