Here it is, folks: This is the place for all things KCDad. Here you can discuss communism, KCDad-style. Or you can discuss the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by KCDad. Perhaps you want to just sit and soak in the profound teaching of KCDad himself. This is the place. Now is the time.
But from now on, if the conversation on any other post strays away from the post’s original topic into KCDad-Land (which will be determined at my sole discretion), the comments will be moved to this post for that discussion to continue (hence the “repository” moniker). I’ll leave a little note in the comments section of future posts if the discussion is redirected here.
That doesn’t mean that all of KCDad’s comments (or responses to KCDad’s comments) will be moved here. He isn’t being quarantined. This is simply an attempt to keep posts on topic. As long as the comments are related to the original topic, they’re fine. It’s only when they veer into the “communism vs. capitalism” or “The Gospel According to KCDad” or similarly-recurring motifs that they’ll be moved to this thread for further argument and development.
Towards the mid part of his lecture, Keller describes the “post modern, emergent, post liberal” gospel message rather well. In fact, I agree with pretty much everything he said. He then goes on to dismiss it as “liberal legalism”… I think that is the phrase he used. The emphasis is on the community or group rather than the individual, and there is no discussion of salvation or grace. THAT is exactly the point of the emergent church. Grace and Salvation are accomplished…there is no point in dwelling on those. It is time to move beyond that and concentrate on the Kingdom of God… the very thing Jesus told his followers to do. Belief is irrelevant to the Kingdom, all that matters is WHAT YOU DO. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, visit the imprisoned, comfort the mourning, etc etc… Notice that none of those things we are supposed to do have any self interest to them. They are all OTHER oriented. You don’t do them to get in good with God, or to get into Heaven, or to make a lot of money so you can choose to donate some of your profits to charity for a tax write off.. You do them because OTHER people need it.
Kcdad: I have started my little study of pulling out all the Old Testament verses about God’s view of self-absorption, greed, unequal and unjust treatment, especially of the poor. It is amazing how much is in the O.T.–against injustices and how God more often punishes those who take revenge into their own hands. That’s where you and I probably differ. I have no problem with God’s justice that results in avenging evil–I have a problem when man plays God and seeks vengence himself. I know that there are verses that seem to condone man taking action in God’s name–I may be confused by some Scripture that I don’t understand, but not enough to turn my back on what I see as a consistent message from cover to cover. Do you have a problem believing that God may seek vengence against America because the country was built by the robber barons and slaveholders of the 1800s in America? So many Christians who believe in God’s wrath talk continuously about how God blesses America without even considering that God may want to punish America for the sins of the past–especially, when this generation doesn’t even want to look back at that sin to acknowledge it or to be forgiven for it. (Cynically, I believe that if judgment would appear to be coming down on America, most Christians would fault abortion, homosexuality, etc.–and never look at the sins of the church as the cause of God’s wrath). Biblically speaking, God was very longsuffering with Israel–gave them chance after chance to turn themselves around. In God’s sight 100 to 200 years isn’t very long–He may be just as patient with America. One of the most Biblical eyeopeners for me came through the Bethel Bible Study when I first joined my current church. Somehow with all my years of being steeped in the Bible, I had missed God’s covenant with Israel that stated “Blessed to be a blessing”–a concept that states that Israel was set apart not because they were special but because God wanted Israel to extend his love and message to all–they were chosen to serve, not chosen for special treatment. No, I don’t have a problem with Jesus being the only way to God–but I trust God to be fair about all those that did not get to hear the message. There are plenty of verses to give me hope that God deals with mankind in a much fairer way than zealots would.
Oh, my, a topic I love more than District 150.
Kcdad if I stopped working here in peoria I would no longer be able to pay my bills or live the quality of life that I currently enjoy. I can say that for sure. I may be able to go on to some sort of government program to assist me but if I didnt work I would not be able to enjoy the things that my income provides me with.
In a communist society one could argue that whether I decided to work or if I decided to instead watch TV all day I would be entitled to the same portion of the common resources as everyone else.
It seems that I wouldnt need a reason why I choose not to work, maybe I was tired of working, maybe lazy, wanted to just hang out and enjoy life all day every day. I would still be entitled to have all of my needs met so what would be the consequences of that choice?
“They are all OTHER oriented. You don’t do them to get in good with God, or to get into Heaven, or to make a lot of money so you can choose to donate some of your profits to charity for a tax write off.. You do them because OTHER people need it.”
