[davidk]

Quote

David, I suspect we are spending alot of time talking past each other. So please allow me the opportunity to turn the tables and ask you questions:

How do you know this? How do you know that God has the authority to do this? If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

If God is God he has all authority, whether you like it or not. Otherwise He would not be God.
---
Your attack on the OT has been relentless with such absolute statements as; "But no matter how you cut it, it is, according to the scriptures, God-sanctioned genocide."
I responded saying ,"He has not, under any circumstance, demonstrated (biblically) a proclivity to use any systematic measures to prevent births, cause injury, kill, or create unlivable living conditions of anyone simply based on politics, race, culture, religion, or language."

Then you had the affrontary to tell someone else "I suspect David is telling me that if I don't worship this "god of genocide" also found in the bible, that I am worshipping the wrong god." I looked, and could not find at any time my remotely saying you should worship a biblical 'god of genocide'. My insistance has been that it does not exist. I ignored this but it could have been considered the first personal attack.

You followed that up with: "In other words, (you have said) God has "carte blanche", he can do absolutely anything he wants, no matter how much suffering it causes, and whatever he does is considered to be wise, righteous, and good."
I looked and could not find anywhere my saying God causes any wanton harm or suffering to anyone. Second personal attack.

I haven't been the one doing the attacking.
---
Because we knew our reading of OT Scripture was at odds, I had hoped to help by suggesting we find some commonality or we would continue to "talk past each other".

Because you had used absolutes in your arguements, I had assumed you would understand the anithesis post on absolutes. Which one is the reality? Does God objectively exists; or does He not? The answer changes everything. Does God's creation, including man, objectively exist? Morality?
I know one who believes God does not objectively exist, nor does creation, nor morality. And that explains his ability to indefinitely equivocate his positions with no possiblity of verification. He can only say what things aren't, not what they are, resting only on arbitrary, situational, or cultural 'standards'.

If God does objectively exist, then we can consider God's goodness, man's personality, morals, existance, and so forth. It can also be considered that God has given man personal, propositional revelation. Either way his character (being infinite and all) would be the law of the universe.

So what does the Bible describe? Man was made in God's image from the dust. And man was good in body and soul, in perfect harmony with God, with wife, nature, and himself. Man had these gracious provisions and to remain in that condition.

This is where we diverge. You seem to believe the biblical God now runs around willy nilly, indiscriminately killing and abusing innocent man for no apparent reason.

I believe at this point, Man had been given a choice by the Biblical God: obey or disobey. In His mercy, God told us what to expect from the results of disobedience. But, man willfully chose to disobey God and as a result, man lost communion with God and the external universe became abnormal, not as God made it, changed by man's sin. All under man's domination was affected. Morals suddenly exist.

The Biblical God is still good, but man has purposefully changed and now has to struggle with his discontinuity to God, nature, and himself.

All of the references you provided have this setting of mans struggle within this rebellion and discontinuity with everything. All of scripture is sifted through these truths.

You see: to discuss "harm and suffering" is to discuss good and evil is to discuss man and his relationship with God is to discuss absolutes.

[JosephM]

Wayfarer2k said:

David, I suspect we are spending alot of time talking past each other. So please allow me the opportunity to turn the tables and ask you questions:

How do you know this? How do you know that God has the authority to do this? If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

Davidk said:

If God is God he has all authority, whether you like it or not. Otherwise He would not be God.

David,
As you are probably aware by now, Bill has left and though you continue to post his question to you, your only answer other than your long accusation and defense which I omitted from this post, all you have said is ...

"If God is God he has all authority, whether you like it or not. Otherwise He would not be God."

It seems to me that Bill was sincere in his question to you and had put the past dialog behind. Your answer seems to me not to be a very persuasive answer to one who isn't a Christian. Perhaps you might consider leaving off the attack and counterattack dialog and answering his querstion for me unless of course that is the extent of your answer.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Given the culture, how do we discern right from wrong? (You mentioned the Methodist teaching.)

