Jump to content
Iflybyyou

Some thoughts on Pluralism

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, romansh said:

Speaking personally … my stance, whether objective or subjective, is a confabulation as a result of my genetics and my societal influences. Both, genetics and societal influences, effectively are my environment. Both temporally displaced in time, societal influences over generations, genetics over billions of years.

precisely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, romansh said:

You continually ascribe to God, as what you see subjectively, as positives in humans. 

Actually I am reflecting on a centuries long perspective - so not merely 'what I see.'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, romansh said:

Not a coherent argument.

Ah, I did so miss your attempt at humor.............thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, romansh said:

Again ... a tree is more like a verb than a noun.   

Just because we treat it as noun does not negate that the tree is the universe in action. And for the benefit of thormas … The universe in Action. 

So, too, human is "more like a VERB

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

Actually I am reflecting on a centuries long perspective - so not merely 'what I see.'

This perspective is a reflection of your immediate environment, regardless how old the viewpoints you are reflecting. The fact that others have and some still do perpetuate ascribing human certain traits to their God, and then expecting mankind to adopt those traits does nothing to unravel the circularity of your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least we have agreed that the viewpoints that I am presenting are historical and, therefore, not merely subjective. Thanks for that clarification.

Also, no one is expecting mankind to adopt anything (which smacks of the adoptionist controversies of an earlier age); the idea is to be as God is (but I'm sure you know that). 

You seem to be circling back to what you said earlier (about circles, oddly) rather than contributing something, anything.......new. But, heh, welcome back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thormas said:

Also, no one is expecting mankind to adopt anything (which smacks of the adoptionist controversies of an earlier age); the idea is to be as God is (but I'm sure you know that). 

Okay, I am glad you are not expecting or hoping that mankind will adopt loving tendencies that you have ascribed to your God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually, no: first,, your statement ignores the evolution of religious thinking; second, your statement ignores that the Bible is human insight, not divine revelation; and, third, your statement (once again) ignores the 'new covenant' that is presented in the NT (the fullness of the God who is Love 'revealed' in Jesus). As I said, the God 'presented in Jewish history and lived (fully) in Jesus. I recognize that your statement supports your present (not former) belief, however it ignores the historical record. 

It's precisely this evolution of religious thinking and acknowledgement that the Bible is human opinion that I am trying to point out to you when you try and support modern day God by citing historical references to belief in God as support for your argument.  You said "Really not that difficult for the major religions that cover millions the world over. For the Christian, it was presented in Jewish history, lived in Jesus and stated in John", yet too conveniently you ignore that this 'God' of Jewish history was understood terribly differently than modern day opinions about the same God.  Exactly my argument when it comes to your understanding of what makes one fully human - you are suggesting that you now hold the correct view of God compared to what those ancient biblical authors did.

8 hours ago, thormas said:

Just out of curiosity, which process philosopher or philosophers are you referring to?  Regardless, for the Christian, 'fully human' is easily defined: it is seen in the Christ. Here is man who embodies Love (i.e. God, divinity) in his actions, in his life, in his flesh. As we are called to do and be the same. Fully humans is an 'ideal' to be realized and it has been realized in Jesus (and others in history). I'm fine with the use of the word ideal, if it please you, but I prefer a 'reality' (even a possibility) to be actualized. Many times, such humans are obvious and known by their love. While some, probably like many of our Mothers, simply lived and were the embodiment of love that empowered us and our world to be. As mentioned, it seems obvious, that all of us don't become 'fully human' and that is where I mentioned different takes on when/how this occurs if it is not accomplished in this (one) lifetime. Love is not some general notion, actually it is specific and known when it is given (and sadly when it is not). 

I refer to all process philosophers - please point one out to me that defines what fully human actually means to anybody in any real, practical sense.

Can you name one person, apart from your version of Jesus, that has reached fully human status?  