– Nope.
– You do it because it makes YOU feel good.
– No such thing as a selfless act.
– Sorry.
I believe that selfless acts are something to which to aspire, but I rarely, if ever, succeed. If I did a selfless act, I certainly couldn’t tell anyone about it–then it is no longer selfless.
NV, KC, whoever: Can an act be sacrificial without being selfless–I might be able to qualify sometimes?
“Do you have a problem believing that God may seek vengence” … yes. That is a purely human characteristic. God MUST be above that pettiness.
“Can an act be sacrificial without being selfless” of course… if one believes that their sacrifice will be rewarded 10 fold, or if they believe that it will get them into heaven… that is selfish motivation. Of course, then it isn’t technically sacrificial anymore, it now an investment.
“No such thing as a selfless act.”
What a shame.
“I would not be able to enjoy the things that my income provides me with” So that is why you work, but why don’t you NOT work? Is there some reason you wouldn’t work? Lazy? Stupid? Incompetent? Unsociable? You think you are better than everyone else and they ought to take care of you?
Is there no one who take care of you if you legitimately couldn’t work? Could you not contribute some other way? (For several decades women didn’t work and yet they contributed to the family’s well being and survival)
“It seems that I wouldnt need a reason why I choose not to work, maybe I was tired of working, maybe lazy, wanted to just hang out and enjoy life all day every day”
I stated in my orginal post some reasons why someone might not want to work.
I don’t not work because I enjoy having the things that my income provide and because I want to live the most comfortable lifestyle that I possiblly can and work provides me with that. I dont want to be dependent on the government to pay my bills.
The reason dosnt matter because according to the definition of communism I would still have my needs met by those who did chose to work. All Im saying is you still havent given me a real answer as to what happens if people just wake up and say I dont want to work I would rather just enjoy my life and collect my check from the rest of society.
Why work hard when I can do the minimum required and get the same results as everyone else?
Your arguement for communism works in a society where everyone feels a personal obligation to work and provide for the greater good. Would you agree that there are portions of society that would choose not to work if the option presented itself?
Kcdad: I’m going to stick with God’s “Vengence is mine” saith the Lord. I just have to believe that God’s vengence is about seeking justice (quite often for the downtrodden), not about pettiness on his part, at all. I guess that’s where Lewis’ universal morality comes in. Certainly, the God of the Bible withholds and delays his vengence far more than the gods of other ancient religions–at least, in the stories the way they have been preserved for us from the Greeks and Romans. In all honesty, I do put my trust in the God of the Bible; I can understand any arguments you might have against such blind trust and can accept that you just can’t accept such a god–that’s what freewill is all about. So, since I believe in the God of the Bible, I will have to go with what it reveals about God (or what God reveals about himself–that’s how far I go with it). Also, I figure that if there is a God at all–and I believe there is–then he can do anything he wants to do. It is just up to me whether or not I want to trust in him–I can do that or reject him; those are my only two choices if there is a God. Then, of course, because the Bible makes it clear (to me, at least) that Jesus is God, then I accept the salvation offered through him. I really do find it difficult to understand how anyone who reads the words of Jesus in the Bible can’t help but accept that he presented himself as God–and if he isn’t, then he’s just plain crazy–so I would have no reason to believe in anything he says. In a nutshell, the only way I am capable of discussion or wanting to discuss God is in the context of the Bible–interpreting what it says about him. Apart from that I’m just making stuff up or believing in someone else’s version of God. I have no opinions about God that aren’t based on the Bible.
In the end, these dicussions are for discussion sake only. I really don’t believe or expect my arguments to win anyone over to my point of view or to convert anyone–however, I do believe God is capable of doing just that without my help. I have to believe in a God of power.
Scanlan and Kcdad: I really don’t believe that communism would ever work except maybe in the Christian context. I believe it was tried by one community in the Bible, but that it didn’t work out too well because it does go against man’s nature. I might go as far as to say that communism would work for any group of people who agree willingly to share their wealth and work for each other’s common good–and maybe even share some very common, very specific goal. I think the group would have to be relatively small–perhaps like communes in Israel. Honestly, I can comprehend the possibility that God’s kingdom (which I do believe he will establish) could very well operate under his leadership as something of a communistic society–which is why I consider it to be something of a utopia. That’s why I found it so easy to accept Kcdad’s arguments about communism–as the ideal kind of society that could be established by Jesus–by not as a man, as God–that’s where Kcdad and I part company on this subject. Humanly speaking, I don’t believe communism has a prayer of working.