Jesus did not seperate His teaching from culture, because I believe He gave us the absolutes of God and it's culture that over time has done the seperating. If the final catagories of right and wrong were only sociological, statistical, situational ethics, or some standard of averages, we could not have morality (knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil). In the setting of culture's indefinite definitions of right and wrong, being right would be just as meaningless as being wrong.

Above all else we can do, consider prayerfully.
[/quote]

David, I appreciate your response. I think Jesus' teaching WAS bound up in his culture. That is why he generally used agrarian metaphors. I understand your desire to have ONE absolute standard of morality that everyone should be accountable to, because then our choices would only be whether to follow the ONE teaching or not, instead of HOW to follow the teaching today. But, it is difficult to be human since we have free will over our choices. How much of Jesus' teaching is literal and how much is metaphorical or hyperbole raise questions that cause the response to Jesus' teachings to be intensely personal. There does not appear to be one "right" answer. Jesus' teachings often mean different things to different people, and often he does not clarify in order to leave the answers up to us.

I believe it would just be easier for all of us if we admit none of us have the WHOLE truth about God. God is larger than what any one of us comprehend at this moment. I believe God is larger than the Bible, and I believe God is bigger than Jesus. That's why the spiritual journey intrigues us for a lifetime.

I agree that prayer and listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit is the best way to determine right and wrong always. Sanctity of life and pure love are great measuring sticks.

Are you concerned about particular moral standards you think others are not following in our culture? Sometimes our concern with setting down standards of right and wrong are in response to feeling we need to be able to judge others against them. Are you concerned that your situation is asking you to make moral choices that are not in line with the absolutes you feel God has set down? For example, if my husband were beating me nightly I might be questioning whether the teaching that God hates divorce is an absolute or something I could justify as irrelevant in my situation.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Given the culture, how do we discern right from wrong? (You mentioned the Methodist teaching.)

Jesus did not seperate His teaching from culture, because I believe He gave us the absolutes of God and it's culture that over time has done the seperating. If the final catagories of right and wrong were only sociological, statistical, situational ethics, or some standard of averages, we could not have morality (knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil). In the setting of culture's indefinite definitions of right and wrong, being right would be just as meaningless as being wrong.

Above all else we can do, consider prayerfully.
[/quote]

David, I appreciate your response. I think Jesus' teaching WAS bound up in his culture. That is why he generally used agrarian metaphors. I understand your desire to have ONE absolute standard of morality that everyone should be accountable to, because then our choices would only be whether to follow the ONE teaching or not, instead of HOW to follow the teaching today. But, it is difficult to be human since we have free will over our choices. How much of Jesus' teaching is literal and how much is metaphorical or hyperbole raise questions that cause the response to Jesus' teachings to be intensely personal. There does not appear to be one "right" answer. Jesus' teachings often mean different things to different people, and often he does not clarify in order to leave the answers up to us.

I believe it would just be easier for all of us if we admit none of us have the WHOLE truth about God. God is larger than what any one of us comprehend at this moment. I believe God is larger than the Bible, and I believe God is bigger than Jesus. That's why the spiritual journey intrigues us for a lifetime.

I agree that prayer and listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit is the best way to determine right and wrong always. Sanctity of life and pure love are great measuring sticks.

Are you concerned about particular moral standards you think others are not following in our culture? Sometimes our concern with setting down standards of right and wrong are in response to feeling we need to be able to judge others against them. Are you concerned that your situation is asking you to make moral choices that are not in line with the absolutes you feel God has set down? For example, if my husband were beating me nightly I might be questioning whether the teaching that God hates divorce is an absolute or something I could justify as irrelevant in my situation.

[October's Autumn]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 23 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

OA, I don't know if you're referring to me or not. I do admit that I tend to chase rabbits. And sometimes I lose myself on rabbit trails. I need an online OnStar.

Nope, wasn't referring to you!