8 hours ago, thormas said:

I am simply saying that one, like a Hitler, has failed as a truly human being and this is recognized in our description of him. If by traits you mean behavior some of which is self-centered -  of course that is part of us. What I'm saying it is not the best part or if that part dominates both we and the world are less. It is love that needs to be the distinguishing quality (i.e. trait) that  belongs to the person and thus the world.

And I am simply saying Hitler was truly a human being, but we didn't like his actions because of the harm they caused.  Whereas we might like the actions of say a Mother Theresa or a Ghandi, so we see them as better examples of how we prefer all human beings to behave.  There is no fully, truly or less than - they are all complete human beings, warts and all.

8 hours ago, thormas said:

Nobody said Hitler was not a human (i.e. species); it was simply said he lacked what makes us Truly Human or if you  prefer Humane (having compassion or what I have called compassionate concern or love). And, in real ways, Hitler and others are recognized as being 'less' and the names (Monster, inhuman, animal, savage, etc.) given to them are 'evidence' of this recognition and their reality. A trait is a distinguishing quality or characteristic; such traits define the person. People don't use these names because merely because they don't like something that is merely displayed or a particular behavior; they use them because they best describe and name -  what the person is. A person who is rude might be obnoxious, a teenager who mocks and bullies others is harmful  - are you seriously saying Hitler was just an obnoxious guy who caused harm? He destroyed the world for untold millions! 

In any world, in any time Hitler would be a Monster and recognized as such, especially if you were one of the ones whose family, friends, world and self were being ravaged by such a human (species). All is not relative.

Again, no.  Hitler had everything that makes us truly human, he just exhibited some major bits of being fully human that we, as a society, don't want exhibited because of the harm it causes to our community.

If Hitler had been an obnoxious teenager that had and only killed one person, is he less fully human than the Hitler that killed millions?  Where do you draw the line on when one is fully human and when one is not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thormas said:

see above

So don't rely on the history of Jewish belief in God as supportive of present day notions of God as though they are the same.  Clearly, the millions of people throughout history who held these beliefs of God as a killer don't see 'God as love' the same as you.  Their version of 'fully human' would be vastly different than your version is today.  Perhaps in 2000 years time, whatever sort of religious person exists then will look down at your version of fully human also, happily congratulating themselves that the evolution of religious thinking has arrived at a superior place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually I am reflecting on a centuries long perspective - so not merely 'what I see.'

 

Except for the bits where they understood God wrongly (when he was a genocidal killer for instance).  Those bits of centuries long perspective were clearly mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Except for the bits where they understood God wrongly (when he was a genocidal killer for instance).  Those bits of centuries long perspective were clearly mistaken?

We agree: that take or any take on "God" as a genocidal killer is "clearly mistaken."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

Okay, I am glad you are not expecting or hoping that mankind will adopt loving tendencies that you have ascribed to your God.

Precisely and thank you: not expecting adoption, as previously noted, but hoping for 'being' as God (of all) is. Finally, agreement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, at least we have agreed that the viewpoints that I am presenting are historical and, therefore, not merely subjective. Thanks for that clarification.

I think at best one can say that historically, there were other subjective viewpoints.  So still subjective, but historically existent.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Also, no one is expecting mankind to adopt anything (which smacks of the adoptionist controversies of an earlier age); the idea is to be as God is (but I'm sure you know that). 

You seem to expect mankind to adopt the traits of Jesus and to try and become fully human - you prviosuly said "To me that great glory is that a man, like other men, like us - in all ways- responded to God (faith), even at death's door, to Live and Be fully Human. He has done it, it is possible, it is certainly possible - now it is ours to do.  If there is no expectation anywhere, why is this now 'ours to do'?

2 hours ago, thormas said:

You seem to be circling back to what you said earlier (about circles, oddly) rather than contributing something, anything.......new. But, heh, welcome back!