C.J.–I really don’t mean to hyjack your blog with this latest line of discussion (on Kcdad’s repository post)–although a few of us seem to find it valuable and interesting, I don’t expect it to have the wide readership your blog deserves. Maybe we should have a discussion as to how to regulate all of this. Self-control, on my part, might be a good place to start. I assume taking it to someone’s else’s blog might be a great suggestion. I’ve been hoping that District 150 or the city will provide fodder that will bring back a wider range of discussion.
“he can do anything he wants to do”
Sounds like a wealthy person. Is that how you see that which exists in all of time and space? That which is called the “ground of all being” by Paul Tillich? It is what Marcus Borg calls the monarchical view of God. Sounds to me like you have a great big man in the sky image of God. Sounds like the title of J.B. Phillip’s book: Your God is Too Small.
If God is a person, then god is not God: infinite and eternal. A person can not be anything but a person: temporal and finite. God, I hope, is much bigger than that.
Let me just add that I don’t believe in magic. I think it was Heinlein who wrote: One man’s magic is another man’s technology. That includes miracles.
Kcdad: You have read all the books. Would you believe that the title of Phillip’s book actually went through my mind today? We aren’t ever going to get anywhere on this topic, so we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I’m 71, and I’m more than happy to live the rest of my life and to go into eternity with the faith I have–I’ve done all my doubting and questioning. I believe in Paul’s “looking through the glass darkly,” concept, so there is no way that I can profess to understand or know all there is to know about God–and I do know that he is not a person, but I do believe he took on the form of a human for that short 33 years. I just don’t have the desire or need to read more or to search out some other view of God. I understand that my view of God is too simple or even simplistic for you–but my own view doesn’t, consequently, limit who God really is–I can accept whoever he turns out to be. When you say, “God, I hope, is much bigger than that,” then I assume that you do believe in God. My own simplistic “God can do anything he wants to do” doesn’t really capture my feelings about God–just meant that what you or I want God to be is irrelevant–we can believe anything we want to believe, but God is still who he is–doesn’t need our justification for his existence..
I understand your position and respect it. I am not there yet. I am still seeking the truth and will garb myself in it, and discard the old robes of superstition and fantasy finally, once and for all.
Of course, I think that God is. Whether I believe in God or not is another semantics question I am not willing to enter into at this point. Unable to grasp “eternity”, and “infinite” (I can barely grasp the idea of trillion) I have to concede that their must be something outside of perception, time and space. A big bang, of any type has to begin with either energy or matter and I prefer the energy option. Energy I can imagine in the form of a concept like love (or justice), being expressed across the universe. A powerful force indeed, to set into motion all that exists as the real universe today.
IMP CAESARI DIVI F AVGVSTO PONTIFIC MAXIMO PATRI PATRIAE
or
IMP CAESAR DIVI F AVGVSTVS
These titles for Octavian Caesar given approx 24 BC indicate clearly where the mythology of Jesus’ miraculous birth and “son of God” status came from.
They state that The Emperor Caesar is (Divi Fili) son of god, August (to be worshiped) Supreme Priest (Pontific Maximo) and Father of his country (Patri Patriae). On some markers Octavian is also called SEBASTUS, “savior of the world”.
It was common in that era to give divine status to anyone who seemed different and special.
The Roman soldier at the cross says: Surely this man was son of god… meaning, Jesus, not Octavian, or Jesus like Octavian, was a son of god.
Res Gestae Divi Augusti is Octavian’s autobiographical recounting of his triumphs… The ACTS OF THE DIVINE AUGUSTUS… sounds strangely like The Acts of The Apostles.
I love this!
“In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
“But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.
That was from a letter Thomas Paine wrote to a friend in 1797.