[October's Autumn]

wayfarer2k, on Aug 23 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

Where I was trying to go with David, stated briefly, is that I think if we see God as a deity who wants to cause harm to humanity, then it is not too big of a step for us, as worshipping humans, to then want to be the "hands of God" who desire to carry out whatever agenda we think God has. If we think God is pro-slavery, we become pro-slavery. If we think God is anti-women, we become anti-women. If we think God is anti-gay, we become anti-gay. I could be wrong, I know, but I think our view of God (harmful or life-giving) has a strong bearing on whether we become harmful or life-giving humans.

I think for many people it is the opposite. They use God to justify their own evil: anti-gay, anti-women, racism, sexism, etc. But I see too many people who don't want to be confused with the facts. Heaven forbid they be educated on why the bible really isn't anti/ism! They don't want to hear it. They are perfectly happy justifying their own bigotry with the bible.

Of course there are exceptions. But that is what I see most of the time.

[davidk]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Aug 26 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

David, I appreciate your response. I think Jesus' teaching WAS bound up in his culture. That is why he generally used agrarian metaphors. I understand your desire to have ONE absolute standard of morality that everyone should be accountable to, because then our choices would only be whether to follow the ONE teaching or not, instead of HOW to follow the teaching today. But, it is difficult to be human since we have free will over our choices. How much of Jesus' teaching is literal and how much is metaphorical or hyperbole raise questions that cause the response to Jesus' teachings to be intensely personal. There does not appear to be one "right" answer. Jesus' teachings often mean different things to different people, and often he does not clarify in order to leave the answers up to us.

I believe it would just be easier for all of us if we admit none of us have the WHOLE truth about God. God is larger than what any one of us comprehend at this moment. I believe God is larger than the Bible, and I believe God is bigger than Jesus. That's why the spiritual journey intrigues us for a lifetime.

I agree that prayer and listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit is the best way to determine right and wrong always. Sanctity of life and pure love are great measuring sticks.

Are you concerned about particular moral standards you think others are not following in our culture? Sometimes our concern with setting down standards of right and wrong are in response to feeling we need to be able to judge others against them. Are you concerned that your situation is asking you to make moral choices that are not in line with the absolutes you feel God has set down? For example, if my husband were beating me nightly I might be questioning whether the teaching that God hates divorce is an absolute or something I could justify as irrelevant in my situation.

I'll be brief about Jesus not being manipulated by the local culture. Quite the contrary. Jesus knows that in order for the people he was speaking to, to understand, he had to speak in a language they spoke. That includes any idioms or subtleties. Culture does not change nor influence His Truth, only in how it's sufficiently communicated.

If two men have different moral standards directly contradicting the other (One says there is one way, while the other says; there is more than one way), they may both be wrong, one or the other may be right, but both could not be right. Don't be fooled otherwise. All religions conflict. Which do you choose?

I agree Life's Sanctity and Love are great standards. But on what basis do you believe the Sanctity of life and love have any real meaning? I believe they have meaning because man was created in the image of an infinite-personal God by the infinite-personal God .
---
Truth is true. Whatever is not truth is not true.

God's Grace to you.

This post has been edited by davidk: 04 September 2008 - 12:30 PM

[JosephM]

Davidk said:

If two men have different moral standards directly contradicting the other (One says there is one way, while the other says; there is more than one way), they may both be wrong, one or the other may be right, but both could not be right. Don't be fooled otherwise. All religions conflict. Which do you choose?

It may seem that way on the surface. But both may be right and looking at the same thing from a different perspective. One says there is one way to God and another says there are many. One may be on 1 of twelve spokes to a wheel. Another on a different spoke. One may be positioned above the center of the wheel. The ones on the spokes can only see a single spoke leading to the center while the one positioned above the wheel sees 12 spokes leading to the center. None can convince the other which one is right and which one is wrong because each is right from his limited perspective (view). And then to complicate things further a fourth is positioned below the wheel and sees that the center is attached from below to another wheel. Does one choose to form ones belief as an absolute belief as fact or does one seek to understand the perspective of the one's seeing differently and merely conclude that there are limitations when things are viewed from different perspectives and only when those limitations have been removed or transcended shall we see what really is ? Just a thought to consider.