I think Rom is making some very valid points about your circular argument here and rather than dismiss them with a joke, I would really like you to try and work through this and demonstrate how you are not being circular.  It certainly seems like you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thormas said:

We agree: that take or any take on "God" as a genocidal killer is "clearly mistaken."

Yet your present day take on God is not to be mistaken - You have arrived at the ultimate truth and understanding of God and what it takes and means to be fully human?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PaulS said:

So don't rely on the history of Jewish belief in God as supportive of present day notions of God as though they are the same.  Clearly, the millions of people throughout history who held these beliefs of God as a killer don't see 'God as love' the same as you.  Their version of 'fully human' would be vastly different than your version is today.  Perhaps in 2000 years time, whatever sort of religious person exists then will look down at your version of fully human also, happily congratulating themselves that the evolution of religious thinking has arrived at a superior place.

No, really, see above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Yet your present day take on God is not to be mistaken - You have arrived at the ultimate truth and understanding of God and what it takes and means to be fully human?

Precisely. But, as noted, it is not merely my take and, for Christians, "the ultimate truth and understanding of God and what it takes and means to be fully human" is Jesus (again, as previously noted).

Your genocidal killer god is not present in the man Jesus, whom Christians believe is the full and true 'revelation' of God. But that truth and 'evolution' in religious understanding is, I understand, inconvenient for your position. Interesting though that Jesus the Jew, who was quite familiar with his sacred scriptures and the history of his people, simply didn't see the God of the Covenant the way you do. Interesting, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, thormas said:

Precisely. But, as noted, it is not merely my take and, for Christians, "the ultimate truth and understanding of God and what it takes and means to be fully human" is Jesus (again, as previously noted).

Personally, I don't think Christians can accurately know enough about Jesus to make these statements, but that's religion for you.  If you know that Jesus was fully human then you should be able to outline for me precisely what makes one fully human.  But you don't seem prepared to do that other than some loose references back to Jesus being fully human and therefore that's the answer.

43 minutes ago, thormas said:

Your genocidal killer god is not present in the man Jesus, whom Christians believe is the full and true 'revelation' of God. But that truth and 'evolution' in religious understanding is, I understand, inconvenient for your position. Interesting though that Jesus the Jew, who was quite familiar with his sacred scriptures and the history of his people, simply didn't see the God of the Covenant the way you do. Interesting, no?

Truth seems to be the inconvenience for your position, I would say.  The truth is, opinions about God and what God is/stands for/represents/desires are wide and varied.  You seem to have narrowed it down to a certain degree by declaring that a fully human version of us is achievable if we are the same as Jesus, yet fail to articulate how that fully human version actually can be measured.  I would say it can't be measured because it is not objective.  You are yet to make it clear how one could be ultimately considered to be fully human.  I ask again - when does one reach the point of fully human?  You have made the claim that it is achievable.  Please elaborate precisely how and when one can recognise that somebody has become fully human?

Evolution of religious understanding is not inconvenient for me either.  I agree that views about God and religion have changed throughout the ages.  Conveniently for you they seem to have 'improved'.  For me, they are simply aligned with cultural and societal understanding of the day.  This seems clearly demonstrated when we consider the barbaric, desert tribe view of God 2500 years ago compared to the view some hold about God today, and all of the other measures in between.

Who knows how Jesus saw the God of the Covenant precisely.  Jesus didn't mind cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.  Jesus didn't mind getting angry at lawful traders and upturning their tables because he felt they dishonoured his God.  Jesus didn't mind calling people 'fools'.  Are these all traits of being fully human, or do the writers misunderstand, again.  Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who believed the end was nigh.  How interesting then that 2000 years later without such a nigh end not having eventuated we now think that we can all be fully human like Jesus.  No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, PaulS said:

It's precisely this evolution of religious thinking and acknowledgement that the Bible is human opinion that I am trying to point out to you when you try and support modern day God by citing historical references to belief in God as support for your argument.  You said "Really not that difficult for the major religions that cover millions the world over. For the Christian, it was presented in Jewish history, lived in Jesus and stated in John", yet too conveniently you ignore that this 'God' of Jewish history was understood terribly differently than modern day opinions about the same God.  Exactly my argument when it comes to your understanding of what makes one fully human - you are suggesting that you now hold the correct view of God compared to what those ancient biblical authors did.

