Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You missed the point entirely. Just because someone writes or says God told them to tell you to do something does not mean God told them anything.
Actually that WAS my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
The writers of the OT wrote what they believed, it does not make what they believed about God true and this is shown in that they did not recognize Christ who was the express image of the Father.
So if what they wrote isn't what is true then it is not a SOURCE of truth.
And we're left with various people deciding in between their own ears what is truth.
By your lights, we determine who is onto the truth by asking whether their truth claims sound loving to us or not.
Fine ... nothing wrong with that, but it hardly represents an objective, or even intersubjective, means of arriving at something resembling an accurate view of reality.
So if what they wrote isn't what is true then it is not a SOURCE of truth.
And we're left with various people deciding in between their own ears what is truth.
By your lights, we determine who is onto the truth by asking whether their truth claims sound loving to us or not.
Fine ... nothing wrong with that, but it hardly represents an objective, or even intersubjective, means of arriving at something resembling an accurate view of reality.
We follow Jesus and him alone, he is the one who represents the truth, thus it is an accurate view and it is via the fruits of the spirit that we know whether we are followers of Him or not.
People keep trying to build tabernacles to moses (law) and eljiah (prophets) but God said this is my beloved son HEAR HIM.
So many voices, both old and new telling us what God is like and never seem to take into account that Jesus is the only representation of God and his view and his alone is the correct view of God.
So many voices, both old and new telling us what God is like and never seem to take into account that Jesus is the only representation of God and his view and his alone is the correct view of God.
You don't seem to grasp the notion that your concept / recognition of Jesus is unique to you (although others may happen to share similar views). "Jesus" is not some universal touchstone that everyone objectively or intersubjectively agreed upon.
What we "know" about Jesus is found in the gospels (which conflict with each other) and in the Acts of the Apostles and some sparse references in the other NT writings (which actually conflict with the gospels) so which Jesus are we even talking about?
Angry Jesus with his whips, turning over the money-changer's tables and scourging them?
Angry Jesus with magic spells, who curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season for him personally?
Meek and Mild Jesus who encourages people to send him little children and to be like little children?
Miracle-Working Jesus, turning water to wine and raising the dead?
Suffering Jesus, being abused and killed on the cross?
Divisive Jesus, sent to "set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."? To bring "not peace, but a sword?"
Historic Jesus, who you can kinda-sorta make an argument for, apart from the mythos-building fabulist claims about his life and ministry and significance?
Paul's Celestial Jesus, seated in the heavenlies and seen in visions?
It seems to me that you mean well, but you're really just doing what EVERY other believer does, you are cherry picking the aspects of the Jesus mythos that resonate with you, interpreting them how you please, and then presenting it as if it were an objective way to determine whether a particular scripture passage OR a particular dogma or teaching is "correct".
They're all "correct" according to somebody. Why should we believe you vs anyone else?
You don't seem to grasp the notion that your concept / recognition of Jesus is unique to you (although others may happen to share similar views). "Jesus" is not some universal touchstone that everyone objectively or intersubjectively agreed upon.
What we "know" about Jesus is found in the gospels (which conflict with each other) and in the Acts of the Apostles and some sparse references in the other NT writings (which actually conflict with the gospels) so which Jesus are we even talking about?
Angry Jesus with his whips, turning over the money-changer's tables and scourging them?
Angry Jesus with magic spells, who curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season for him personally?
Meek and Mild Jesus who encourages people to send him little children and to be like little children?
Miracle-Working Jesus, turning water to wine and raising the dead?
Suffering Jesus, being abused and killed on the cross?
Divisive Jesus, sent to "set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."? To bring "not peace, but a sword?"
Historic Jesus, who you can kinda-sorta make an argument for, apart from the mythos-building fabulist claims about his life and ministry and significance?
Paul's Celestial Jesus, seated in the heavenlies and seen in visions?
It seems to me that you mean well, but you're really just doing what EVERY other believer does, you are cherry picking the aspects of the Jesus mythos that resonate with you, interpreting them how you please, and then presenting it as if it were an objective way to determine whether a particular scripture passage OR a particular dogma or teaching is "correct".
They're all "correct" according to somebody. Why should we believe you vs anyone else?