[billmc]

davidk, on Sep 4 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

I agree Life's Sanctity and Love are great standards. But on what basis do you believe the Sanctity of life and love have any real meaning? I believe they have meaning because man was created in the image of an infinite-personal God by the infinite-personal God .

Metaphorically, I agree with you. I believe humanity can exhibit more on God's nature than any other creature because we have self-awareness that probably no other creature has (except for maybe dolphins and whales). But my belief in the sanctity of life and love comes not so much from the origins of it as from its rarity and transforming power. Believing that mankind was created in God's image has not stopped wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch-trials, slavery, the subjugation of women, Darfur, or other human attrocities. These in especially so because traditional Christianity holds to the notion that God's image was lost with "the fall". We need more than a "this is where we came from theology". We need a God-inspired vision of what we can be and where we are going.

Again, just something to think about.

[davidk]

JosephM, on Sep 4 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

It may seem that way on the surface. But both may be right and looking at the same thing from a different perspective. One says there is one way to God and another says there are many. One may be on 1 of twelve spokes to a wheel. Another on a different spoke. One may be positioned above the center of the wheel. The ones on the spokes can only see a single spoke leading to the center while the one positioned above the wheel sees 12 spokes leading to the center. None can convince the other which one is right and which one is wrong because each is right from his limited perspective (view). And then to complicate things further a fourth is positioned below the wheel and sees that the center is attached from below to another wheel. Does one choose to form ones belief as an absolute belief as fact or does one seek to understand the perspective of the one's seeing differently and merely conclude that there are limitations when things are viewed from different perspectives and only when those limitations have been removed or transcended shall we see what really is ? Just a thought to consider.

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.
Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Sep 5 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.
Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

Yes, davidk, you could be a wrong spoke (unless you are God, which I doubt). You grow tiresome in your closed and static system of beliefs. Tiresome. Dogmatic. Boring. If you have the "truth" give us your credentials ... prove you are infallible. Please, just do it so we can get on with a reasonable discussion. And please, do not claim to be misunderstood. You are well known here. By now, any mature adult would have recognized that the world is changing ... you remain a "stick in the mud" and who do you serve? YOURSELF?

This post has been edited by minsocal: 05 September 2008 - 07:24 PM

[minsocal]

The complete post that did not quitew make it:

davidk, on Sep 5 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.
Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

Yes, davidk, you could be a wrong spoke (unless you are God, which I doubt). You grow tiresome in your closed and static system of beliefs. Tiresome. Dogmatic. Boring. If you have the "truth" give us your credentials ... prove you are infallible. Please, just do it so we can get on with a reasonable discussion. And please, do not claim to be misunderstood. You are well known here. By now, any mature adult would have recognized that the world is changing ... you remain a "stick in the mud" and who do you serve? YOURSELF?

To put it more bluntly, davidk, you lack imagination, wonder. You are a sterile rationalist who cannot see three feet beyond your nose. Is this evaluation tough and unfair? No, not in the least because that is the arrogant attitude you bring to the forum simply reflected back to you. How does it feel?

[JosephM]

davidk, on Sep 5 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.
Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

Yes David, it was a terrible analogy but by the analogy and your response, a very effective view and demonstration of perspectives and what happens when one is so attached to the position of being right that one ignores the true message of the story/analogy at the expense of peace, love and joy among ones brothers. Is this not the cause of all conflicts and wars in this world?

Technically the one who said there were many paths was right at least in his own eyes but even his perspective was limited as he saw only twelve paths because he could not see below the wheel. The moral of the analogy/story was that things are not always as they appear to one. Even when you think you are right and everyone else is wrong because one must be 'right' there is yet another view to consider that through patience and tolerance might contribute to making one to see the falsity of his/her tight grasp on the limited minds view. All this so that truth might be exposed and we might see into the unlimited reality of what is and gain a much more accurate understanding of Life. And this leads to peace rather than strife.