I have been pointing to the evolution of religious thought and have, many times, acknowledged that the Bible is not revelation or divine inspiration (as traditionally understood) but human insight. I'm not dealing with gods, including a modern day god - I am talking about the same God as accepted and lived by Jesus and spoken of in John's Gospel (and in covenant with the Jews). So it is perfectly valid to refer back to that history and scriptures when I speak from a 21st C perspective. That's how history and scholarship work. 

You always ignore the fact that the god you talk about, all the time, is not the God lived by Jesus or spoken of in John. And, the only "ancient biblical authors" you consider are the OT authors. However, this is not merely my view and, indeed, it is in line with the salvation history of the  biblical authors.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I refer to all process philosophers - please point one out to me that defines what fully human actually means to anybody in any real, practical sense.

Can you name one person, apart from your version of Jesus, that has reached fully human status?  

Quote

Got it, you are referring to no one (in particular).  

See above.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

And I am simply saying Hitler was truly a human being, but we didn't like his actions because of the harm they caused.  Whereas we might like the actions of say a Mother Theresa or a Ghandi, so we see them as better examples of how we prefer all human beings to behave.  There is no fully, truly or less than - they are all complete human beings, warts and all.

Precisely, his actions reveal the man and, as acknowledged, from a religious perspective, I take Human as a verb (in line with Spong saying God is a verb); it is something to do and thus to be. In this use of the word, Hitler did not and was not........Human. He is still of the species, I am, as previously mentioned, using the term in a different and fuller sense. That you don't accept it, I have no problem with. That you are saying my use is wrong is the real issue. But what else is new?

"Better examples of of how we prefer all human beings to behave" and better examples of what it means to be ..........truly human.

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

If Hitler had been an obnoxious teenager that had and only killed one person, is he less fully human than the Hitler that killed millions?  Where do you draw the line on when one is fully human and when one is not?

Questions abound about the teenager. Hitler was, as far as we know, an unrepentant mass murderer. Was the teenager unrepentant or did he change and become a different man (in  Chritianity such metanoia is becoming a new man). Questions abound. If you can't draw the line between Hitler and a teenager who makes a mistakes, is caught up in one horrible action...?

You want a line in the sand, you want a judgement (asked and answered, see previous answers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

Precisely and thank you: not expecting adoption, as previously noted, but hoping for 'being' as God (of all) is. Finally, agreement!

I am failing to see the distinction here. 

How does one move from being fallen to being as god is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Personally, I don't think Christians can accurately know enough about Jesus to make these statements, but that's religion for you.  If you know that Jesus was fully human then you should be able to outline for me precisely what makes one fully human.  But you don't seem prepared to do that other than some loose references back to Jesus being fully human and therefore that's the answer.

Personally, I think they can. The only Jesus that is known is the Jesus of the NT and from these we get what is important about the man, what he means, who he is, who God is, who we are and can be. I fully accept that since you have moved on from religion you don't agree. I have no problem although you seem to demand, yet again, that all agree with you whereas I'm just presenting a position and am not demanding you agree. 

Asked and answered but just for you: Jesus is truly human because he embodies the Love that is God. Humanity 'doing' divinity (Love) empowers humanity to become Complete/Fulfilled/True. Actually this goes to the Oneness that many of us had talked about eons ago. 