Kcdad: First of all, I appreciate that you are still searching–many are not; they are content not to think about God in depth at all. I probably enjoy the intellectual arguments for discussion sake–but not as an effective attempt to change either of our minds. Thomas Paine’s argument is a very familiar one–his disagreement with the demand that we accept the Bible as the Word of God. I agree with him in that none of my arguments are worth anything if you can’t accept that premise. Also, I understand the contention that the Bible’s view of God is inconsistent; personally, I see paradox in the Bible, but not inconsistency. The one conclusion to which I have come is that no one comes to faith in Christ as Savior, etc., through intellectual pursuits of the truth. I believe people meet God at a very personal level in a way that truly does seem miraculous to me. I believe what the Bible says; it is all about faith–although paradoxically I also believe that we definitely can bring our intellect to our faith; but the faith does come first. C. S. Lewis’ conversion might seem to be an exception. However, if you read his “Surprised by Joy,” which is the account of his own conversion, I believe his encounter with God (as the title indicates) was more personal than intellectual. His conversion story is one of the most unique that I have ever read–proving what I believe: there are no cookie-cutter conversion experiences.
I believe that if you look at the Bible on a totally intellectual perspective, it will do nothing for you. You have to go into the Bible with an open mind searching for answers, but there has to be some faith involved.
Jesus Christ, God, can not be proven on a scientific or intellectual level, you have to have faith.
As a Christian, I believe the idea of Darwinism seem absolutely absurd, but if you do not have faith, then you could probably find the proof you are looking for in Darwinism. I believe this world and the people and other living things are too beautiful to have just happened. When I look at the beauty of the world, that is my proof that there is a God and the Bible explains it all to me.
“no one comes to faith in Christ as Savior, etc., through intellectual pursuits of the truth.”
How sad.
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”
“You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself.”
Galileo Galilei
These are my thoughts, as well as how I teach.
I would say that if you can not understand something, one shouldn’t believe it.
Kcdad: I did qualify that statement–I do believe God expects us to bring our intellect–but faith just cannot be left out–Biblically speaking, Jesus speaking. I did say “faith” first, but I won’t hold that out as an absolute–not sure we can separate our intellect and faith. Ben, please read “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, a modern-day, very prominent Christian scientist who does present evolution as a concept that can fit with Biblical teachings–while still believing that God created all of it. I get a bit upset with this one at a very personal level because I was raised to believe Darwinism was totally absurb–a group of us Christian teen-agers at Woodruff even rasied such a fuss that the teacher skipped the chapter. When I got to college and studied evolution, I didn’t find it so absurd (although I have little bent toward science)–I used that as one of my “excuses” to leave my faith behind for a period of time. I just don’t like it when “Evolution” is put up as a stumbling block to faith–because I used it as such in my own life.
Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin… In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term.
John Wilkins (1998). “How to be Anti-Darwinian”. TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
“Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » …on what evolution explains”. National Center for Science Education. http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/contest/on-what-evolution-explains. Retrieved 2008-12-22.
based on an European Southern Observatory release (December 09, 2006). “Galactic Darwinism :: Astrobiology Magazine – earth science – evolution distribution Origin of life universe – life beyond :: Astrobiology
What is Darwinism? Nothing but a strawman.
Sharon: I make the argument that faith has nothing to do with belief. In fact, when Paul or anyone else talks of faith they are talking about how you live your life… what are your priorities… not what do you believe. Faith in Jesus doesn’t mean believing in his existence or lordship or divinity…it means, faith that his way of life is the right way.
I HAVE TREMENDOUS FAITH IN JESUS.
I use the example of Indiana Jones standing on the precipice of that cavern… “The faithful man will leap from the lion’s head”… it doesn’t matter what Indy believed… he had to take that step. That step is faith and had nothing to do with belief.
Kcdad: Please reword the words of Jesus yourself. I am so curious to know how you can ignore all the verses where Jesus and certainly Paul speaks of faith–and specifically in faith in Jesus himself as God, not man. John 20 with the story of “doubting” Thomas certainly comes to mind. I usually find some point of agreement with you–but in your last post about “how you live your life, not what you believe” argument, I just find no verification for such an interpretation in the Bible. The “literal” words just have to be twisted too much to come up with your interpretation. Of course, you are arguing with the core of the gospel now–take it away and I would have no reason to consider the Bible of Jesus of any importance at all.
The doubting Thomas story is not what you purport it to be. The build up to it is that Thomas refuses to believe what someone else tells him they believe to be true. He refuses to believe. He says SHOW ME. So confronted with the risen Jesus does Thomas maintain his stance that he will not believe until he actually places his fingers or hands into the wounds? NO. Confronted with the risen Jesus, Thomas immediately confesses: “My Lord and my God!”
And Jesus responds… “Because you have seen me, you have believed…”
What does it mean in The Bible to see or to have sight? What does it mean to be blind? What does it mean to have one’s eyes opened?