With Love in Christ,
Joseph

[billmc]

davidk, on Sep 5 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.
Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.

David, the subject of epistomology is a wide and deep one indeed. I tend to think that epistomology is a gradient scale. On the right hand side, there are the conservatives who insist that truth is complete objective and external to one's self. Truth is propositional. Once one accepts the propostion, then one accepts or has (owns) the truth and all that is left is to defend the truth against others who would challenge it. Conservatives believe, according to their propostions, doctrines, and creeds, that they HAVE the truth. Truth is then owned and must be defended at all cost. It is the ownership of truth that is important.

On the left hand side, there are the liberals (or mystics) who insist that truth is completely subjective and internal to one's self. Truth is experiential. Truth is never owned because experience is always limited. Therefore, while experiences are usually defended, truth is left in an ambiguous category. Liberals and mystics seem to believe that truth must always be sought, must always be pursued. It is the seeking of truth that is important.

I am probably the least mystical of anyone here on this forum. Many of my beliefs still stem from propositional truth. Although I have caught "glimpses of God" in my life, I have never been "caught up to the third heaven" or claimed to be a direct channel for God. So I would agree with you, to a certain extent, that there is Truth (with a capital T). Being a Christian, I would define this Truth as "God as shown in the life of Jesus Christ" -- my definition, others would disagree. But I tend to think that Jesus gives us a really reliable picture of what the "Truth of God" is like. Jesus' life points to (but does not completely encapsulate) the big Truth that we call God.

At the same time, I believe that our views of Truth ALWAYS get translated down to "truth" (with a small-case t). Our knowledge of Truth (for conservatives) and our experiences of Truth (for mystics) is ALWAYS "truth" with a small-case t because we, as human beings, are ALWAYS limited in knowledge and experience.

What all of this means to me is that when it comes to speaking of Truth, whether we are conservatives or liberals, we need to be humble about it. None of us knows everything that can be known about God. None of us experiences everything that can be experienced of God.

I agree with you that there is Truth. But that is Truth as God knows. It is Truth as God experiences it. It is, probably, God himself. But all human perceptions of this Truth, whether propositionally or experiencially, are still subjective, still limited, still very human. I believe there is Truth, my friend, but we can't own it. It must always be pursued. When Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free", maybe he was speaking of "knowing" as experiencing, as, in other biblical passages, "intercoursing" with the truth. I don't think he was speaking of only propositional truth. His truth was an experience of living in God, not a rigid set of beliefs.

[October's Autumn]

wayfarer2k, on Sep 6 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

I am probably the least mystical of anyone here on this forum.

I don't know. I bet I could give you a run for your money!

Quote

as human beings, are ALWAYS limited in knowledge and experience.

I agree. It was a realization I came to after I started college. The truth was one thing in High School then when I discovered there was a whole world of information out there (specifically about the Bible) I had never been told (or had/has yet to be discovered) truth became something else. The more factual information I "gain" the more different truth looks. It is an ongoing process.

[JosephM]

It seems to me, A good rule of thumb is that if you feel the need to defend what you 'think' is Truth then it probably isn't Truth. Because once Truth is truly expierienced one finds, because of its nature, it needs no defence. It simply IS. Just a tidbit to consider.

Joseph

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

davidk, on Sep 4 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

I'll be brief about Jesus not being manipulated by the local culture. Quite the contrary. Jesus knows that in order for the people he was speaking to, to understand, he had to speak in a language they spoke. That includes any idioms or subtleties. Culture does not change nor influence His Truth, only in how it's sufficiently communicated.

If two men have different moral standards directly contradicting the other (One says there is one way, while the other says; there is more than one way), they may both be wrong, one or the other may be right, but both could not be right. Don't be fooled otherwise. All religions conflict. Which do you choose?