35 minutes ago, PaulS said:
51 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Truth seems to be the inconvenience for your position, I would say.  The truth is, opinions about God and what God is/stands for/represents/desires are wide and varied.  You seem to have narrowed it down to a certain degree by declaring that a fully human version of us is achievable if we are the same as Jesus, yet fail to articulate how that fully human version actually can be measured.  I would say it can't be measured because it is not objective.  You are yet to make it clear how one could be ultimately considered to be fully human.  I ask again - when does one reach the point of fully human?  You have made the claim that it is achievable.  Please elaborate precisely how and when one can recognise that somebody has become fully human?

Evolution of religious understanding is not inconvenient for me either.  I agree that views about God and religion have changed throughout the ages.  Conveniently for you they seem to have 'improved'.  For me, they are simply aligned with cultural and societal understanding of the day.  This seems clearly demonstrated when we consider the barbaric, desert tribe view of God 2500 years ago compared to the view some hold about God today, and all of the other measures in between.

Who knows how Jesus saw the God of the Covenant precisely.  Jesus didn't mind cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.  Jesus didn't mind getting angry at lawful traders and upturning their tables because he felt they dishonoured his God.  Jesus didn't mind calling people 'fools'.  Are these all traits of being fully human, or do the writers misunderstand, again.  Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who believed the end was nigh.  How interesting then that 2000 years later without such a nigh end not having eventuated we now think that we can all be fully human like Jesus.  No?

I'm never inconvenienced by the accurate reading of history, including religious history. We're not talking about all the possible opinions about God, rather we are specifically engaged in a dialogue about Christianity, even more specifically, the evolution of (or changing) religious thought across the centuries of the 'chosen people' and even more specifically the Jesus of the NT and the 4th Gospel's declaration about God. Nothing was narrowed down as the NT presents/remembers Jesus teaching that the two commandments of love are necessary and all that is necessary for human wholeness.  All other of your accusations have been addressed (see above).

There you go with the objective measurement and evidence once again in a discussion of belief (see previous posts). You need to reread what you claim I did or didn't do about achievement and also realize that if human is something to do (in order to be); if human is (also) a verb, then it is more an achieving than achievement. Plus you really need to reread the mention of whether 'achievement' can be accomplished in this life.

There is no improvement, simply reading what is there for the taking from 2000 or so years ago and that's not even going back farther in time to the OT. The take on god 2500 years ago was tribal but there was also more to it. However, given your dating, 500 years later, there was a different take on the God of the Jews who they believed was also the true God for all. So, what you call 'today' is in line with 2000 years ago, in the man Jesus. You conveniently, for your narrative, skipped right over that to .......today. Oops!

Next you'll tell us that Jesus didn't exist. Indeed we do know how the Jesus of the NT saw, understood, spoke of, taught about God and based on all that, how he lived.

There you go, I knew the old fig tree (oddly but conveniently taken literally?) would reappear. And, ladies and gents, making a comeback are the money changers (again, conveniently taken literally). And, hold it, do we have a new entry - calling people fools? Just one quick point on the fools thing (the others have been addressed): merely because one might show anger at others (if we are thinking of the same incident and taking it as historic) in defense of innocents does not mean one is still not being.......truly human or loving. If one expresses such anger in defense of an innocent, in the face of a bully (so to speak), is it a selfish act or a loving act. Sort of like the WWII nun telling an untruth (is it a lie?) to the Nazi when he shows up at her door and asks if she has seen or know the whereabouts of any Jewish kids and she says, "NO." Who was the truly human being: the nun who seeks to save or the Nazi who seeks to imprison and exterminate?

I too believe Jesus was such a prophet who believed and preached the end would come when some of his followers still lived (as did Paul). But you should know already that history didn't have to wait 2000 years to see that the end was not nigh (and that Jesus was wrong); this 'delay' was known (obviously) and being dealt with toward the end of the 1st C CE. 

Jesus preached and called for repentance  (the turning away from sin and selfishness) in preparation for the fullness of the Kingdom on earth. Such turning was done by living the two great commandments. Those commandments were  to love; it is love that 'makes one,' it is love that is the only necessary thing for men and women to do and in the doing they were prepared for the One. This is the teaching of Jesus.  And we are saying, one is called to embody the Way and in so doing, one is being and becoming (remember it is an achieving, an actualization, a  process) or on the way to be fully human like Jesus. Yes!  