Earlier in the chapter you have the encounter between Jesus and Mary… what does Jesus say then: “I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” MY Father and YOUR Father, MY God and YOUR God. How does this make Jesus ANY DIFFERENT from Mary or you or I?
and ye may not call any your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens, Matt 23:9
And Jesus said to him, ‘Why me dost thou call good? no one is good except One — God; Mark 10:18
Just because Thomas uses a middle eastern euphemism doesn’t mean that Jesus is God. Jesus, in fact (according to Mark and Matthew), denies it. They were written long before John’s Gospel.
NOTE: Following the Matthew denial, Jesus accepts being called Teacher and says:
20″Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
OOPS! Back to the capitalism vs communism argument. And, interestingly enough a call to action… not believe in me, but FOLLOW ME!
Karrie will like that “Jesus looked at him and loved him”.
Kcdad: Certainly, the rich young ruler (to which I referred in an earlier post)–as I stated then is that the gospel has more appeal to the poor than to the rich for obvious reasons. I’m sorry; I’d like to be more agreeable, but your interpretations about Jesus being just a man just don’t have the ring of truth to me. I will probably engage in this discussion later on–because it does fascinate me–again, as one for discussion not one for changing either of our minds.
kcdad wrote, And Jesus responds… “Because you have seen me, you have believed…”
You forgot the rest of John 20:30:
“…blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.”
David: Yes, that does seem to call for “blind” faith. We all have to be careful of “proof-texting.” Excerpts of Scripture, out of context, can be used to prove any point of view. Christians are just as guilty of such interpretations.
Yes, David… and Matthew 5:3- The Beatitudes. The Greek word is “Happy”.
“The believer is happy, the doubter is wise.” Irish Proverb
“The fact that the believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” George Bernard Shaw
What do you intend the word “blessed” to mean?
Ok, Kcdad–one at a time–doing what I said I wouldn’t do. What do you do with all of John 14–not just pieces of it–all of it? Of course, it’s the standard Scripture used by Christians to support belief in the Trinity. I will guess that you will read it that God is our father in the same way that he is Jesus’ father–and that somehow there is a bit of divinity in us just as you would believe that God is in Jesus–not that Jesus is God. You know ahead of time that I can’t accept that version–but I have heard it defended before. What about “I go to prepare a place for you and will come again…”?
George Bernard Shaw brings back memories. During my freshman year of college, I approached all of literature from the point of view of the Bible. One of my “not-so-Biblically oriented” professors asked me to please find some other point of reference. She then asked me to critique Shaw’s writings–now what was I to do? Shaw’s cynicism about Christianity (maybe more about “Christians”) proved to be too much for me to ignore. Like so many writers, Shaw did not ignore Christianity; he was constantly reacting to it–it was often his point of reference. When I learned that Ernest Hemingway’s grandfather (I believe) went to Wheaton college, I started to understand Hemingway much better.
John 14
“in that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you; ”
“he who is loving me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him”
“the word that ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me. ”
“and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name”
“I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I. ”
“the world may know that I love the Father, and according as the Father gave me command so I do”
I don’t see how anyone can read these verses and think that Jesus and the Father are the same God. (Now that I think of it… does Jesus ever talk about God? Or is it always The Father?)
“doing what I said I wouldn’t do.”
Do you know why? This is why my students love me…
kcdad wrote: I don’t see how anyone can read these verses and think that Jesus and the Father are the same God.
Well, there’s John 10:30: “I and [my] Father are one.”
Kcdad: I have no doubt that your students love you–and I realize you make them think. I hesitate to enter into this discussion because I really don’t want to offend you–but this is so right up my alley; there is nothing I love more than Bible study and/or discussing the Bible. So what do you think Jesus meant when he said that he goes to prepare a place for us and will return?
You do raise any interesting point about Jesus using the term “my father” instead of God–I guess we need some definitions from the Greek–would that shed any light? I will search out my verses–probably not tonight..
Second thought–I have a minute:
What about Mark 8:32 – Adultrous, and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Jesus is speaking of himself in the third person.
In Mark 16:15 on, doesn’t Jesus say man will be punished for not believing. I think you said earlier that Jesus expected us only to follow his example–this states clearly that faith is necessary.
kcdad: In that earlier post — I was addressing it to Stephen — I was interested in everyone’s opinion and of course that included you. Sorry for being sloppy!
What about Acts 7:55-56 in the New Testament?