I agree Life's Sanctity and Love are great standards. But on what basis do you believe the Sanctity of life and love have any real meaning? I believe they have meaning because man was created in the image of an infinite-personal God by the infinite-personal God .
---
Truth is true. Whatever is not truth is not true.

God's Grace to you.

Thank you for your thoughts, David K. I agree that culture has mainly influenced how Jesus' truth is communicated. Since we didn't have tape recorders in Biblical times, it is possible that the writers saw Jesus' message through their cultural filters, isn't it?

In your second statement, I am confused by your example of differing moral standards, when it sounds like you are then making a faith statement. If the truth is greater than any one religion can contain, one person could believe they know the one way, and it could actually be the one right way for them. However, others could also be on the right path for them, and that does not mean their ways are less true for them. I believe God is big enough to embrace people where they are and help them grow to know God in many ways. Jesus seemed to teach concepts that sound similar to the eastern philosophy of detachment, for example. What if what we mostly really have is a language barrier between religions?

If you really want to know which religion I choose, I am doing my best to follow teachings of Jesus, keeping in mind my commitment to life's sanctity and love, which is, as you have suggested, due to my belief in a creator God and Jesus, who said that by loving God and my neighbor everything else will follow. I was raised in a Christian home and have had few hurts by people who call themselves Christian. However, many people I know feel they have been harmed and wronged by Christians. Many of them (myself included) would like us to be a little less sure that we know it all, that we are somehow better than them. Jesus was extremely critical of the religiously smug of his day. His best friends were questioning and unsure of themselves, willing to keep learning. I accept that my knowledge of God is incomplete. Being on a lifelong quest to know God better and to try to relect more and more of God's glory is fun!

[davidk]

minsocal, on Sep 5 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

The complete post that did not quitew make it:
Yes, davidk, you could be a wrong spoke (unless you are God, which I doubt). You grow tiresome in your closed and static system of beliefs. Tiresome. Dogmatic. Boring. If you have the "truth" give us your credentials ... prove you are infallible. Please, just do it so we can get on with a reasonable discussion. And please, do not claim to be misunderstood. You are well known here. By now, any mature adult would have recognized that the world is changing ... you remain a "stick in the mud" and who do you serve? YOURSELF?

To put it more bluntly, davidk, you lack imagination, wonder. You are a sterile rationalist who cannot see three feet beyond your nose. Is this evaluation tough and unfair? No, not in the least because that is the arrogant attitude you bring to the forum simply reflected back to you. How does it feel?

minsocal,
Thank you for your response.
I knew what you were driving at when you presented the analogy, but it didn't seem to meet muster. And that was the many views where none can be considered reliable or that all are. However, there was only one that actually was.

I probably won't have any credentials you would seriously consider at this point, but, what I will point to is God's: He is the infinite, personal God.

Perhaps you could consider this:
We are on a rocky mountain, in the Alps, when a fog suddenly shrouds us in. Our guide turns and warns us that ice is forming and there is no hope. We will all likely freeze before morning. That is, unless we can find some sort of refuge.
We keep moving to keep warm until we have become completely exhausted and disoriented in the fog. We have no idea where we are, other than on a shoulder of freezing rock in a dense fog.
One of our number suggests, "What if we drop over the shoulder and hit a ledge 10 down in the fog? What would happen then?"
The guide answered, saying, "We could survive till morning in the protection of the ledge."
With no knowledge of where we are, and no reason to support such action, the one of us hangs over the edge and drops into the fog... .
This would be one kind of faith, a leap of faith!

Now, however, suppose we are still out on the fog enshrouded shoulder of rock arguing over our plight, when we hear a voice saying, "Hello there! You cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I am on the next ridge. I have lived in these mountains for over 60 years as man and boy, and I know well every foot of where we are. I assure you that just ten feet below you is a ledge where you may find shelter. If you hang and drop from where I say, you will find a ledge where you can make it through the night, and I can come get you in the morning."
It's not likely anyone would immediately run over and drop from the mountain. But it would be reasonable for us to ask some questions to make sure this 'disembodied' voice knew what he was talking about. If I asked him his name and he told me and it was a name from a well known mountain family, that would count very highly to me. When we became convinced of his answers, then I would hang and drop.