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

I am failing to see the distinction here. 

How does one move from being fallen to being as god is?

In Christianity, one is 'fallen' because of sin or selfishness (BTW I don't take this as a literal fall from Grace in Eden since I don't believe we started perfect and lost it). In Christianity, God is Love (Gospel of John). One stops sinning or being selfish (self-centered) when one loves (compassionate concern for others). Since (it is believed that) God is love, then one who loves is doing what God is and "being as God is." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

I have been pointing to the evolution of religious thought and have, many times, acknowledged that the Bible is not revelation or divine inspiration (as traditionally understood) but human insight. I'm not dealing with gods, including a modern day god - I am talking about the same God as accepted and lived by Jesus and spoken of in John's Gospel (and in covenant with the Jews). So it is perfectly valid to refer back to that history and scriptures when I speak from a 21st C perspective. That's how history and scholarship work. 

We agree religious thought has changed throughout time.

But when I said that  "where we differ is that a religious person first needs to determine what God is in order to determine what a likeness of God and an image of God actually looks like..." you said "Really not that difficult for the major religions that cover millions the world over. For the Christian, it was presented in Jewish history, lived in Jesus and stated in John: God is Love".  My point was that Jewish history presents a God who is vengeful, wrathful, and jealous, amongst other things.  So I fail to see how Jewish history of God supports your notion that it's not that hard to determine what an image of God is like, unless of course you mean 'ignore that stuff'.  Clearly you must think that this historical Jewish God is much different to what you believe is Jesus' version of the same God, so how come you cite a Jewish historical perspective as so clearly obvious a notion that supports a God of love?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

You always ignore the fact that the god you talk about, all the time, is not the God lived by Jesus or spoken of in John. And, the only "ancient biblical authors" you consider are the OT authors. However, this is not merely my view and, indeed, it is in line with the salvation history of the  biblical authors.

I'm not ignoring it at all, I am trying to demonstrate that views of God change over time depending on culture.  Presently, you have a view of God vastly different to that of pre-Jesus Jews.  I'm sure we agree on that.  But as for precisely what the God of Jesus meant and represents and is, you seem better positioned to know that precisely than I do, based on the small amount we know of what Jesus said and did.  You have developed a certain opinion of God based on what you believe Jesus was.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Got it, you are referring to no one (in particular).  

I am referring to every 'process philosopher' that ever existed - some include Heraclitus, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Henri Bergson, Martin Heidegger, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Alfred Korzybski, R. G. Collingwood, Alan Watts, Robert M. Pirsig, Charles Hartshorne, Arran Gare, Nicholas Rescher, Colin Wilson, Jacques Derrida, and Gilles Deleuze.

None of them, NONE,  defines what fully human actually means to anybody in any real, practical sense.  They all talk about 'process'.  You raised the term actualisation, so I was pointing out that no process philosopher actually defines what this 'actualisation' actually is.  It seems you agree, but then argue anyway.  If I am mistaken I ask again, name one process philosopher that defines what  'fully human' actually means to anybody in any real, practical sense (by saying it is a process - a process to what.  Surely there must be an end point if one is ever to reach 'fully human', otherwise it is just a nonsense phrase that doesn't have any real meaning.  Fully means complete/entire.  So how do we recognise one that is complete/entire?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

That you are saying my use is wrong is the real issue. But what else is new?

So, you can't be wrong?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

"Better examples of of how we prefer all human beings to behave" and better examples of what it means to be ..........truly human.