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
and Genesis 1:26-27 in the Old Testament?
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Does one believe that we are actually created in God’s image?
I do.
I think that one needs to decide if he/she believes in the Nicene Creed and the Trinity.
I understand and believe that there is one Godhead that is ONE in purpose and three distinct personages — God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
Sharon:
I just do not believe that you nor anyone else can offend anyone else. Each one of us has been given our agency — life is all about choices. No one can make us happy, sad, offended … that choice is made by each of us as Frankyl wrote about in Man’s Search For Meaning.
Karrie: I understand what you’re saying in that someone should not be able to offend me unless I allow them to do so–however, I don’t think the reverse is true. Otherwise the “Do unto others….command wouldn’t carry much meaning, would it? However, I know that Kcdad isn’t going to let anyone offend him–he’s stronger than that. I did use the wrong word. I was thinking more along the lines of how people don’t like others preaching to them–and in the Christian context trying to “save” them. Kcdad, however, I think you see things a bit differently in this case. You aren’t on the defensive; I believe that you do enjoy the intellectual debate–which is why I’m willing to continue it because so do I. I always learn something in the exchange–in this case, as it happens any time I look at the Scripture, I learn more about my faith–something I missed before. That’s what’s so amazing about the Bible; there’s always the possibility of some new insight..
Sharon: I understand what you’re saying in that someone should not be able to offend me unless I allow them to do so–however, I don’t think the reverse is true.
I do not understand what you are writing. How would it be possible for you to give offense to someone and that someone be disallowed/unable to give offense to you? How would that work? It doesn’t seem possible — at least to me.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you …. is like a saying I have read — It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice. At the end of the day — a person just might be an important jerk because of the mistreatment of others to get to a position of ‘importance’.
I think we will have to agree to disagree — I firmly believe that each of us has the choice in every nanosecond of our lives to make the decision of how we will ‘show-up’ in any given nanosecond of our lives. It may not seem like that is possible perhaps because we have been conditioned from various outlets to think that that possibility is not possible. We are each responsible for our own behavior and we each have a choice along the way.
Karrie: Yes, I think–if I understand what you are saying–I agree that we are all responsible for our own behavior toward others and our responses to them–I just can’t control the responses of others. I wasn’t disagreeing–just qualifying what you said a little. I was simply saying that I shouldn’t set out to offend anyone, but that I myself should not take offense easily–it’s sort of like the Biblical command to turn the other cheek–do you think? I should try to avoid offending someone (be aware of the feelings of others)while at the same time being able to express my own feelings, etc. As you know, I am in the habit of speaking my mind–there is always a possibility that I will offend. Example: And I was going to let it pass. But I was just a bit offended (but not personally) by Popijw’s last post. At least, I wanted people to know that I didn’t intend my earlier post to elicit such a response. However, if I bury it on Kcdad’s spot, most will not read it. 🙂
“John 10:30: “I and [my] Father are one.”” David… I can respond to any single verse you want to throw at me… but it gets rather monotonous. He is telling of being a shepherd to a flock of sheep his father has given him. He is shepherd, and the sheep listen to him because he is representing the Father. The sheep belong to the Father, but he is the shepherd… the Pastor so to speak… so to the sheep, when he speaks, it is the father speaking, he and the father are one. NOT ONE AND THE SAME.. but of one accord, of one purpose. Read verses 33 and 34.
OK Sharon, you asked a lot of questions. Can we narrow your curiosity to a particular point? Why do I no believe the Bible is the word of God, for example? First read Thomas Paine’s letter to a friend. http://www.deism.com/paine_essay_age_of_reason.htm
1) Mark 8 :38 (not 8:32) please get your citations correct or this will degenerate into a total fiasco. Son of man refers to mankind… it is interchangeable with son of god. When, in all of literature , can you find someone speaking of themself in third person in the same sentence they speak themselves in first person?
“for whoever may be ashamed of me, and of my words”…”the Son of Man also shall be ashamed of him, when he may come in the glory of his”.
2) The first problem in discussing this is that everything from Mark 16:9 on in not part of the original text. It was added later. Secondly, if you want to accept this text, and the statement: @ v16 “he who hath believed, and hath been baptized, shall be saved; and he who hath not believed, shall be condemned. ” Then what are you going to do with the obvious: Believe what? Not believed what? Go to verse 15: The answer is “the good news”. And what is the good news?