Mordant you keep using literal interpretation; fundamental understanding of scripture. why?
The atheist and fundy christian just can't seem to grasp anything outside of the literal. It is ironic to me that the atheist does not agree with the way the fundy see the scriptures yet continually uses them and see them in the same light. Yet when someone comes along and tells them Jesus and only Jesus is the standard by which we are to live and all scripture is subject to Him (Jesus) they complain about cherry picking etc. Have you never noticed how the writers of the Gospels cherry picked scripture from the OT? Cherries are good, pick as many as you like and as long as they point to Jesus and what He taught you will have found one precept of the precept upon precept.
Now you say Jesus is not some universal touchstone that everyone objectively or intersubjectively agreed upon; However if one is a christian one is suppose to be a follower of Christ. Thus in fact to the Christian Jesus is a universal touchstone, or at least should be. However like I pointed out many still want to call down fire from heaven, build tabernacles to Moses and Elijah etc. and Jesus says they know not what manner of spirit they are of and God says this is my son HEAR him.
Mordant you keep using literal interpretation; fundamental understanding of scripture. why?
What I am trying to figure out is how you think you've found a way to sort out what is literal, what is figurative, and what is to be ignored, in some way that is distinguishable from your own preferences, imagination, and desires.
I am no longer a biblical literalist but the reason I am not therefore a biblical ... what would we call it ... metaphoricist? ... is because no one can answer this question. What I am, is indifferent to Scripture as any source of data about reality. By any interpretational system I've seen.
I recognize that large swaths of Christianity draw "wisdom" and "insight" from the scriptures using symbolism and metaphor, and while I understand the impulse, I see it as simply a different version of the same fool's errand as the fundamentalists are on.
You say "Jesus and only Jesus is the standard we are to live by" and apparently interpret scripture by. But this is not consistent with the definition of "standard" which is, in this context, "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations". A yardstick is a standard in this sense for the purpose of measuring linear distance. A thermometer is a standard in this sense for the purpose of measuring temperature. It's very hard to dispute the meaning of "14 inches" or "50 degrees F" But using Jesus to measure anything makes no more sense than using Mordant or Pneuma or Einstein or Hitler to measure something. What any of those persons represent is HIGHLY subjective and subject to interpretation, and even then, will vary when looked at from different facets / perspectives of reality. Mordant represents something very different to his wife, than to his children, or his colleagues, or his next door neighbor, or to people of varying beliefs on this forum or elsewhere. Hitler is generally seen as the embodiment of evil but he was an innocent baby once too, so you could view him as a tragic example of bad parenting or something like that too, if you want to. And you couldn't even argue objectively that this is wrong.
So for example you see Jesus apparently primarily as an exemplar of agape love. Ignoring that agape love is a rather slippery concept, that can be (mis)understood in a number of ways, and that can be judged present or absent in various people or ideas based on little more than superficial observation ... other people see Jesus as an exemplar of other things that are more front and center for them. For example, some see him as a righteous judge, come to "bring a sword". Why is that less valid than the facet through which you view him? You can't, or won't tell me. Maybe because the truthful answer is, "because I say so" and that violates your carefully cultivated self-image as "better than a fundamentalist".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Now you say Jesus is not some universal touchstone that everyone objectively or intersubjectively agreed upon; However if one is a christian one is suppose to be a follower of Christ. Thus in fact to the Christian Jesus is a universal touchstone, or at least should be. However like I pointed out many still want to call down fire from heaven, build tabernacles to Moses and Elijah etc. and Jesus says they know not what manner of spirit they are of and God says this is my son HEAR him.
What I am trying to figure out is how you think you've found a way to sort out what is literal, what is figurative, and what is to be ignored, in some way that is distinguishable from your own preferences, imagination, and desires.
I am no longer a biblical literalist but the reason I am not therefore a biblical ... what would we call it ... metaphoricist? ... is because no one can answer this question. What I am, is indifferent to Scripture as any source of data about reality. By any interpretational system I've seen.
I recognize that large swaths of Christianity draw "wisdom" and "insight" from the scriptures using symbolism and metaphor, and while I understand the impulse, I see it as simply a different version of the same fool's errand as the fundamentalists are on.