The historic Christian faith is not a leap. It's based on what actually exists, and Christianity is the only faith that fundamentally provides true answers to all that does. The true truth, if you will, is communicated to us from God.
--
A sterile rationalist(?)... my, my. Think if you will, of my insistence on God's revelation rather than man's intellect as the basis for knowledge (epistemology).
While a rationalist believes his reason is in itself the superior source of knowledge, I believe God through His revelation is the basic source of all knowledge. Man is created in the image of God so, reasonably, we can understand and consider what He communicates. Likewise, we can reasonably communicate His truth to others.

I must suggest that if this beyond your sight, it is yours that would be defined as the sterile rationalist's perspective, er... the stick in the mud!
--

JosephM said:

Yes David, it was a terrible analogy but... a very effective view and demonstration of perspectives...

Dear Joseph,
Thanks for being courteous, I hope you understand I wish to be courteous in response, yet direct. If you claim the truth is completely subjective then you cannot rightfully criticize my take on it and be consistent with your position at the same time.
Well, you might be able to, since you can agree and disagree with any position all in the same sentence.(see above quote)

But both you and minsocal are standing toe to toe with me claiming at the top of your little keyboard lungs for your perspective to be the right one and mine is wrong. That is more than a little bit hypoctical for you two, don't you think? Where everyone's perspective being just as right as the other, you don't seem to have any critical leg (truth) to stand on.

---

[davidk]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Sep 8 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

Thank you for your thoughts, David K. I agree that culture has mainly influenced how Jesus' truth is communicated. Since we didn't have tape recorders in Biblical times, it is possible that the writers saw Jesus' message through their cultural filters, isn't it?

Certainly there were no taped conversations, but Jesus did communicate appropriately to whomever he was speaking. His being of the culture makes any difficulty a moot point. However, if anything is true, it doesn't really matter the culture, it will always be true. That's what makes truth- true!

Those filters are not just from country to country, but even from generation to generation. If we are careful in considering the cultural language in which it was written, it can be applied quite correctly into our cultural language, as long as we recognize that truth is true.

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Sep 8 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

In your second statement, I am confused by your example of differing moral standards, when it sounds like you are then making a faith statement. If the truth is greater than any one religion can contain, one person could believe they know the one way, and it could actually be the one right way for them. However, others could also be on the right path for them, and that does not mean their ways are less true for them. I believe God is big enough to embrace people where they are and help them grow to know God in many ways. Jesus seemed to teach concepts that sound similar to the eastern philosophy of detachment, for example. What if what we mostly really have is a language barrier between religions?

The second comment was an argument of simple logic. For example: If I say there is a rock, and you say it is a grease spot; both of us could be wrong, but only one of us could be right.

God is certainly 'big' enough to do whatever He sees fit. After all, He is good. I would suggest Jesus taught both unity and diversity. As far as detachment is concerned, it is man who detached from God, not the other way around.

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on Sep 8 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

If you really want to know which religion I choose, I am doing my best to follow teachings of Jesus, keeping in mind my commitment to life's sanctity and love, which is, as you have suggested, due to my belief in a creator God and Jesus, who said that by loving God and my neighbor everything else will follow. I was raised in a Christian home and have had few hurts by people who call themselves Christian. However, many people I know feel they have been harmed and wronged by Christians. Many of them (myself included) would like us to be a little less sure that we know it all, that we are somehow better than them. Jesus was extremely critical of the religiously smug of his day. His best friends were questioning and unsure of themselves, willing to keep learning. I accept that my knowledge of God is incomplete. Being on a lifelong quest to know God better and to try to relect more and more of God's glory is fun!

The question of "which you choose" was meant to be rhetorical, I didn't mean to be cornering you.

You admit relying on Jesus' teaching, yet somehow when Jesus said He is the only way, you become doubtful.