The other problem of course is what do you do with more authentic passages of Jesus saying that belief is either irrelevant or problematic? (You also having James who claims “even the demons believe and tremble”.) James 2:18-19 You have the story of the sheep and goats… which were favored? They that believed or they that had no idea, but were just doing the right thing? What about the Good Samaritan… th two paragons of virtue in Hebrew society, priests and judges were not condemned, but neither are they the hero of this story… the heathen, gentile Samaritan is the hero… not for what he believes or doesn’t believe but because of what he DOES.
When Jesus or John the Baptizer call to believe and be baptized, do you think the emphasis is on the belief or the baptism? What are they calling people to do? Believe and do nothing else? No, of course not. They are being called to change their lives, change their way of living wash away the sin of the past, leave behind the kingdoms of man and prepare the kingdom of God. IN order for the Baptism to make a difference, for it to change the world (not to mention the person being dunked) that person must believe they can make a difference… that changing the way we live is the right thing to do.. that the Kingdom of Heaven is preferable to the Kingdom of Man. (Some people like David and Stephen apparently are not ready for that acknowledgment , yet. They still prefer the Kingdoms of Man (capitalism, ipso facto Gesellschaft) to the Kingdom of God (communism ipso facto gemeinschaft.)
I “believe” you can find many more instances of Jesus denouncing belief and extolling action than the opposite.
Karrie: Acts 7:55-56
Let me ask a question. Am I required to believe Luke had no personal agenda in writing this history about the early church? Must I ignore the first four verses in his first book? For the sake of this discussion I will.
This passage refers to the stoning of Stephen and his “vision”. Paul, nee Saul, just happens to be there. And the two phrases Stephen utters at his execution just happen to be the same two Luke (and only Luke) attributes to Jesus at the crucifixion.
So, anyway, here is my basic criticism of this text: How does Luke know what Stephen saw or didn’t saw as ” he gazed into heaven”? Because Paul told him? probably. It is interesting that Luke’s writing acts as an apology for Paul’s “heretical” views and disagreements with Peter and James (The Church in Jerusalem). Then there is also the problem of this “vision” being far too metaphorical to be taken literally. We KNOW you can not see heaven… it isn’t a physical place. We KNOW that God does not have a right side or left side… that would make God finite and limited. perhaps a more modern interpretation would be Stephen is suffering a NDE caused by a rush of, or loss of oxygen to certain parts of the brain. OR… he is calling down a curse to scare away his attackers… “GOD AND JESUS are watching!!!!”
Genesis 1:26-27 “Does one believe that we are actually created in God’s image?”
I think everything was created in God’s image. (Or nothing was)
“I think that one needs to decide if he/she believes in the Nicene Creed and the Trinity.”
Nope. Thank you very much, but I prefer to decide for myself what I am going to believe and not allow some 4th century Catholic and Roman employees of the state church to decide for me.
“three distinct personages” This is only believable. It is UNthinkable. If three and distinct than none of them are infinite and eternal. If the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father in place of the Son, then the Father is supreme and sovereign (which is what Jesus ALWAYS said). If the Father, who Jesus suggested we call ABBA, is supreme, sovereign and pre-existing both Son and Holy Spirit… then there is your God. God is ONE, and can not be in two other, later existing personages.
No one can offend me, except in that they can offend my sense of humanity. When someone behaves in a way that is cruel, mean or just selfish, it offends my sense of what humanity should be.
Kcdad: Now we’ve reached a point of futility in this discussion. Neither of us will change our minds by the other’s arguments; therefore, the discussion has no real purpose–except the possibility of one-upmanship, which isn’t my desire (and neither of us admitting we have been one-upped). 🙂 Also, none of these arguments will bring you to faith–which, of course, is my ultimate goal–I think you’d make a great Christian, based on Jesus’ divinity and his humanity. Obviously, we have both engaged in these arguments previously, and you have done much reading to support your point of view–and there is no end to these arguments. There are a few things you have mentioned that I will bring up for discussion in my Sunday School class–Jesus’ speaking in the third person about himself is one I find interesting (but not faith-threatening) and, also, I have never thought about the implications of Jesus’ speaking of God primarily as “My Father” except perhaps on the cross when he said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me. In order to understand your “Of course, I am a communist; I am a follower of Jesus,” I wanted to understand what you believed about the divinity of Jesus. Now I know. We have two very different views of Jesus. Neither of us is willing to compromise our views (at least, not I) on this subject. Now we can go on to discuss our views regarding other issues on this blog. My guess is that many are tired of these discussions anyway.
kcdad,
As usual, you blatantly pervert scripture.