You say "Jesus and only Jesus is the standard we are to live by" and apparently interpret scripture by. But this is not consistent with the definition of "standard" which is, in this context, "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations". A yardstick is a standard in this sense for the purpose of measuring linear distance. A thermometer is a standard in this sense for the purpose of measuring temperature. It's very hard to dispute the meaning of "14 inches" or "50 degrees F" But using Jesus to measure anything makes no more sense than using Mordant or Pneuma or Einstein or Hitler to measure something. What any of those persons represent is HIGHLY subjective and subject to interpretation, and even then, will vary when looked at from different facets / perspectives of reality. Mordant represents something very different to his wife, than to his children, or his colleagues, or his next door neighbor, or to people of varying beliefs on this forum or elsewhere. Hitler is generally seen as the embodiment of evil but he was an innocent baby once too, so you could view him as a tragic example of bad parenting or something like that too, if you want to. And you couldn't even argue objectively that this is wrong.
So for example you see Jesus apparently primarily as an exemplar of agape love. Ignoring that agape love is a rather slippery concept, that can be (mis)understood in a number of ways, and that can be judged present or absent in various people or ideas based on little more than superficial observation ... other people see Jesus as an exemplar of other things that are more front and center for them. For example, some see him as a righteous judge, come to "bring a sword". Why is that less valid than the facet through which you view him? You can't, or won't tell me. Maybe because the truthful answer is, "because I say so" and that violates your carefully cultivated self-image as "better than a fundamentalist".
Thanks for proving my point ;-)
Mordant the part I highlighted actually proves what I have been saying. Does not matter how Jesus is viewed by people he is still Jesus. Those who are closer to him have a better understanding of him then those who are not so close. To use your analogy your wife would know and understand you a lot better then your children, your children would know you better then your colleagues and so forth; but you are still you, it's just those who are closer to you see you in a different light then those not so close.
Jesus is the standard Mordant, the fruits of the spirit help us to know and others know that we are the children of God.
Mordant the part I highlighted actually proves what I have been saying.
No actually it is the central problem with what you've been saying.
If there is no objective Mordant then there is no objective Jesus and no objective "agape love". At least when it comes to Mordant, he answers your posts -- and if you met me in person, you'd have all sorts of confirmation of my existence, personality, character, etc. The more time you spent with me -- REALLY spent with me, not just imagined spending with me -- the more clarity you'd have on that topic. When it comes to Jesus you don't have that luxury.
If for the sake of argument Jesus is as real as you or I, there would still be many different perceptions of him, and the significance of his teachings, the reality and import of his current activity in the world, etc. How do you determine that your views are the correct ones? Just by claiming to know him well?
What does "knowing Jesus well" even mean? I spent three decades studying him in detail, including an entire year of full time formal study. Yet I've arrived at very different ideas about Jesus from yours. You could claim that I just got the wrong teaching or looked at the wrong things but that's no different than any theist's empty claim that people of different (or no) beliefs just have it wrong.
I grant you ... IF Jesus exists as a real person that people can actually have an interactive relationship with (and that's big IF) then he is what he is no matter how anyone (including you) view him. The question is still: who has the correct view? Or even the less incorrect view? Conveniently, it's always the believer advancing their personal beliefs who is confidently "right".
Show me the basis for judging what is true or false about Jesus. You still haven't. Vague allusions to "fruits of the spirit" or "knowing Jesus well" are not the intersubjective standard that you claim them to be. They are just loose concepts that can be fleshed out any way anyone wishes to.
No actually it is the central problem with what you've been saying.
If there is no objective Mordant then there is no objective Jesus and no objective "agape love". At least when it comes to Mordant, he answers your posts -- and if you met me in person, you'd have all sorts of confirmation of my existence, personality, character, etc. The more time you spent with me -- REALLY spent with me, not just imagined spending with me -- the more clarity you'd have on that topic. When it comes to Jesus you don't have that luxury.
.
While there is the different perspective in our views of Jesus; you seem to believe he is dead or never existed at all. I believe he is alive and we can know him as he is.