Sometimes simply saying you're a Christian is considered by some to be a 'better than thou' statement all by itself. And somehow, no matter how much we try to follow Jesus' example, we foul it up and hurt somebody anyway. Christians aren't immune to that, I don't know why they're expected to be. That's when forgiveness, giving and asking for, comes into play.
It is conclusive that we can't have an inexhaustable knowledge of God, but it is just as conclusive that what limited knowledge we do have is true and we can depend on it. Be willing to be obedient to God and you will be saved by your faith in Him whom He sent.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

davidk, on Sep 10 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

However, if anything is true, it doesn't really matter the culture, it will always be true. That's what makes truth- true!

The second comment was an argument of simple logic. For example: If I say there is a rock, and you say it is a grease spot; both of us could be wrong, but only one of us could be right.

As far as detachment is concerned, it is man who detached from God, not the other way around.

You admit relying on Jesus' teaching, yet somehow when Jesus said He is the only way, you become doubtful.

It is conclusive that we can't have an inexhaustable knowledge of God, but it is just as conclusive that what limited knowledge we do have is true and we can depend on it. Be willing to be obedient to God and you will be saved by your faith in Him whom He sent.

I have to take exception to the first sentence above. Before 1920, it was true that women were not allowed to vote in this country. It is no longer true for women of our generation. In Biblical times, women were property, and that is no longer true.

Also, is it really true that George Washington said, "I cannot tell a lie -- I chopped down the cherry tree."? There is truth in that statement, whether or not George actually said it, because honest George is how history recorded him to be. If we are inspired by those words we may find courage to be honest when it is difficult.

I disagree that the world is as simple as your simple logic of the second statement. For the things that truly matter (not bits of matter like rocks and grease) things are not as black and white as that. Each member of my family loves my husband, and we would each say "I love you" to him. None of us are wrong, but we each mean different things by the statement, and we each demonstrate our love very differently. That kind of truth is more parallel (in my thinking) to the idea of various religions. For one person, Jesus may be the Messiah and for another, Jesus may not be the Messiah, but that does not necessarily make one wrong. It may just mean they are at a different place on their journey or that they may have another equally good means of knowing God. Think of all the harm done by Christians thinking Jews were "Christ killers." Have you ever discussed faith enough with a non-Christian to believe their faith was authentic?

When I was talking about detachment, I was talking about how Jesus cautions us not to be of the world, not to store up treasures, not to put our love of family before our love for God. If there are things or people in this world you cannot live without, those are your gods.

Yes, I am doubtful of the traditional explanation that Jesus was saying He is the ONLY way. John records Jesus as saying "no one comes to the father but through me. If you know me you know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." If this is not a later addition, and we could hear Jesus on tape saying it, he follows on to interpret his own words for Philip. He is saying that He is one with God. He is the best way the disciples have of knowing God, but He also says the Father is greater than Him. I think for Jesus' disciples and for those of us who know Jesus today, He IS the best way we have of knowing God, but since God is greater than Jesus, there may be other ways to know God. I think the people who don't know Jesus are missing out on something wonderful because I have experienced Jesus to be wonderful. If I had been hurt by his followers, I might not think Jesus was so great. If Jesus represents LOVE, then LOVE is the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through LOVE.

The reason I said this might all be a later addition to Jesus' teachings is that the first part of that chapter in John seems to indicate a belief by Jesus that his Second Advent would be happening during the disciples' lifetime, since he is coming back to take them to heaven.

The recorded teachings of Jesus I really trust are the ones that are so contrary to basic human nature -- the ones that call us to be so much more than we are naturally. The ones that call us to love despite any situation we are in. The ones that call us to trust God, even when at times that can be so difficult.

I have already been saved by Jesus in so many ways. He has already freed me from MANY unhealthy patterns of behavior and negative ways of relating to other human beings. I am a new creation because of the power of God in my life. That is not to say I have "arrived," but it is exciting to see some progress!