No, it's what it mans to be a human that we prefer to see in our current society.  Once upon a time, say in Moses' day, we may have considered a person who would dash the heads of his enemies babies against rocks as truly human (i.e. one who was being an identical example of that time's understanding of God).  So it's good (to me) that we don't see that anymore as 'fully human' (if we ever did).  But still my point remains - this term 'fully human' seems nonsensical in that it cannot be defined.  At best, trying to be 'fully human' seems to depend on one's understanding of God at that time.  Your understanding today is different to somebody elses' both in this time and in time past.  To me you argue that the level of 'fully human' exists and is something that can be achieved, but then seem to alternate and refer to it as more a process rather than an end point.  If you consider it a process, then I would still say you are no more or less fully human as you are now, but really it seems to be a bit of an argument of words rather than substance.  

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Questions abound about the teenager. Hitler was, as far as we know, an unrepentant mass murderer. Was the teenager unrepentant or did he change and become a different man (in  Chritianity such metanoia is becoming a new man). Questions abound. If you can't draw the line between Hitler and a teenager who makes a mistakes, is caught up in one horrible action...?

You want a line in the sand, you want a judgement (asked and answered, see previous answers).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, thormas said:

Personally, I think they can. The only Jesus that is known is the Jesus of the NT and from these we get what is important about the man, what he means, who he is, who God is, who we are and can be. I fully accept that since you have moved on from religion you don't agree. I have no problem although you seem to demand, yet again, that all agree with you whereas I'm just presenting a position and am not demanding you agree. 

So can you just explain to me how getting angry and aggressive at legal traders, calling people fools, and cursing a fig tree etc, which are all things the Gospels attribute to Jesus,  should these be considered fully human traits we should aspire to?  What about not getting married - an aspiration to follow like Jesus' example or not?  

I'm not demanding you agree, I'm just asking you to put forward a coherent argument for this thing you say we are not - i.e 'fully human'.  For me so far, you are not answering it and so I keep trying to understand it from different angles.  Still to no avail.

25 minutes ago, thormas said:

Asked and answered but just for you: Jesus is truly human because he embodies the Love that is God. Humanity 'doing' divinity (Love) empowers humanity to become Complete/Fulfilled/True. Actually this goes to the Oneness that many of us had talked about eons ago. 

Okay, so this includes the behaviours outlined above?  That's how we should behave also to be fully human?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, thormas said:

In Christianity, one is 'fallen' because of sin or selfishness (BTW I don't take this as a literal fall from Grace in Eden since I don't believe we started perfect and lost it). In Christianity, God is Love (Gospel of John). One stops sinning or being selfish (self-centered) when one loves (compassionate concern for others). Since (it is believed that) God is love, then one who loves is doing what God is and "being as God is." 

OK; how does one move from one's current state to being as God is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PaulS said:

So can you just explain to me how getting angry and aggressive at legal traders, calling people fools, and cursing a fig tree etc, which are all things the Gospels attribute to Jesus,  should these be considered fully human traits we should aspire to?  What about not getting married - an aspiration to follow like Jesus' example or not?  

I'm not demanding you agree, I'm just asking you to put forward a coherent argument for this thing you say we are not - i.e 'fully human'.  For me so far, you are not answering it and so I keep trying to understand it from different angles.  Still to no avail.

Okay, so this includes the behaviours outlined above?  That's how we should behave also to be fully human?

Actually, no. Was there a fig tree, was it cursed, did it wither and die, was it a parable that was played out? As for the temple incident: did it happen; if so did it happen  at the beginning of his mission (John) or the end (Synoptics); was it a huge event; if it actually did happen, especially at a time when the city was teeming with people (and the greater possibility of unrest), why didn't the Roman guard react and arrest Jesus on the spot; was it a symbolic acting out? So, actually, because these had been discussed previously, I didn't go over it again. And I did comment on the 'fool' comment (see above). Marriage vs. celibacy (for example) has nothing to do with anything being truly human.

My argument is coherent, that you don't like it is not on me.It has been answered and I have even moved to human as a verb to present another approach for you. Nothing seems to work for you, so I get that you don't or can't get it. 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×