Quote:
If for the sake of argument Jesus is as real as you or I, there would still be many different perceptions of him, and the significance of his teachings, the reality and import of his current activity in the world, etc. How do you determine that your views are the correct ones? Just by claiming to know him well?
As I said the more one know Jesus the closer one is to Jesus and the more he becomes known. A child does not have the same knowledge as a teenager or an adult. Thus their perceptions would be different.
Quote:
What does "knowing Jesus well" even mean? I spent three decades studying him in detail, including an entire year of full time formal study. Yet I've arrived at very different ideas about Jesus from yours. You could claim that I just got the wrong teaching or looked at the wrong things but that's no different than any theist's empty claim that people of different (or no) beliefs just have it wrong.
I would not say your perception is wrong per say, however not knowing what it is you seen regarding Jesus I cannot make any judgment at all. Do you mind clarifying what you seen in your studies.
Quote:
I grant you ... IF Jesus exists as a real person that people can actually have an interactive relationship with (and that's big IF) then he is what he is no matter how anyone (including you) view him. The question is still: who has the correct view? Or even the less incorrect view? Conveniently, it's always the believer advancing their personal beliefs who is confidently "right".
I don't believe it come down to who is right and who is wrong, for me it comes down to ones perceptions. A child's perception is still correct as far as their understanding will allow. However as a child grows their perception start to change.
Quote:
Show me the basis for judging what is true or false about Jesus. You still haven't. Vague allusions to "fruits of the spirit" or "knowing Jesus well" are not the intersubjective standard that you claim them to be. They are just loose concepts that can be fleshed out any way anyone wishes to.
As I said it is not about what is true or false, its about perception. Paul said there are some that still could only drink milk because meat was to strong for them. Now this is not a shot at anyone (although many take it that way) it is just a fact of life. A child lives on milk until they have grown enough to eat meat.
However this seems to be the problem with many, they look at things as right or wrong, true or false but it is just really ones perception. Some are just more spiritually aware then others and the fruits of the spirit are the proof of that spiritual awareness.
If one walks in love, one walks with God and God with them.
While there is the different perspective in our views of Jesus; you seem to believe he is dead or never existed at all. I believe he is alive and we can know him as he is.
On what basis do you believe this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I don't believe it come down to who is right and who is wrong, for me it comes down to ones perceptions. A child's perception is still correct as far as their understanding will allow. However as a child grows their perception start to change.
I agree that it's more important to DO right than to BE right.
I also agree that an accurate perception can still be incomplete or immature, like the perception of a child.
However I'm sure you must think that some perceptions ARE wrong. The perception of a sociopath that other people's feelings and needs are not important. The perception of an autocrat that he is accountable only to himself and not to the people. The perception of a person with severe anxiety that the world is a horribly dangerous and threatening place. Any number of perceptions / beliefs are intersubjectively wrong, harmful to oneself or others, etc.
If god is simply what people perceive and everyone's perceptions are right then your definition of god is incoherent and discussing god is pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
If one walks in love, one walks with God and God with them.
I have a feeling that what it means to walk in love is also a matter of perception.
I will say in fairness to you that a lot of what passes for meaning in life is progressively zeroing in on better and better approximations of truth. That we are always refining our understanding. That we have to start somewhere. But for this to work there has to be a common destination that makes sense. To me that destination is a defensible, substantiated, accurate apprehension of reality itself, as intersubjectively experienced. If the destination is a conceptual abstraction like "to be more loving" or "to know Jesus" then I don't know what success looks like or have any assurance that it would look the same to anyone other than myself. On the other hand when it comes to experienced reality I can always compare it to my mental model of reality and see if I'm getting meaningful explanations of my experiences and accurate predictions of outcomes. So for me, what success looks like is a minimum of surprises and false starts.
My wife and I saw the movie "Hostiles" last night (SUPERB movie in every way, FWIW) and a phrase that stuck with me was uttered by a character whose husband and children had been slaughtered by Indians, and who was then captured by fur traders and raped. She said that she figured she'd never get used to "God's rough ways". But she had to cling to her belief in god because without it, what would she have?
To me that is the epitome of a mental model of reality that is constantly being violated / invalidated by reality itself. How far does one take such a model before one discards it in favor of something involving less cognitive dissonance?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