In John 1:1 we read that, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In John 1:14 we read that, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…” In John 10:28, Jesus has been given the power to give eternal life. These verses make it very clear that Jesus is equal with the Father, and they are one.
Here’s the best explanation on the events of John 10:30-39: After Jesus says he and His Father are one in 10:30, the Jews accuse him of blasphemy. But Jesus turns the table when he reminds them of Psalm 82:6, “I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.” The verse was directed at the nation’s unjust judges, who because of their position in society were called “gods.” Jesus pointed out their double standard that they’d accuse him of blasphemy for saying He and the Father are one, but they themselves had no objection to the Old Testament referring to others in their society being called “gods.”
John 10:30-38 – “I and [my] Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.”
“Neither of us will change our minds by the other’s arguments;”
I never thought that the purpose… I thought you also had decided the discussion was good for discussion’s sake…I care not what you believe. I care not to change anyone’s beliefs. Are you feeling… defensive?
“It is education makes all the difference. Man, before he begins to think for himself, is as much the child of habits in Creeds as he is in plowing and sowing. Yet creeds, like opinions, prove nothing. ” Thomas Paine
“none of these arguments will bring you to faith” WHAAAAAT? Please go back and read: “I HAVE TREMENDOUS FAITH IN JESUS.” What you mean, of course, is none of your arguments will bring me to believe in the same Roman Catholic creeds you believe…. and that is true.
David, your inability to understand textual criticism is understandable. It is not taught in our schools or society.
John 1… in the beginning… beginning of what?
was the word.. the LOGOS. The Greek word in this poem is LOGOS not LEXIS. It does not mean word, it means more along the lines of IMAGE. (you have to remember that even our Church hymns have rather dubious imagery in them… (I walk with him and I talk with him…from “He lives”)
word was made flesh… yes, just as in Genesis (the beginning), man is created in the IMAGE ( DAMAH in Hebrew) of God. Have you never heard someone described as the manifestation of evil or the manifestation of honesty, goodness, self sacrifice, mercy or any other quality? Do we really mean that? Or is it literary hyperbole? (By the way… that is what that idiom means… “in the flesh”, or “the very image (LOGOS) of…”
Jesus has been given the power to give eternal life… anyone gotten that gift yet? Who did he receive that power from? Himself? Why did Jesus tell the disciples that they will be able to do EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE AND MORE AND GREATER THINGS??? Was he lying, exaggerating or just mistaken?
David, David, David… if you are going to practice exegesis, please be consistent. WHO says “Ye are gods”? Who is speaking in Psalm 82? DAVID, NOT GOD, NOT JESUS, NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT.
You are correct that Jesus is pointing out their double standard. However, there is nothing in this to suggest Jesus meant anything other than what I suggested in the earlier post; that Jesus, and The Father (two separate entities) are both viewed by the sheep as being their master… because Jesus shepherds them with the consent of the Father.
How can you accuse me of perverting scripture when I am interpreting it and you are expressing dogmatic creedal statements about it? You believe it to be the word of god because… you believe someone who told you it was the word of god. The Bible never (not once, not ever) claims to be the word of god… only to pass on the word of god. And even then only some of the time.
In case you haven’t realized it yet, these religious debates are never about convincing someone to believe what you believe because you are right… they are an attempt to make yourself believe what you claim to believe… to make yourself think that what you believe is actually what you think. If someone comes over to your way of belief, it makes you feel better. It makes you feel like you are right… in reality, none of us will ever KNOW the truth of religious claims. Even when we die, our brains stop working and that is where knowledge exists. So whether or not we continue to exist or not, our brains do not.
It is no different from teaching in school. Teachers who want their students to think the way they do give objective tests that reflect the teacher’s view of reality. Teachers who just want their students to think for themselves and discover truth and wisdom on their own give little or no tests. How can one test wisdom and thought? As I have always said, I don’t care what a person believes… about God, history, social studies, politics or anything else. I only care that they THINK something about those topics and not rely on beliefs. Let their beliefs and opinions come from within, not without.
Sharon says: “Now we’ve reached a point of futility in this discussion.”
I thought that point was reached a long, long time ago. 🙂
yes CJ AMEN!
Hallelujah!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnHksDFHTQI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmbQEQltOwM&feature=related